The Anguish of True Believers

[David Sklansky]

Those who are not sure whether there is a God who punishes you merely for non belief fear their future and I put up a post to that effect. And I wondered what that must feel like. On the other hand I also wonder about those who completely believe there is such a God. How do they deal with the knowledge that 95% or so of their fellow human beings have a horrible fate in store for them?

Since most people have some pretty big faults, I suppose that religious zealots can rationalize away what they expect to be those people's fate. But what about the exceptions? How do they feel when they come upon the kindly old Jewish nurse who always has a smile for everybody and is the the first to lend a helping hand? Doesn't the realization that she will go to hell horrify them?

Even if they truly believe the mumbo jumbo that all humans are inherently evil, deserving of hell, except for when God wants to forgive, my guess is that when they come upon such a person, their natural empathy makes it pretty hard to take comfort in that doctrine. (Not Ready is apparently so uncomfortable with this situation that he flirts with blasphemy [as far as udon'tknowmickey is concerned] by postulating that God might have ways of getting out of this tough spot even though he doesn't know how).

I think for the hardcore religions and believers, it's a general 'them and us' philosophy. These people don't have much humanity in them, so I doubt they suffer much anguish over people going to hell.

For the old nurse, I think most believe God would make an exception, and maybe not even see the inconsistency or pay it much heed.

[JackWhite]

What about the inconsistency of those who claim to be tolerant, yet spend half their time posting message attacking other people's religious views?

[spaminator101]

I admit that this makes me feel horrible. I try to think about the doom of others as little as possible but it just rears its ugly head over and over again.

Hey Spam I got a prop bet for ya.

What odds will you give me that by the time youre 30 you will be an agnostic?

[spaminator101]

im sorry but i would consider that stealing /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RedManPlus]

My sense is that Mr.Sklansky...
Doesn't actually know any True Believers of any faith...
Largely because a True Believer...
Would not associate with Mr.Sklansky...
(Or me for that matter)...
Viewing him as the worst possible kind of influence.

But the answer is simple...
Faith and Fear are polar opposites...
One displacing the other.

But to make any difference...
Faith must be cultivated and built-up to a very high level...
And at some point a person is greatly transformed.

Then... and only then...
Faith can be the catalyst for great "positive action"...
Such as Martin Luther King's crusades...
Or great "negative action"...
Such as displayed by a Muslim suicide bomber.

All fears have largely been displaced by Faith...
Which can be expressed as Love or Hate.

Conversely...
Faith can be undermined and will dissipate...
(Often replaced by fear)...
If one does not ruthlessly safeguard it...
And let's in the world with it's Hollow Philosophies.

And to address the specifics in his post...
Usually there are no definitive answers about God...
Believers simply accept a large element of Mystery.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand I also wonder about those who completely believe there is such a God. How do they deal with the knowledge that 95% or so of their fellow human beings have a horrible fate in store for them?


[/ QUOTE ]

The only way I can see thinking something like this would be if you believe that even hell is a thousand times better than life on earth, albeit without Gods presence.

[Neil Stevens]

Yes, there are plenty of Christians who are horrified at some of those thoughts. That's why you see so many people drop everything and become missionaries to far flung places, and others make other large sacrifices for evangelism. They want to give those people a chance to escape torment.

Of course, some people believe different details. If you think a 10 minute conversation can "save" someone, then you can get a lot done just by knocking on a lot of doors. My parents do, and do.

I'm pretty sure Jack Chick thinks a person who reads one of his tracts, and honestly follows the back page, will be saved from it all.

So these people take comfort in the people they've contacted, and the people contacted by those they've contacted, and so on.

It's amazing the kind of abuse some of these people are willing to tolerate while going out and doing this stuff, too. It's clear that they really do beleive it all, and they really are scared of what will happen to people who don't hear about it.

The idea that men are inherently evil is downright ignorant. Equally as ignorant is the belief that men are inherently good. Men are born men. They are a blank slate - a 'tablata rasa.' It is the choices a man makes that determine him as 'good' or 'evil.'

And yet these terms are ambiguous and vague. What exactly does 'good' mean? What does 'evil' mean? These words are connotations for either ends of a spectrum in a set of moral codes. But morality is not an absolute. Men are not born moral or immoral - they are born unmoral. Morality is a man-made invention and is adopted through one's culture. A man born and left for dead in the wild, never having encountered other humans, and somehow surviving, would have no concept of morality. He would act for the moment, for his immediate pleasure, for his immediate benefit, and would never consider his actions as either right or wrong. Those concepts would be foreign to him.

