Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Found this today;

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).

3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination?

6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son, ... even better than you and your own Dad, eh?

New Testament=Christians

Old Testament=Jews

Jesus says in the New Testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."(Matthew 5:17)


That said, Christians do not follow all the commandments found in the Bible but rather use the interpretations of scholars/teachers to decide which one's to follow and which one's aren't really the commandments which should be followed.

For example, the NT contains instructions from St Paul that women should not speak in Church. Also that women should cover their heads.

My Christian friends say that women not speaking in church is in a letter and was a piece of advice that need not be followed this day. On women covering their heads, they say that at the time of the advice - women of loose morals did not cover their heads, nowadays this is not the case and Christian women are not required to cover their heads.

It goes without saying therefore that the OT injunctions are similarly subject to interpretation - but the logic goes that whilst Jesus did not change the laws, he did free people who believe in him from the necessity of following the laws to attain salvation (they would just need to have faith - and having faith means you will follow the laws - but it is not following the laws that gives you the salvation, but the fact you have faith. If you decide to not follow the laws, that shows you don't have faith - the logic goes - because Jesus said 'Faith without works is dead').

When I point out that this doesn't make logic to most people - they tell me that Peter or Paul says in the NT that faith isn't logical.

Anyway, the letter does show that the 'word of God' isn't eternal according to Christians - but it would be interesting to hear if Jews still think it is ok to sell children into slavery etc???




Cheers,
Shafique

All religions based on holy scriptures written centuries ago have to deal with internal and external inconsistencies. This is true for the OT, NT and the Koran. When pointing out some inconsistencies in the Koran, I also get the answer that Islam is much more than the Koran itself and that I should read the hadith, the interpretations etc. The same is true for Judaism. In Christianity this differs between the RC´s and protestants, but the same applies, they are interpreting. And some arrive at other conclusions than others, like in Judaism and Islam.
Whether it is still allowed for jews to sell their children as slaves? I doubt it very much. I never heard of such a case, but maybe it is a big underground thing...who knows what goes on in their synagogues...

FD - I don't believe that there are any internal inconstitencies in the Quran. Happy to investigate the ones you have in mind if you want to start another thread (and I've looked into supposed inconsistencies raised by non-Muslims, and haven't yet found that any that stand a cursory investigation).

However, to be fair to all previous scriptures - none make the claim to be the final message, or that the injunctions are universal. In fact, all contain warnings of punishments that will be meted out to people who falsify scripture - an indication that scriptures will become corrupted. (God does not state punishments for acts that won't take place - so the Quran contains no such warning, but rather a promise that the Quran will be protected by God. However, the practice of Muslims has been corrupted despite the pristine-ness of the Quran).

Cheers,
Shafique

Very interested to discuss this, so a new thread would be appreciated. Looking forward to your views.

\\\"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.\\\"(Matthew 5:17)

See Hebrews 8 and the ushering in of the Old Covenant. The passage you have brought up explains that the Law is not bad by any stretch, even though Jesus is preaching things not within it, nor should it be disregarded and libertinism embraced. However, Scripture is unequivically clear that the Old Covenant and the Law are no longer the ethos under which Christians live, nor is it the means of salvation. Christ is the salvation and his teaching, conveyed through the apostles, is the ethos.

That said, Christians do not follow all the commandments found in the Bible but rather use the interpretations of scholars/teachers to decide which one\\\'s to follow and which one\\\'s aren\\\'t really the commandments which should be followed.

You cannot keep only part of the Law. The entirety of the Law is not abolished, but obsolete as the author of Hebrews says.

dp

On women covering their heads, they say that at the time of the advice - women of loose morals did not cover their heads, nowadays this is not the case and Christian women are not required to cover their heads.

Often the long hair of a woman is considered her head covering. Different Christian groups understand the command in different ways. Most, however, have some kind of stance on head covering.

Frederick,

The multitude of views on the issue of women covering their heads is testimony to my point that Christians do indeed choose which commandments of the Bible to consider eternal and binding, and which can be ignored.

The multitude of 'churches' and factions/sections within churches reflect that there is a spectrum of interpretation.

Gibbon's 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' gives an account of the early church which is at variance from official church doctrine/history - but does show the diversity of views in the early church. Significantly, not everyone believed in the Trinity. (I'm currently reading his accounts of Islam before going to the Chapters about the early church - and, yes, I am aware of the controversy around his accounts and have also read more modern scholars of Christian history and know what is accepted as historical evidence and what is Gibbon's opinion..)

