Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

You said this:besides someone had to be the heretics, someone had to light Nero's gardensI assume you were referring to the Catholics you were just discussing. Besides, you talk about Acts, explain this one to me:Acts 16:33
"then he and all his family were baptized at once."Certainly children and infants are included in the "all his family."Further, Acts 10:24-27 & 10:44-48, Acts 16:14-15, state entire household were being baptized. What is your reasoning for denying infant baptism anyways?This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 08:48 PM

Further, you haven't addressed my philosophical suggestion about creation. Why aren't they both possible? Again, I ask you, do you sin? With your eyes? Why don't you pluck them out (you cannot interpert the bible literally all of the time).

No about the early churches.Yeah, your right I can't think of any families that don't have infants in them. (not)A person who is born again gets baptized.And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
[/b]Baptizing infants doesn't make any sense, it's not going to effect that kid one way or the other. If someone doesn't tell him later he wouldn't even know he was baptized. It's not like the water itself has some kind of magic power it's an act of faith. Also it would mean that a kid who wasn't baptized would go to hell, what kind of God would do that. He said it was better to pluck out your eye than go to hell, since I'm not going to hell I think I'll hang on to my eyes.

As far as baptism is concerned, Look at Mk 16:16 and figure that one out (why is faith AND baptism necessary)?At any rate, concerning STRICTLY literal interpertation: Jesus said, if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Why not take that literally? I doesn't matter if you don't think you're going to hell, Jesus told you to do it if you sin with it...if you believe in a strictly literal interpertation of the Bible. It's obviously nuts to take this passage literally. So you have to INTERPERT this passage. However you cannot interpert it yourself (this is clearly condemned in 2 Pt 1:20). Further, there are two sources for revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the latter containing the former for at least 30 years until the first Pauline letters were written --- the Gospels weren't written until after Paul finished most of his letters).Evidence: Thessalonians, 2:15 "So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter."Revelation comes from two sources sacred tradition and scripture, as Paul mentions here. You see, by the literal interpertation of the Bible, you skew its meaning. Again, explain this passage literally:"You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of the neatherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mt 16: 18-19What does this passage mean? It doesn't make much sense literally. However if you look at the context you see something else. This means, in the Jewish context: the keys given to Peter meant that he was to be Jesus' steward when he left. In Jesus' time, the steward was the guy who looked after the king's kingdom until he returned -- this is what the keys meant - stewards were given keys to the kingdom. Peter was to hold the office as leader of the church until Christ's return. If a steward were to die in the king's absence, another would be appointed as steward. This has happened throughout the years: Peter, to Linus, to Cletus, to Clement, et cetera.So, you cannot take the Bible literally (all of the time), nor can you interpert it yourself. There must be an interperter throughout the years for Sacred Tradition (part of which has been written down in Sacred Scripture).Therefore, you cannot let the literal interpertation of the Bible skew your thought process. It makes the Bible not make sense and can contradict what it's actually trying to say. Therefore, you must find the correct interpertation for what Genesis says during the creation story. Does the Genesis account, then necessarily dismiss the possibility for an evolution-like thing (not necessarily, the hapazard random, unguided process gross materialist evolutionists suggest, but an intelligent Designer - God perhaps?)? Biblical Fundamentalism contradicts itself, and therefore introduces errors that contradict what scripture is trying to say, obscuring what God is trying to say. This leads us back to the beginning of this thread:"the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible."Well, it seems to make His inspired word not make sense.This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-22-2006 12:54 AM

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a mormon.

the fact is you are making a judgement of someone elses beliefs that you have no right to do so. Being the largest sect of christianity gave the catholics the belief that they have the right to do this, but guess what every sect if they are in power would do this oh so accepting evolution makes you a athiest then? tell that to the 50% of the people in the world who are religious and accept it, how do you know he is an athiest?by the way nice quoteminingoh yes nice way to show your understanding of a theory, yes its all a thoerys fault that bad things happen, instead of blaming the real culprit greed and hate and human faults
instead of using evolution as a scapegoat how about reading about the subjects you are claiming evolution shouls be blamed for?

That , of course, is an out of context quote. There are many Christians who do not believe that Jesus saying 'My father and I are one" means he is claiming to be god in that phrase (in context. In actuallty, this means that Jesus thought the he and god were of one purpose, not co-equal.