Men being born inherently anything is an ignorant claim. Saying so implies that their course of action has already been set for them, that their life is a sequence of events that has already been pre-determined, and that implies that men do not have free will. It implies pre-destination.

A man is in control of his own destiny through the choices given to him by free will.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I admit that this makes me feel horrible. I try to think about the doom of others as little as possible but it just rears its ugly head over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

spam, read the writings of those early Christians like I advised and you might feel impelled to modify your views and denomination and not have to have those feelings. That way you don't also have to accept silly Calvinist extremities like the Jonathan Edwards quote I gave in the other thread regarding reprobate infants.

[ QUOTE ]
Faith and Fear are polar opposites...
One displacing the other.

But to make any difference...
Faith must be cultivated and built-up to a very high level...

[/ QUOTE ]
Ever believer I've ever met has failed to understand that there are other forms of faith besides faith in God or an afterlife, and they are equally powerful.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever believer I've ever met has failed to understand that there are other forms of faith besides faith in God or an afterlife, and they are equally powerful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are psychadelic drugs.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

God who punishes you merely for non belief


[/ QUOTE ]

Who believes this?

[ QUOTE ]

How do they deal with the knowledge that 95% or so of their fellow human beings have a horrible fate in store for them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff?

[ QUOTE ]

Even if they truly believe the mumbo jumbo that all humans are inherently evil


[/ QUOTE ]

Please name someone besides Christ who lived a sinless life. I mean besides infants and the mentally incompetent.

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready is apparently so uncomfortable with this situation that he flirts with blasphemy


[/ QUOTE ]

What blasphemy? And my discomfort is only over my own understanding because I don't want to misrepresent what God says in His Word nor needlessly offend unbelievers. I am totally comfortable with God's true will.

[ QUOTE ]

God might have ways of getting out of this tough spot even though he doesn't know how)


[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are the ones in the tough spot.

....is the fact that they live there lives guided by irrational thought processes. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Flame away.
Shooby

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
How do they deal with the knowledge that 95% or so of their fellow human beings have a horrible fate in store for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I checked there were more like 2 billion christians. Your point, though, is very valid. This is the hardest part of my faith. It bothers me greatly. The worst part is that I drink, gamble, do other drugs, carouse with loose women, swear, like to watch violence, am cynical, get into occasional brawls, lie, and basically fall into each and every vice that exists. I know many people who allow these things to keep them from accepting forgiveness. Jesus didn't die on the cross to shame us. He died to forgive us.

[The Dude]

It is this anguish that compels many Christians to evangelize in ways that are very annoying to those who don't want to listen (and even offensive to some).

[Stu Pidasso]

A true believer believes that God is infinately just and if God sends a particular soul to hell it was because that soul deserved to go there.

A true believer would not contemplate the thought that their non-believing neighbor is going to hell becuase it is not thier place to judge where that soul spends eternity.

In the example of the Jewish woman who lives an exemplary life, is it not possible for God to give her the grace to believe in the short moment that precedes her death?

If there is such a thing as a true believer they probably have no anguish at all; only faith that God is both infinitly merciful and infinitly just.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Please name someone besides Christ who lived a sinless life. I mean besides infants and the mentally incompetent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Catholics believe the Virgin Mary led a sinless life and was mentally competent.

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
only faith that God is both infinitly merciful and infinitly just.

[/ QUOTE ]

See why the refernce to psychadelic drugs was so apropos?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please name someone besides Christ who lived a sinless life. I mean besides infants and the mentally incompetent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Catholics believe the Virgin Mary led a sinless life and was mentally competent.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Sucks to be Mary then. You have to give birth to and raise the Son of God, and yet you didn't even need his sacrifice. Hope she got a primo seat in heaven.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Catholics believe the Virgin Mary led a sinless life and was mentally competent.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no Scriptural evidence for Mary being sinless. Regardless, I think they believe she went to heaven, as do Protestants.

[Peter666]

A true believer is emotionally disattached from feelings you describe above and trusts that God will do what is best.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
A true believer is emotionally disattached from feelings you describe above and trusts that God will do what is best.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's absurd, and there are plenty of characters in the Bible that contradict that claim.

[Peter666]

Like?

[Jeff V]

Get very specific please... I don't think you will, since it's just easier to say"there are plenty of characters in the Bible that contradict that claim".