Each Church does believe that their interpretation of Christian Dogma is internally consistent - and in that there is no difference between any other religious group in the world.

Muslims may argue that the Quran contains no contradictions and all verses are sacred and eternal. However the Quran itself says that the Quran contains clear injunctions and ambiguous verses, subject to interpretation. It also contains verses which only apply in certain circumstances - eg. you must free slaves (requires that you have slaves).

Cheers,
Shafique

Frederick wrote:New Testament=Christians

Old Testament=Jews

I thought that it was more like:

Jews = Old Testament
Christians = Old Testament + New Testament
Muslims = Old Testament + New Testament + Koran

I can pick any story from the Bible and find differences, similarities and contradictions between it and the Koran. But these can easily be explained by someone who interprets them differently, so I don't see the point in the exercise.

benwj wrote:I can pick any story from the Bible and find differences, similarities and contradictions between it and the Koran. But these can easily be explained by someone who interprets them differently, so I don't see the point in the exercise.

Very good point.

Shafique

The Christian answer is that the Law was the only means by which people could begin to enter into fellowship with God prior to the sanctifying act of Jesus\' death. So without the gift of salvation given by Jesus, there could be no New Covenant which would mean the Old Covenant, that is the Law, is still in effect.

Jews = Old Testament
Christians = Old Testament + New Testament

Christians may do both. In the beginnings of the Christian movement there formed a group known as the Ebionites who were both Christians and held to the Law. What created a problem for them, as well as for some in the New Testament period, is the claim that you must follow the Law in order to be saved. A number of the epistles of Paul, if not most, address at some point this particular mistake reminding people that with the coming of Christ there is a more perfect means of reaching God; faith and obedience are better than sacrifice. This wasn\'t a new concept with the coming of Jesus either. The Old Testament prophets attested to it. Hosea 6:6 says, For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Psalm 40:6 reads, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Both of these passages are quoted in the New Testament to attest to the idea that I presented. The author of Hebrews who talks most extensively about the Law no longer being in effect quotes the Psalmist and Jesus himself quotes Hosea. The Old Testament recognition of the futility of the Law is best summed up in Micah 6:8.

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. This is what the God of both Testaments desires uniformly.

dp

Frederick,

My point about Christians choosing which parts of the Bible to consider as binding laws and which to ignore used the example of the Biblical commandment that women should cover their hair.

My understanding is that St Paul also advocated this practice in the NT, and hence the arguments about it being an OT law that was no longer required in the new covenant should be moot (for Paul would not advocate a law that did not still apply - I would think).

Similarly with the Biblical injunction that women should not speak in Church - this is in a letter written by St Paul. It does not say that this is not meant for all Christian women, and is in the Bible - but yet it is an injunction that modern day Christians choose not to follow.

The fact we have unitarian Christians today, and that Christians sharing these views can be found in the early church (many were persecuted by Christians), shows that even core teachings about the Divinity of Christ were in dispute by readers of the same Bible.

A friend gave me a statistic that may or may not be true - of the current Bible (OT and NT), the Church effectively censors 60% of the verses - in that they are not taught or read in church. Eg. all the verses relating to violence, slavery etc. There are some violent verses in the Bible - for example calling for the killings of women and children and all living things of the disbelievers. However, I wasn't aware that the self-censored portions of the Bible amounted to more than half.

Cheers,
Shafique

Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.

The Bible is considered to be a book of universality that transcends time. Which basically means that some things never change for humans no matter what era as are basic yet fundamental issues like finding meaning to life, conflict, faith, love, hate, morality, war, justice/injustice etc. and these are the elements that the most important writings and teachings encompass. The tricky part was for its "laws" to apply to the people that lived in the past as well as for people or our times and times to come. Obviously not everything that applied to people of ancient times will literally apply to our times but that doesn't discount the transcendent nature of the Bible. (And why some people take every single detail in the holy books completely literally is beyond me.) Some things that were written for ancient people will have a new and modern application yet they are not a pick and choose issue but rather an evolving issue. For example idolatry. Some Christian sects condemn religious imageries as they see this as idolatry based on the literate interpretations found in the Bible that condemns idol worship (ex. Exodus 20, 3-5). These commands against idol and figurine worship applied to people that worshiped multiple pagan gods and that basically made up stuff to worship (sometimes out of boredom). The broad understanding though is not that all religious symbols = idol worship, the understanding is that this command was not against people that believe in monotheism and have images and statues of monotheistic belief but against the worshipers of falsehoods. This command can be said to apply to modern times as the new idolatry is the rampant worship of shallowness, materialism, celebrities, etc.

freza wrote:Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.

