• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

The Bible does not teach that and it never did...others may have changed it to mean that but we did not...we follow what the Bible teaches and always have...

The bible does not teach anything about how the bible is to be interpreted. Mankind has done that. The bible does not come with an answer to questions section.
 
The bible does not teach anything about how the bible is to be interpreted. Mankind has done that. The bible does not come with an answer to questions section.

Sure it does...the key is to take ALL scriptures into account...only then can one understand the message the Bible is relaying...not merely one or two here and there, as some people call it, cherry picking...for example trinitarians cherry pick with the trinity doctrine...if one cherry picks, the wrong conclusion is inevitably going to be determined...
 
Yes, they do. It all depends on interpretation of meanings of the various writings. They are not clear cut and straightforward. The contents of the Bible were decided on by men as to what to include or not include. It is a compendium of writings that was put together by men. No one discovered a fully written perfect bible somewhere that was dropped onto earth by a god. It is a man made document subject to decisions made by men.

Nope, they do not...truth does not change...
 
Nope, they do not...truth does not change...

What is truth? And what does truth have to do with man made religious doctrines and man made laws? You do realize why you consider truth was not established until the 1870's in the USA. Does at mean truth was not known prior to this? What was truth prior to that time and who knew it?
 
The Bible does not teach that and it never did...others may have changed it to mean that but we did not...we follow what the Bible teaches and always have...

Then bible is a book. It does not teach anything. Just like any other book, it relies on how the reader understands it. There is no one true, pure, straightforward version of the bible that was not translated and manipulated by men. There is no pure source of the contents of the bible. There is not one perfect infallible understanding of it.
 
What is truth? And what does truth have to do with man made religious doctrines and man made laws? You do realize why you consider truth was not established until the 1870's in the USA. Does at mean truth was not known prior to this? What was truth prior to that time and who knew it?

I am not talking about man made religious doctrines but Biblical doctrines...there is a difference...Biblical truth was established at the time it was written...granted, it lay mostly hidden for many years, just as Isaiah prophesied that it would, the truth about Jehovah God has become abundant, with people from all nations streaming to it...Isaiah 2:2-4...
 
Then bible is a book. It does not teach anything. Just like any other book, it relies on how the reader understands it. There is no one true, pure, straightforward version of the bible that was not translated and manipulated by men. There is no pure source of the contents of the bible. There is not one perfect infallible understanding of it.

Wrong...

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17
 
Wrong...

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17

So claims Paul, a man, in a letter to another man, Timothy. This is not a message from god.
 
I am not talking about man made religious doctrines but Biblical doctrines...there is a difference...Biblical truth was established at the time it was written...granted, it lay mostly hidden for many years, just as Isaiah prophesied that it would, the truth about Jehovah God has become abundant, with people from all nations streaming to it...Isaiah 2:2-4...

Men wrote the bible, not some god. No one has the original documents nor is anyone capable of a perfect interpretation.
 
Why should there be multiple interpretations on Christianity? If they all lead to the salvation of my immortal soul then it doesn't matter which one I pick. If only one gets me to Heaven while the others send me to Hell, then God is an asshole.

God is an asshole.

If he exists he found this wondrous creation, slapped his name on it and started the whole "setting us up for hell" bit.

I just wonder how long it takes god to come back from going for smokes 2000 years ago. I mean he's supposed to be omnipresent so it should have been instantaneous.

Maybe he's just been on a conference call to Satan all this time. Conferring on how to fill all those beds in hell.
 
True and Jesus warned of teachings that would go against the scriptures...so did Paul...so did John and they gave the reason for such confusion...the god of confusion, Satan...

Jesus words at Matthew 13:19..."Where anyone hears the word of the Kingdom but does not get the sense of it, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart; this is the one sown alongside the road."

Paul's words at 2 Corinthians 4:3-5...If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake."

1 John 5:19..."We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."

The key is to diligently study and dissect God's Word for yourself...perhaps you will even need help in understanding , as the Ethiopian eunuch did in Acts 8:26-39..."He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” Acts 8:31

Call your local kingdom hall and ask for someone to come and study the Bible with you free of charge, no commitments, no obligations...any one of them would be more than happy to...

Nobody has ever come up with a reason god allows Satan to exist or why he stood idly by while Satan tricked his innocents (who knew no other entities existed beyond themselves and jahweh) into partaking of the forbidden fruit.

Of course he knew they would from the moment of creation, so it was all a setup and his "wrath" at their disobedience must have been self loathing for making a flawed creation that could be tricked by another of his creations.

Jahweh sucks if he exists. The original asshole.
 