BTW the Jewish nurse would not suffer the same kind of hell as say Dahmer, or the like.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no Scriptural evidence for Mary being sinless. Regardless, I think they believe she went to heaven, as do Protestants.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of catholic beliefs are found in tradition. You will not find direct evidence of them in the bible.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

See why the refernce to psychadelic drugs was so apropos?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to be a true believer or a drug addict to see that there is no contradiction here. However, It does help to have some understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no Scriptural evidence for Mary being sinless. Regardless, I think they believe she went to heaven, as do Protestants.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of catholic beliefs are found in tradition. You will not find direct evidence...

[/ QUOTE ]

...as are pagan rituals. and about as worthy of the same respect.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of catholic beliefs are found in tradition. You will not find direct evidence of them in the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even granting the sinlessness of Mary, which I don't, the Bible also teaches original sin and the RCC accepts the doctrine.

[renodoc]

Get your ass over to the Politics forum.

Please.

Soon.

[David Sklansky]

"BTW the Jewish nurse would not suffer the same kind of hell as say Dahmer, or the like."

That's nice to know. Thanks

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Even granting the sinlessness of Mary, which I don't, the Bible also teaches original sin and the RCC accepts the doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RCC pretty much decided what was going to be in the bible and what wasn't.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Sucks to be Mary then. You have to give birth to and raise the Son of God, and yet you didn't even need his sacrifice. Hope she got a primo seat in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Catholic tradition teaches her seat is right next to the big guy himself.

Stu

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The RCC pretty much decided what was going to be in the bible and what wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OT was formed before RCC. The NT was formed over a 400 year period by general consensus of most believers. RCC simply agreed on what everyone already knew.

What does this have to do with the original point about no sinless people? Most philosophers agree that man is radically evil. None have any explanation. Just another reason why Scripture is so accurate and why Christianity is the only reasonable world view.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The NT was formed over a 400 year period by general consensus of most believers

[/ QUOTE ]

Were not most of those believers Catholics?

[ QUOTE ]
What does this have to do with the original point about no sinless people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only that the same authority which determined what was going to be in the New Testimate(an authority that you accept if you accept the Bible) contradicts you.

Stu

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Were not most of those believers Catholics?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. There were no denominations during this time, only one Christian church. Rome and the Eastern Orthodox split sometime in that time period, I'm not sure when, but I think the first Canon was approved before then. The Reformation began in the 15th Century.


There's lots of stuff on the net about the Canon process. Even a brief survey would show anyone interested that it wasn't haphazard or arbitrary.

[ QUOTE ]

Only that the same authority which determined what was going to be in the New Testimate(an authority that you accept if you accept the Bible) contradicts you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Protestants accept the New Testament as well, and original sin, but reject the Immaculate Conception. The final authority is the Bible and the IC is not found there. Part of the reason the Reformation happened.

[NotReady]

To show you how difficult and complex Biblical research is on the net I just spent 3 mintues to find that the Immaculate Conception was not official Catholic dogma until 1854.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
To show you how difficult and complex Biblical research is on the net I just spent 3 mintues to find that the Immaculate Conception was not official Catholic dogma until 1854.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did it take you so long (3 minutes)? Lol - Bigdadydvo just posted a thread about this, here, a few posts back.

Ironically, it is one of only 2 dogmas that the Pope has ever spoken infallibly about – it is infallible teaching per our RCC.

The other one, also, has to do with the Virgin Mary.

I say ironically because as you noted it is so relatively recent, but also because whodda thunk that the 2 infallibles would be concerning Mary rather than Jesus?

P.S. I hope we don’t get into this too much, ‘cuz this area of RCC Christianity isn’t one of my fortes. If we do, hope (I am sure you will be) you are up for it BluffTHIS, especially now that PairThe Board is off the radar screen. Although, I’ll do my best to help out, Bluff.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Ironically, it is one of only 2 dogmas that the Pope has ever spoken infallibly about


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that. I'm no expert on the RCC and don't really want to debate this issue. I think it's an unproductive rabbit trail and has no bearing on the serious issues of sin and salavtion. It would not make any difference in my faith if it turns out that the IC is true. It also would not affect what the Bible says about original sin. Like I said, a rabbit trail.

[RJT]

NotReady,

I realized you weren’t bringing it up to debate the issue. I was just bringing some levity with my p.s (trying to at least).

Regards,

RJT

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. There were no denominations during this time, only one Christian church. Rome and the Eastern Orthodox split sometime in that time period, I'm not sure when.

