If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

[garbon]

Christianity is more than just the Bible.

My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.

How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?

I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.

[Barrister]

Christianity is more than just the Bible.

My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.

How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?

Because even John 3:16 isn't to be read literally.  Nobody believes that if you believe in God you will be immortal and live forever on this earth.

[Viking]

Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing

Ah yes the tired old, unless you are a fundamentalist nutball you are worthless position by Viking

All assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".

In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra.

Yeah well welcome to religion.  Even the Fundies spend most of their time engaging in this sort of thing not figuring out how many donkies maybe have personally known Jesus according to the Gospel of John.  But you seem to think the donkey numbering is what is valuable here...which puzzles me.

Well, yes, I agree with the Fundamentalist nutballs, as we have previously established. The religion itself (not just the bible) asserts that a god exists. This is a pretty profound assertion. The religion also makes quite specific claims about what the god likes and dislikes and how the god will reward you and for what the god will reward you and what the god demands that you do. These are all facts.

With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts

one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact

two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything

This is a very confused post.  Because you are confusing a particular text (the New Testament) with a particular manifestation of ordered belief (Christianity) and confusing both with relgious-based belief and faith.

Christian doctrine has lots of concrete things to say about life, the universe and everything, but while those things are influenced by the words in the Biblical text, there is not a direct one-to-one correspondence, not close.  Modern fundamentalists aside, Christians don't read the Bible as a User's Manual to God, which is sensible thing, because it is incredibly obvious that the Bible is no such thing.

Also - the claim that the Bible needs to be understand allegorically is not a claim that the Bible consists partially of facts which are literally true and others which are false but must be understood allegorically.  It is a claim that the entire Bible contains truths but to understand these truths fully and properly, the entire text must be read and understood in its allegorical as well as literal sense.

Christian doctrine is discussion of and commentaries on the bible since the bible is the primary source for the minstry of jesus and the works of the apostles who were divinely inspired. If the foundation is lacking the doctrine falls not matter how internally consistent. If Jesus did not die for our sins the whole religion is pointless. How do we know that Jesus died for our sins? The Bible. Given that much of the bible is allegory I need to know how you can tell that the Golgotha narrative is not allegorical.

[The Minsky Moment]

My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there...

Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements.  It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading.  Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.

[Viking]

I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.

I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.

[Maximus]

The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy?

Why? Just because something is older doesn't mean it's better.

[Viking]

Because even John 3:16 isn't to be read literally.  Nobody believes that if you believe in God you will be immortal and live forever on this earth.

Damn, that must have come as a surprise to the first and second century Christians who believed precisely that. Bodily resurrection. It's only later that this came to mean eternal life in heaven.

[Razgovory]

Viking is going to be a religious fanatic at some point in his life.  He has mindset for it, all it will take is the right push in that direction.  He's going to see Jesus in his toast, or have a beatific vision after having the toaster electrocute him, and then we won't be able to get him to shut up about how Christ is going to save us.  Toast may or may not be involved.

[Razgovory]

The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy?

Why? Just because something is older doesn't mean it's better.

I'm older then my brother, that makes me better.

[Barrister]

Christianity is more than just the Bible.

My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.

How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?

I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.

Far be it for me to say anything that might give some strength to Viking's absurdist reasoning, but if you come at it from the Protestant tradition it is very much about downplaying a lot of the traditional understanding of Christianity, and to re-focus directly on the Bible.

I see however that Minsky does put the limits to that Protestant approach however.

[Razgovory]

I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.

I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.

And philosophy?

[Maximus]

Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements.  It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading.  Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.

I haven't been able to find primary sources on it, but I was taught that the medieval anabaptists believed in a literal interpretation of the bible.

[Razgovory]

Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements.  It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading.  Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.

I haven't been able to find primary sources on it, but I was taught that the medieval anabaptists believed in a literal interpretation of the bible.

As anabaptists post date the middle ages, that would be tough.

[Neil]

If it gets jdawg some tail, more power to him.

Um he's doing it for business now, she dumped him

Really?  Mormon girls have always been sorta clingy in my experience.  Once you're dating them, it takes a lot to break up.

[Viking]

My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there...

Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements.  It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading.  Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.

I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.

It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.

Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.