Nobody has ever come up with a reason god allows Satan to exist or why he stood idly by while Satan tricked his innocents (who knew no other entities existed beyond themselves and jahweh) into partaking of the forbidden fruit.

Of course he knew they would from the moment of creation, so it was all a setup and his "wrath" at their disobedience must have been self loathing for making a flawed creation that could be tricked by another of his creations.

Jahweh sucks if he exists. The original asshole.

Jehovah probably thinks the same about you...
 
Jesus is God in the Bible (numerous scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

So I take it you don't eat lobster or wear cotton and wool together.
 
"the Bible's incoherence"?

Here's a clue why you're bouncing off walls with your spiritually-challenged version of Biblical Christianity:

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

Kinda like the gold plates in the hat, huh?

Or the emperors fancy clothes?
 
Yes, [Biblical doctrines do change]. It all depends on interpretation of meanings of the various writings. ...

Nope, [Biblical doctrines do not change]...truth does not change...
Red:
Oh, my....

The above exchange illustrates why I mostly abstain from substantive theological discourse in venues like DP: I think it discursively dull and noisome in general to find myself engaged with folks who use, and/or refer to terms' meanings, yet they clearly don't know the terms' meanings. Elvira, your assertion that doctrine does not change illustrates that phenomenon.
Those two terms simply don't mean the same things; moreover, doctrine changes. I'm going to explain, using the Roman Catholic church's theology, doctrine and dogma -- mainly because that Christian faith has been around long enough and has the most easily accessible/findable body of doctrinal and dogmatic writings -- What you'll find more completely explicated at the above link, I shall below put in the most simplistic terms I can and that are also readily actionable, i.e., it's what I'd say to explain the same ideas to ten-year-olds instead of adults (because the adults with whom I typically discuss religion, theology, doctrine and dogma and stuff related to those things, the discussants involved know the differences/similarities -- thus I don't therefore need to explain such things -- and their remarks apply/reflect their knowledge of the differences and similarities.)
  • Theology --> "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience." "Theology" is a standard, a generic term. Pick a faith-based belief system and there's a theology accompanying it.
  • Doctrine --> The teachings given by and flowing from a faith-based belief system's magisterium. In a broad sense, one can think of them as decisions. The Church isn't particularly flexible about these decisions, but it can and occasionally does tweak them a bit here and there, and sometimes, it'll reverse specific ones.
  • Dogma --> A subset of doctrines which a faith-based belief system's magisterium definitively (and in the given system's own "mind," infallibly) declares as divinely revealed and which, according to that system, therefore (meaning "because that system thinks so and says so), divinely revealed. These too are decisions; they just have a different founding and greater degree of inflexibility, namely none. (AFAIK, the last ex cathedral statement/decision the Church made was in 1870.)
A key observation to take from the above is that all dogma is part of a given faith-based belief system's doctrine, but not all of that system's doctrine is dogma. Furthermore, the above highlights another key difference between doctrine and dogma: all of dogma is deemed infallible, whereas the only part of doctrine so deemed is doctrine that is not also dogma. From an the standpoint of dispassionate reason, aka logical and objective evaluation, all doctrine and dogma, no matter the denomination, are opinions.

You'll note I referred to the Roman Catholic Church. I did because I don't know that any other Christian denomination has both doctrine and dogma. I know the faith-based belief system I was raised with has no dogma because that system holds no doctrine as infallible or inerrant (see also: Biblical inerrancy). (Please click on those links and read all you find there.) What are some doctrines and doctrinal changes the Roman Catholic Church has made over time?
  • Doctrinal change: Homosexuality --> It once was a sin. Period. Now it's only sinful to be an unchaste homosexual.
  • Doctrine: Priesthood
    • Women cannot be priests. The linked document is a Papal bull, which is to say that as far as its author is concerned, the matter is settled; a later pontiff may alter it, but the current one won't, and he won't indulge entreaties to reconsider the matter. The statement's not ex cathedra; however, thus it's doctrine not dogma.
    • Some married men cannot be priests; however, exceptions are made.
The other reason I used the Roman Catholic Church as an illustrative frame is because, except for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, all other Christian denominations are, one way or another, outgrowths of some stirpe of protest against (dissatisfaction with) something(s) in Roman Catholic catechism, hence the name "Protestant." Thus most Christian dogma and doctrine derives from Roman Catholicism.

In any case, doctrine changes. Dogma almost never does.
 
Sure it does...the key is to take ALL scriptures into account...only then can one understand the message the Bible is relaying...not merely one or two here and there, as some people call it, cherry picking...for example trinitarians cherry pick with the trinity doctrine...if one cherry picks, the wrong conclusion is inevitably going to be determined...