[/ QUOTE ]

The schism you refer to occurred in 1054, about 600 years after the appearance of the bible. Up until that point there was pretty much just one church(the Catholic Church)

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. Protestants accept the New Testament as well

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but Protestants didn't compile the bible. They simply took the Catholic bible and omitted a couple of books they didn't like. No matter how you slice it, Catholics came up with the bible and if you accept the bible as being the word of God your accepting Catholic authority that originally proclaimed it as such. If you accept Protestant authority over or in lieu of Catholic authority your basically saying that for over a thousand years every single Christian followed flawed scriptures.

[ QUOTE ]
To show you how difficult and complex Biblical research is on the net I just spent 3 mintues to find that the Immaculate Conception was not official Catholic dogma until 1854.

[/ QUOTE ]

1854 is when it was proclaimed an official Dogma of the Church. Basically what happened is the same Church that used it authority to approve the books of the bible, used its authority again to proclaim this doctrine as being absolutely true.

The belief, however, goes back a lot farther than 1854. You can find explicit evidence that the belief was taught as far back as 395AD. There is also implicit evidence indicating the belief goes back as far as the first century.

Stu

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No matter how you slice it, Catholics came up with the bible and if you accept the bible as being the word of God your accepting Catholic authority that originally proclaimed it as such.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not. I don't accept any merely human proclamation on authority only. The Bible judges the RCC not the reverse.

[ QUOTE ]

The belief, however, goes back a lot farther than 1854. You can find explicit evidence that the belief was taught as far back as 395AD. There is also implicit evidence indicating the belief goes back as far as the first century


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of beliefs about a lot of things go back to before 395AD. The central problem is the lack of Scriptural evidence.

The NT itself tells us that false doctrines were already appearing even while it was being written. No theologian of the RCC or any other denomination has been error free.

But fine. Accept the IC, reject it. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that men are inherently evil is downright ignorant. Equally as ignorant is the belief that men are inherently good. Men are born men. They are a blank slate - a 'tablata rasa.' It is the choices a man makes that determine him as 'good' or 'evil.'

[/ QUOTE ] How do you know this?

[ QUOTE ]
A man born and left for dead in the wild, never having encountered other humans, and somehow surviving, would have no concept of morality. He would act for the moment, for his immediate pleasure, for his immediate benefit, and would never consider his actions as either right or wrong. Those concepts would be foreign to him.

[/ QUOTE ] If true, that's interesting. How do you know this?

[David Sklansky]

"Most philosophers agree that man is radically evil. None have any explanation. Just another reason why Scripture is so accurate and why Christianity is the only reasonable world view."

Is man more evil than aardvark?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready is apparently so uncomfortable with this situation that he flirts with blasphemy [as far as udon'tknowmickey is concerned] by postulating that God might have ways of getting out of this tough spot even though he doesn't know how).

[/ QUOTE ] I think somewhere in the bible it aludes to the damnation not being eternal. The fires of hell burn your soul up and you cease to exist. Slightly more comforting variation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think somewhere in the bible it aludes to the damnation not being eternal. The fires of hell burn your soul up and you cease to exist. Slightly more comforting variation.


[/ QUOTE ]

To believe that isn't blasphemy.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, there are plenty of Christians who are horrified at some of those thoughts. That's why you see so many people drop everything and become missionaries to far flung places, and others make other large sacrifices for evangelism. They want to give those people a chance to escape torment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize how ignorant the missionaries are? They go to third world countries and interfere with perfectly contented lives. It is only in the Christian's eyes that they live in torment. Once they leave, the native people they have tried to "save" have been introduced to luxuries that they can never have. That is when the real torment begins.

[David Sklansky]

"I think somewhere in the bible it aludes to the damnation not being eternal. The fires of hell burn your soul up and you cease to exist. Slightly more comforting variation."

"To believe that isn't blasphemy."

Now you tell us. About time. Do all Chistian denominations agree with you? (That to beleieve that isn't blasphemy. I realize you didn't say YOU believe that.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now you tell us.


[/ QUOTE ]

All you had to do was ask. This is the first time it's come up. For future reference, blasphemy means cursing God or in some way attacking Him, directly or indirectly. For instance, Jesus was accused of blasphemy because He made Hmself out to be God. Heresy means departure from orthodox doctrine. Blasphemy is a sin and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgiveable sin. I know of nothing in the Scripture that says anyone is going to hell for heresy.