I have to disagree in respect of the Bible and Christianity - I do not believe there is a consensus about the 'one true meaning'.

I base this view on the multiplicity of sects with Christianity which dispute many fundamentals concepts - such as who one should pray to (is it ok to pray to the Virgin Mary, for example) and even on whether Trinity is a valid belief or not.

However, amongst the sects that do believe in Trinity and salvation through belief in Jesus' death on the cross - there is consensus on their interpretation of the Bible. My point is that those who selected the Bible had a prior belief set when they selected the books - and for me it is therefore no surprise that the Bible contains verses which back up their beliefs.

Now the argument is that the belief is right because the Bible says so.

This normally makes my head spin as we get into a circular argument along the lines, for instance I recently had the following sequence with a born again Christian.

Me: Jesus does not say or teach to pray to him, but rather to pray to God.
Christian: Agreed, but the Bible also says we should pray to him.
M. But Jesus did not teach this.
C. But what the Bible says elsewhere is equally valid.
M. Why?
C. Because it is the word of God.
M. But there are contradictions and additions - so some verses are not the word of God. How can you tell which is which?
C. Yes there are contradictions, but overall there is consensus on the meanings of the Bible. We trust our scholars.
M. Some other sects disagree - do you pray to Virgin Mary?
C. No - my interpretation of the Bible is right, the Catholics are being misled.
M. So there is disagreement?
C. Not on the big items. The main aspects of theology we all agree on.
M. But the Bible was compiled by people who shared this theology and disagreed with others who held different ones..
C. I'm not really familiar with the compilation of the bible - but I believe it all to be the word of God.
M. But it can't all be the word of God as it contains verses which are additions and other verses you choose not to follow.
C. You are just trying to confuse me!!

Sigh.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

I should have said a consensus with some exceptions of course. But I do believe that the consensus is there on many of the most important interpretations and applications of the Bible. Those that have different interpretations are usually those that have or choose to have a different translation of the Bible and we know how things can get lost in translation... Even modern Bible scholars still struggle with the most appropriate meaning of some words written in ancient Greek. There are also the oldest churches of Christianity that have deep rooted customs like some of the Orthodox Christians whose difference (compared to other Christian groups) can hardly be considered invalid. And then there are the clueless sects (like the Jehova's Witnesses) who have mixed some bizarre Scientology-like beliefs with Christianity and who take the Bible completely literally. I think we all have the capability of knowing what is a serious and scholarly minded movement and which is not.

Not all Bible scholars are religious or even affiliated with any religion, some are only academic/historians so I think it helps to see the Bible as a history book and as a work that has been investigated, translated and interpreted by a valid group of scholars for many many years and as accurately as possible. Again, go with the consensus that meets this criteria not with one that meets their own agenda. Now whatever some people choose to do with the most accurate interpretation...well that's their judgment not the Bible's.

I think that rather inconsequential disagreements amongst Christian groups should hardly be an issue. it's an issue when religion is twisted to justify the opposite of what it stands for. Such as the twisted stuff that GWB and some of these similar "Christian" people believe in.

Freza,

Let us agree to disagree.

I have not found Jehova's witnesses to be irrational or to have bizare 'scientology' like beliefs - but rather they only claim to have gone back to the original (and yes literal) teachings of the Bible. They claim to have gone and studied the Bible and reject all the trappings (such as Christmas on 25th December) that have come later. They don't have a new prophet, but rely on scholarly interpretation of the Bible - and this includes rejecting Trinity.

Also, the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism relate to the latter's interpretation of the Bible and the rejection of some of the canon of catholicism - again, another argument against your general point that there is consensus of interpretation of the Bible amongst Christians.

In my experience and studies, there isn't - there is a healthy debate amongst theologians today, and there was an unhealthy period of persecution and censorship of 'heretical' Christian views in the past.

That said, most Christians are unaware of the theological debates and believe what their particular church tells them Christian theology teaches - so this does give the illusion of a consensus - but this illusion very quickly vanishes when one delves into topics raised in this thread.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.