Blue:
Well, you're somewhat right about that.
Given and regarding assertion "X," one supports with argument "A" it is possible to arrive at an accurate (albeit, with regard to "A," an endogenously unsound/uncogent) conclusion "C," even though one or more of "A's" premises and/or the inferential path from "A to C" are flawed. Luck, not careful cognition, is what allows that to happen. The only folks who find value in such happenstances are pure consequentialists; for the rest of us, ways and means are at least as important as ends.
 
Red:
Oh, my....

The above exchange illustrates why I mostly abstain from substantive theological discourse in venues like DP: I think it discursively dull and noisome in general to find myself engaged with folks who use, and/or refer to terms' meanings, yet they clearly don't know the terms' meanings. Elvira, your assertion that doctrine does not change illustrates that phenomenon.
Those two terms simply don't mean the same things; moreover, doctrine changes. I'm going to explain, using the Roman Catholic church's theology, doctrine and dogma -- mainly because that Christian faith has been around long enough and has the most easily accessible/findable body of doctrinal and dogmatic writings -- What you'll find more completely explicated at the above link, I shall below put in the most simplistic terms I can and that are also readily actionable, i.e., it's what I'd say to explain the same ideas to ten-year-olds instead of adults (because the adults with whom I typically discuss religion, theology, doctrine and dogma and stuff related to those things, the discussants involved know the differences/similarities -- thus I don't therefore need to explain such things -- and their remarks apply/reflect their knowledge of the differences and similarities.)
  • Theology --> "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience." "Theology" is a standard, a generic term. Pick a faith-based belief system and there's a theology accompanying it.
  • Doctrine --> The teachings given by and flowing from a faith-based belief system's magisterium. In a broad sense, one can think of them as decisions. The Church isn't particularly flexible about these decisions, but it can and occasionally does tweak them a bit here and there, and sometimes, it'll reverse specific ones.
  • Dogma --> A subset of doctrines which a faith-based belief system's magisterium definitively (and in the given system's own "mind," infallibly) declares as divinely revealed and which, according to that system, therefore (meaning "because that system thinks so and says so), divinely revealed. These too are decisions; they just have a different founding and greater degree of inflexibility, namely none. (AFAIK, the last ex cathedral statement/decision the Church made was in 1870.)
A key observation to take from the above is that all dogma is part of a given faith-based belief system's doctrine, but not all of that system's doctrine is dogma. Furthermore, the above highlights another key difference between doctrine and dogma: all of dogma is deemed infallible, whereas the only part of doctrine so deemed is doctrine that is not also dogma. From an the standpoint of dispassionate reason, aka logical and objective evaluation, all doctrine and dogma, no matter the denomination, are opinions.

You'll note I referred to the Roman Catholic Church. I did because I don't know that any other Christian denomination has both doctrine and dogma. I know the faith-based belief system I was raised with has no dogma because that system holds no doctrine as infallible or inerrant (see also: Biblical inerrancy). (Please click on those links and read all you find there.) What are some doctrines and doctrinal changes the Roman Catholic Church has made over time?
  • Doctrinal change: Homosexuality --> It once was a sin. Period. Now it's only sinful to be an unchaste homosexual.
  • Doctrine: Priesthood
    • Women cannot be priests. The linked document is a Papal bull, which is to say that as far as its author is concerned, the matter is settled; a later pontiff may alter it, but the current one won't, and he won't indulge entreaties to reconsider the matter. The statement's not ex cathedra; however, thus it's doctrine not dogma.
    • Some married men cannot be priests; however, exceptions are made.
The other reason I used the Roman Catholic Church as an illustrative frame is because, except for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, all other Christian denominations are, one way or another, outgrowths of some stirpe of protest against (dissatisfaction with) something(s) in Roman Catholic catechism, hence the name "Protestant." Thus most Christian dogma and doctrine derives from Roman Catholicism.

In any case, doctrine changes. Dogma almost never does.

Maybe most does but do not include Jehovah's Witnesses in that...our doctrine derives strictly/straight from the Bible...nowhere else...
 
Maybe most does but do not include Jehovah's Witnesses in that...our doctrine derives strictly/straight from the Bible...nowhere else...

I have to disagree. Your doctrine is a specific interpretation of the Bible, some of which is poorly translated, or translated in a manner the fits preconceptions rather than from the text itself.
 
Uh post #227...

Ok. THere was an unsupported claim in that. That was 'Take all scripture into account'. Quite often, that is not the case when it comes to the JW's. For example, the ban on transfusions it taking passages and principles from the bible out of context.
 
Back
Top Bottom