Um, the Donatists were around a 1000 years before the inquisition, and they probably baptized infants. They really only disagreed with the church on whether or not to receive back Christians who had lapsed under persecution.See Donatism - Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable wikipedia is, but in this case they're right, and their description is short and simple.The Albigenses were persecuted by the Inquisition, but they were accused of Manichaeanism. They were said to believe that Christ did not have an actual physical body. Infant baptism and belief in the Bible were not the issue for either of these groups.The Inquisition would have gone after a group for rejecting infant baptism, but then, so did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The Anabaptists or "Radical Reformation" was persecuted by Protestants and Catholics alike for their rejection of infant baptism.

I need to clarify something. My point of dragging in the Trinity issue was to show that not all we know about the beliefs of Christianity comes from Scripture. Jesus says in the Gospels "I AM" which is analogous to when Yahweh says his name is "I AM WHO AM." Jesus has many sayings throughout the Gospel where he says, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." These both mean that Jesus is God as much as the Father is God. Further in Genesis, when God is referring to Himself, he oddly uses the plural pronouns We and Us. This implies multiple persons in God. This further we know the Holy Spirit is part of this Trinity based on how he is refered to in Acts. The term "Trinity" is a devlopment in thought about how those hints in the Bible came to be understood. It was a defined dogma in the early Church at one of the councils. So what I'm saying is that the Bible cannot be taken literally, or it doesn't make sense, and some of the understood beliefs id est the Trinity (One God, but Three Divine Persons) don't seem to have any basis either.Case in point: fundamentalism is flawed, and it makes the Bible not make sense. Besides who is to be the authority that 2 Pt 1:20 is referring to if no one can personally interpert the revelations that were to become the deposit of faith? Obviously some of those who've been claiming to have the Holy Spirit speaking through them have been lying, because some of these people have contradicted each other. There must be someone that God has designated to do this. There must be an official interperter of the deposit of faith....but who is that (there seems to be one Church throughout history that has guarded the Christian faith...and fundamentalism is a more recent occurance)?

I didn't think you were it was just a joke.
Are you Catholic?

I'm a Christian.

Oh yeah, your right, the Donatist started in like 315 I think, I don't know about them baptizing infants though. They also didn't like the hierarchy of the church that was beginning to form. But the Albigenses were killed because they would not have their infants baptized.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholics were kind of like the Pharisees, "teaching for doctrine the traditions of men", I was just saying if they persecuted Christian because they believed the Bible and they claimed to know the Bible then it's not suprising that they would condemn a scientist like Galileo that went against what they taught about the positions of the earth and the sun (which they didn't get from the Bible.) As for Protestants and Catholics being against the Anabatist no argument there. Christians will always be hated by the world, because they are not of the world. And especially the "religious" world, after all it was the priests that stirred up the crowd against Jesus saying "crucify him". I don't think the Albigenses really didn't believe Christ had a phsicall body, but even if they did they have no right to go around torturing and killing anyone. They should be out preaching the Gospel,Jesus rebuked his diciples for such a crazy belief It's just common sense what would Jesus say if he came down and stood next to an inqisitor breaking someones shoulders, "Well done though good and faithfull servant" you have got to be kidding me. And Jesus didn't want his kingdom to be fought for with violence. He said What the Catholic church was doing was fufilling the prophecy that said

quote:

---

John16:2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

---

(not that it started with them but was a continuing thing from the apostles time). The pope promised that whoever died trying to destroy the Albigenses and Waldenses would have full remision of past sins. So my point there was just that something the Catholic Church does is not always a reflection of Christianity.

If nobody judged anyone's beliefs then someone could believe it was okay to be a serial killer and nobody could condemn him after all who are we to judge his beliefs. I especially have the right to judge Catholic beliefs because they say they believe the Bible and if I use the Bible to judge their beliefs it should be easy for them to show how I am wrong, but even if I give my own opinion that is something I have a right to do, unless you think people should be forced into what they believe. Did I say accepting evolution makes you an athiest? I just said that even some Athiest believe if there was a God he wouldn't use something as Stupid as naturaul selection for creation. Not only was it the theorys fault that bad things happened, but it was the bad things that had been happening's fault the theory was accepted. People wanted to rebel against God, but it's kind of a scary thing to do and looking at the things that were created they could sense the creator had awesome power. So what they needed was a lie so they could convince their concience that everything was okay, they needed another way to explain the "Origen of Species".

.......This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-22-2006 11:53 PM

God himself calls the Son God in Hebrews1:8

quote:

---

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

---

And if there is anything the Bible make clear it is that there is one God.John3:34 say about Jesus

quote:

---

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].

---

If something is without measure then it is infinite, It also says in the Bible "God has not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind". Only God is infinite in power and love.Isaiah42:1

quote:

---

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

---

(Just to show the Spirit that is given to Jesus is infact God's spirit, but that is obvious anyway.)This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-23-2006 12:15 AM