The existance of so many different sects of each religion proves that there is not a consensus at all. There are so many religions that you can almost choose any that matches your interpretation of the original interpretations... err writings.

shafique wrote:I have to disagree in respect of the Bible and Christianity - I do not believe there is a consensus about the 'one true meaning'.

This is because the cultures in which Christianity has existed do not prevent anyone changing a few rules to suit themselves.
How long do you think that I would last if I started an Islamic based religion that allows followers to eat pork.
My point is that just because you think that it is wrong, doesn't mean that I can't interpret it differently.

But Islam is by no means immune to change. You seem to be overlooking the fact that it has it's own fair share of factions. Sunni, Shite, Taliban to name just a few.

benwj wrote:This is because the cultures in which Christianity has existed do not prevent anyone changing a few rules to suit themselves.
How long do you think that I would last if I started an Islamic based religion that allows followers to eat pork.
My point is that just because you think that it is wrong, doesn't mean that I can't interpret it differently.

But Islam is by no means immune to change. You seem to be overlooking the fact that it has it's own fair share of factions. Sunni, Shite, Taliban to name just a few.

You make some good points.

However, the phrase 'cultures in which Christianity existed' is a little puzzling to me. Christianity started off in Palestine amongst Semitic/Middle East culture. The earliest churches were of African culture (Assyrian/Ethiopic as well as Coptic); Roman and Greek - but mostly it was an Eastern religion. Is this what you meant, or did you want to use the word 'Western' ?

Most of these 'cultures' did modify Christianity to suit their prior beliefs and also changed over time.

As for Islam - I think I pointed out the fact muslims are divided into many sects DESPITE the fact that the Quran has been uncorrupted and does not contain any contradictions or abrogated verses (and hence why I started a new thread on the subject).

As for starting a muslim sect that eats pork - I think you'll find that you won't be the first to do this. There are some off-shoots of Islam that do think it's ok to eat pork and not pray 5 times a day etc. I think that the Druze will fall into this category - they trace their religion back to a branch of Shia Islam, but now have beliefs that include re-incarnation, and the Druze I have met eat pork and drink alcohol (although this could be just them ignoring their teachings - but they did tell me about not praying and reincarnation being their beliefs).

All that said, I agree with your basic premise though - there is no consensus in interpretation!


Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

While people have different beliefs about what Christianity is, that does not make them correct or religious authorities.

As far as Jesus saying he didn't abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn't rejecting God's laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fulfilled.

Quran has been uncorrupted

Link's not working. Look up the Sanaa manuscripts on wikipedia.

valkyrie wrote:
While people have different beliefs about what Christianity is, that does not make them correct or religious authorities.

They (the leaders/priests/theologians of the different sects) believe they are correct and have the religious authority.

valkyrie wrote:As far as Jesus saying he didn't abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn't rejecting God's laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fulfilled.

That is one interpretation.

Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

valkyrie wrote:

Quran has been uncorrupted

Link's not working. Look up the Sanaa manuscripts on wikipedia.

Ok, will do - perhaps I'll start a new thread on the fact (as I understand it) that the Quran is uncorrupted.

Cheers,
Shafique

Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

Christ also said the Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the sabbath.

If your interpretation is correct, then Christ is condemning his own actions when he regularly broke the sabbath.

Edit: It's actually sana'a

valkyrie wrote:

Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

Christ also said the Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the sabbath.

If your interpretation is correct, then Christ is condemning his own actions when he regularly broke the sabbath.

Or alternatively, the Bible's contradictions are evidence of its corruption?

I looked up the Sanaa documents - it talks of minor variations, but doesn't list what these are. However, the Quran's primary means of preservation was not written documents but rather the memorisation by thousands of people. The history of the compilation of the written Quran records instances of textual errors in the writings and that these were always checked against the oral recitation of those who had memorised the Quran.

This was the practice going back to the time of the revelation of the Quran. Only when non-native Arab speakers started misprounouncing the Quranic text and therefore inadvertantly changing the meaning was there a campaign to standardise the text (i.e. the written representation of the oral revelation) and record the words in the Quraish dialect of Arabic.

A misconception is that the different pronunciations of the same Arabic words (Quirat sp?) represented different versions of the Quran. The underlying word was the same, but it was pronounced differently by different tribes. Arabic is written phonetically (then and now - but then it was a different script) and hence different pronunciations would be written differently - but the underlying word and meaning would be the same.

