Evangelical Christians?

[portseven]

Even if one accepts that scripture is the True Word of God

What is scripture? If you are talking about the Bible, then isn't that just a carefully selected collection of books that has been translated so many times, who knows what the original meaning was, especially given a lot of them were written some time after the event they were describing. Also what books are in the Bible and what are not was driven to drive some groups agenda, hence we have the Apocropha.

If I were God, I would have my word revealed, via prophets

Couple of problems with that, how do you tell who is a Prophet? And is every word that that person says the 'word of god', or is it 'selected' words. Lots of people have called themselves prophets and people have stupidly followed them.

The Bible is a collection of books writen by so called prophets, how do we know what they have said was just their opinion or words 'inspired' by 'God'.

[Gibbon]

I reckon we'd be better off trying to persuade each other to be good people for the purpose of making things better down here, rather than for the sake of getting a promotion up there.

Define 'good' and by this a universal 'good' acceptable to everyone.

[Churchill]

Define 'good' and by this a universal 'good' acceptable to everyone.

WASP.

Hth.

[minestrone]

Just returning to this, Roman Catholicism teaches "salvation through works" or in English "get to heaven by being nice/good". This is to my knowledge the biggest difference between R.C and protestantism.

I think it is literal interpretation, Catholicism, as I was told, was to live the way that Jesus lived, the Bible was always just a historical account but not to be taken literally, I do not think the Old Testament was ever even discussed in the years I was in a convent school.

[d000hg]

What is scripture? If you are talking about the Bible, then isn't that just a carefully selected collection of books...

Yes. But if you believe in a god driving these things, then the argument is he was driving those decisions. Faith is required, although I suppose the excluded books can be examined in the light of history and literary analysis and consistency with other books too.

that has been translated so many times, who knows what the original meaning was, especially given a lot of them were written some time after the event they were describing

No. Other historical texts suffer the same issues but there are scientific techniques to try and determine if what you have in front of you is an accurate representation of the original, and the gospels for example are very strong in this regard. It doesn't mean of course that the original is accurate, but the easy argument "it's been warped over time" is no more valid than claiming many well-trusted ancient manuscripts are flaky.

I can't find a link, right now, but I've seen one before with a few examples.

[d000hg]

I think it is literal interpretation, Catholicism, as I was told, was to live the way that Jesus lived, the Bible was always just a historical account but not to be taken literally, I do not think the Old Testament was ever even discussed in the years I was in a convent school.

But "living the way Jesus lived" would include having a personal relationship with God, healing the sick and all that stuff. Simply being a "good guy" is a very shallow simulacrum IMO. Sorry I wanted to use the word "simalcrum", hope it's the right use

[minestrone]

But "living the way Jesus lived" would include having a personal relationship with God, healing the sick and all that stuff. Simply being a "good guy" is a very shallow simulacrum IMO. Sorry I wanted to use the word "simalcrum", hope it's the right use

Yes, I see what you have done there.

I do not understand what you get from religion, to me it is a way of life, to you it is a book.

[d000hg]

Yes, I see what you have done there.

I do not understand what you get from religion, to me it is a way of life, to you it is a book.

I don't remember saying that. I'm not religious, following a set of rules is dead religion rather than having a relationship... and the 'book' tells Christians about the one they have a relationship with.
It's hard to see how you can follow someone without basing it on what they said and did. Saying you're following Jesus by trying to be a decent bloke is like saying you're following Ronaldo by wearing a Real Madrid shirt while stuffing your face with chips and never leaving the sofa.

Is this the point the thread goes downhill, where your capacity for rational discussion runs dry and you sink to insults and putting words in others' mouths?

[minestrone]

I don't remember saying that. I'm not religious, following a set of rules is dead religion rather than having a relationship... and the 'book' tells Christians about the one they have a relationship with.
It's hard to see how you can follow someone without basing it on what they said and did. Saying you're following Jesus by trying to be a decent bloke is like saying you're following Ronaldo by wearing a Real Madrid shirt while stuffing your face with chips and never leaving the sofa.

Is this the point the thread goes downhill, where your capacity for rational discussion runs dry and you sink to insults and putting words in others' mouths?

So I do have a capacity for rational discussion? I will take that as a compliment.

[NotAllThere]

Yes. But if you believe in a god driving these things, then the argument is he was driving those decisions. Faith is required, although I suppose the excluded books can be examined in the light of history and literary analysis and consistency with other books too. No. Other historical texts suffer the same issues but there are scientific techniques to try and determine if what you have in front of you is an accurate representation of the original, and the gospels for example are very strong in this regard. It doesn't mean of course that the original is accurate, but the easy argument "it's been warped over time" is no more valid than claiming many well-trusted ancient manuscripts are flaky.

I can't find a link, right now, but I've seen one before with a few examples.

It's fairly obvious that the warped over time argument has had its day. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls had significant portions from Isaiah, that differed in no important way from the received text. The codex sinaiticus is around 1600 years old. Some manuscripts have been found that are over 1900 years old. The bible does get revised as new documents are discovered, for example the story about an angel stirring the waters (in Matthew), is generally considered to be a later addition, and not part of the original. However, the overwhelming witness of ancient manuscripts is that most of what we have today differs little from the original.

Of course, whether the Bible is inspired by god or made up by men is an entirely different question. But as a representative of an ancient body of literature, it's pretty reliable.