That said, happy to discuss if you do think the Quran was corrupted/changed - the wiki entry did not say what words were different, so I can't really comment further.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

Agreeing to disagreeing is fine by me but I'm not sure you completely understood my viewpoint. The consensus that I mentioned for me lies on seeing the study of the Bible as a historical book and an important work of literature which has been translated and interpreted as such by academics and historians regardless of religion. If you want to talk about different religious interpretations, Christianity's bloody history, etc. that's one thing, but to see the Bible as a work of literature stripped of religious agenda is another thing. Sure there are still many mysteries to the Bible and debates but I think debates are a good thing, don't you? But to think that the interpretation of the Bible can be completely different from one spectrum to another is just not reasonable. Not when you're talking about serious and long established groups.

About Jehova's..hhm now you might know a lot of rational Jehova's Witnesses, I know some myself, they're very nice people but their sect is anything but scholarly and not exactly rational. Look at the history of the JW. It was only created in the late 1800s and they've gone through very extreme "doctrine" changes in this short period of their existence. The JW leaders predicted the end of the world...umm, didn't happen. At one time they worshiped Jesus, now they don't. This is not religious evolution, this is not having a sense of direction. Though their intentions I'm sure are good. If you're into exposing contradictions, you will find countless contradictions with the JW.

And I insist, interpreting all parts of the Bible solely at face value does not equal scholarly work.

Benj
I don't think one can say that there are many Christian sects or at least not many noteworthy ones. Recently there are proliferations of some groups but I think this has more to do with ministries (their agendas) and their impact on local poor populations in many developing countries and also media driven ministries in developed countries. Protestants have offshoot groups but really it's mostly two main schools of thought (Catholic / Protestant) that in the end regardless of ongoing debates, differences in interpretations, Trinity or not, are still followers of Jesus.

freza wrote:Shafique,

Agreeing to disagreeing is fine by me but I'm not sure you completely understood my viewpoint. The consensus that I mentioned for me lies on seeing the study of the Bible as a historical book and an important work of literature which has been translated and interpreted as such by academics and historians regardless of religion. If you want to talk about different religious interpretations, Christianity's bloody history, etc. that's one thing, but to see the Bible as a work of literature stripped of religious agenda is another thing. Sure there are still many mysteries to the Bible and debates but I think debates are a good thing, don't you? But to think that the interpretation of the Bible can be completely different from one spectrum to another is just not reasonable. Not when you're talking about serious and long established groups.

No, your explanation is exactly what I was disagreeing on.

There is dispute amongst scholars of the Bible - not just between religious practioners in different sects.

This actually dates back to the compilation of the Bible with the Arian controversy - just look up Arianism and you will find Arius had a following before and after the compilation of the Bible and that his views were part of Christianity (until some sections decided to outlaw them).

freza wrote:About Jehova's..hhm now you might know a lot of rational Jehova's Witnesses, I know some myself, they're very nice people but their sect is anything but scholarly and not exactly rational. Look at the history of the JW. It was only created in the late 1800s and they've gone through very extreme "doctrine" changes in this short period of their existence. The JW leaders predicted the end of the world...umm, didn't happen. At one time they worshiped Jesus, now they don't. This is not religious evolution, this is not having a sense of direction. Though their intentions I'm sure are good. If you're into exposing contradictions, you will find countless contradictions with the JW.

Same can be said about most Christian churches - eg are women priests allowed or not? Is homosexuality allowed or not? Is the Pope the divine representative on earth or not? etc

freza wrote:And I insist, interpreting all parts of the Bible solely at face value does not equal scholarly work.

I was not equating this as scholarly work, I was referring to works of scholars of the Bible and theologians who interpret the meanings of the words of the Bible (what the words mean in terms of Dogma).

freza wrote:Benj
I don't think one can say that there are many Christian sects or at least not many noteworthy ones. Recently there are proliferations of some groups but I think this has more to do with ministries (their agendas) and their impact on local poor populations in many developing countries and also media driven ministries in developed countries. Protestants have offshoot groups but really it's mostly two main schools of thought (Catholic / Protestant) that in the end regardless of ongoing debates, differences in interpretations, Trinity or not, are still followers of Jesus.

Freza - do you really believe there aren't a significant number of Christian sects and that the differences between them are minor?

You seem to ignore all the Orthodox Christians (by characterising Christianity as either Catholic or Protestant).

Are you just referring to your hometown perchance?

Cheers,
Shafique

that's why I acknowledged that there are mysteries and debates, you did see that? Scholarly disputes are normal. They are part of every major work of literature and important periods of history, I mean, what's new and unusual about scholarly disputes? So there are disputes about the Bible, so what? Like I said, debate is good. Do disputes invalidate the Bible, no I don't think, unless you're a very arrogant person who likes to invalidate history changing works of literature (but surely Shafique, you're not that arrogant hehe)

Some groups allow women priests, some don't. How is this compared to a group that worships Jesus only to completely turn around and change paths or to declare the world would end on more than one occasion? These are just examples, what I'm saying is that people with common sense know what groups have experience in seriously studying the Bible and what groups don't.

Again I mentioned the proliferation of Christian groups, yes there are several emerging groups and they're getting a lot of converts, who is denying this? But the strongest in terms of schools of thought, population, traditions, etc. are the Catholic and Protestants, who can deny this also? I've mentioned the Orthodox in other posts that I didn't mention them in this last one means nothing. Shafique I think sometimes you read too much into some things but not enough into others..

freza wrote:that's why I acknowledged that there are mysteries and debates, you did see that? Scholarly disputes are normal. They are part of every major work of literature and important periods of history, I mean, what's new and unusual about scholarly disputes? So there are disputes about the Bible, so what? Like I said, debate is good. Do disputes invalidate the Bible, no I don't think, unless you're a very arrogant person who likes to invalidate history changing works of literature (but surely Shafique, you're not that arrogant hehe)

So, the rift between the Eastern Church and Catholicism, the rift between Protestants and Catholics are good natured 'scholarly disputes'?

The early church didn't think so when it executed many thousands for heresy.

I do take exception to being accused of ignoring or re-writing history when I have been citing history in defence of what I see is an obvious fact - there are divisions within Christianity despite having one bible.

freza wrote:Some groups allow women priests, some don't. How is this compared to a group that worships Jesus only to completely turn around and change paths or to declare the world would end on more than one occasion? These are just examples, what I'm saying is that people with common sense know what groups have experience in seriously studying the Bible and what groups don't.

But what does the Bible say on the matter? Does it not say women should not even speak in Church?

freza wrote:Again I mentioned the proliferation of Christian groups, yes there are several emerging groups and they're getting a lot of converts, who is denying this? But the strongest in terms of schools of thought, population, traditions, etc. are the Catholic and Protestants, who can deny this also? I've mentioned the Orthodox in other posts that I didn't mention them in this last one means nothing. Shafique I think sometimes you read too much into some things but not enough into others..

Sorry Freza, did you not read my reference to Arius?

His group was around +before+ the bible was compiled, so how can this be characterised as 'emerging groups'?

I also disagree that the Catholic/Protestant difference is the biggest in Christianity - I would suggest that it is the difference between the 'Orthodox' Churches of Greece, Russia etc and the Western Church which trace back to Rome.

Cheers,
Shafique

take exceptions to what I said, could be a good thing actually! I'm still your fan!

the rifts between religions are rifts between religions but in these previous lines I'm clearly referring to the validity of viewing the Bible in a scholarly and historical view, without seeing it through a religious affiliation, I only said it oh about three times.

There are division in Christianity, ok, what else is new? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, divisions and differences are there. I guess some people focus on divisions instead of focusing on common ground, well ok then.

When I referred to emerging groups I thought I was clear that I was talking about new groups like those going after the poor in developing countries or appealing through media outlets like some of the newer Evangelical movements.
I was not referring to Arius, but one can hardly consider that breakaway people, groups or doctrines are unique to Christianity.

Also I did NOT say that the Catholic/Protestant difference was the biggest, what I implied is that these groups were the most influential.

I tell you my personal views: that the established religions (in general), and these include established sub-groups, whose aim is to fulfill the spiritual needs of their people are all good. However, I do criticize some sects, cults and politics masquerading as religion, and I do question some aspects of established religions, and criticize certain practices, but that's another issue, that's not the main issue. The main issue for me personally is faith. (I also criticize narrow minded and bitter atheists who try to squash believes that they don't share but surely not all atheists are bitter and narrow-minded and I can't invalidate people that choose not to believe in God). As to established religions, their laws, traditions, beliefs, books, might not be what I personally believe in, they might not be my truths but I don't think this gives me the right to invalidate the truth of others...