[ QUOTE ]

Do all Chistian denominations agree with you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anyone else call this blasphemy.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of beliefs about a lot of things go back to before 395AD. The central problem is the lack of Scriptural evidence.

The NT itself tells us that false doctrines were already appearing even while it was being written. No theologian of the RCC or any other denomination has been error free.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this doesn't mean that one single denomination of all the denominations isn't error free, even if individual theologians held heterodox views. And all your reasoning depends upon scripture being the only source of divine inspired revelation, which even scripture says is not the case as I have previously pointed out.


[ QUOTE ]
There were no denominations during this time, only one Christian church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize what this accurate quote means? It means that there was one single church (and "catholic" means universal), and that at a later point there was more than one Christian church because various groups split off and then kept splitting off, including off each other. The only denomination that exists today and of which this is not true, is the Roman Catholic Church because every other denomination split off it or off another denomination that had first split from the catholic church. This means that it is far more likely that the doctrine of the RCC is the same as that early unified church.

If you are honest with yourself in wishing to hold only true and sound christian doctrine, then you will take the challenge I laid down to spaminator101 and read the writing of the early christians from the first couple centuries. You will find that the beliefs and worship practices of those writers correspond to the catholic church today, and that the church even then possessed "structure", and that such structure thus prexists the artificial protestant date for the "institutional" catholic church. Only if you spend the time to investigate those writings can you truly have intellectual honesty and spiritual integrity.


Link (http://www.catholicfirst.com/churchfathersindex.cfm) for some of those writings.

[Dan Mezick]

There are some interesting points made here. 'Anguish' (torment)is a suitable term for what true believers must feel involuntarily, given the facts as they understand them.

The reality is that the number of true believers is scant, even among those who profess such true belief. The reason is the anguish/torment burden as described in Sklansky's post. How many people choose to carry around a burden like that?

The few that exist in this state believe they are called to carry that burden.

If you have ever met a true believer, you may find it hard to walk away with your own beliefs intact. Such people exist in a state of highly amplified empathy for others. Such people are rare and exceptional. You know for sure when you have encoutered such a person. Or, when such a person has encountered you.

The Pentatuch and Torah define sin as transgression of the law. The immediate consequence is separation from the God of the Old Testament.

Sin cannot be erased, but can be covered. By blood.

If you cannot adopt that belief, you cannot become a true believer. And vice versa.

An interesting pattern that develops in many people who learn these things goes like this:

1. They reject the above premises about the law, sin, and separation,

2. They proceed to reject the entire Bible, based on the rejection of the above premises of belief.

3. As a result they have more and more questions with fewer and fewer (acceptable) answers.



[ QUOTE ]

...the people who rate the chances that such a God exists anywhere from somewhat unlikely to somewhat likely, deserve a lot of empathy. Think about their situation. Non believers aren't worried and believers have their ducks in a row. But what about the others? Surely there are many of them, just like as there are many who aren't sure about lots of other issues. But in the other cases there is no torment associated with their uncertainty. Here someone who thinks the punishing God is somewhat likely has to believe he is somewhat likely to go to hell. Imagine being one of them.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

Those who are not sure whether there is a God who punishes you merely for non belief fear their future and I put up a post to that effect. And I wondered what that must feel like. On the other hand I also wonder about those who completely believe there is such a God. How do they deal with the knowledge that 95% or so of their fellow human beings have a horrible fate in store for them?

Since most people have some pretty big faults, I suppose that religious zealots can rationalize away what they expect to be those people's fate. But what about the exceptions? How do they feel when they come upon the kindly old Jewish nurse who always has a smile for everybody and is the the first to lend a helping hand? Doesn't the realization that she will go to hell horrify them?

Even if they truly believe the mumbo jumbo that all humans are inherently evil, deserving of hell, except for when God wants to forgive, my guess is that when they come upon such a person, their natural empathy makes it pretty hard to take comfort in that doctrine. (Not Ready is apparently so uncomfortable with this situation that he flirts with blasphemy [as far as udon'tknowmickey is concerned] by postulating that God might have ways of getting out of this tough spot even though he doesn't know how).


[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding people being inherently evil: I notice war is not good and I notice that a state of war is the natural state of mankind. At least, that's what 6000+ years of recorded history says.

This could be mumbo-jumbo. But, I doubt it based on the historical facts.

I assign a probablity of .0000000000000001 that all people are born inherently "good".

[Peter666]

Yeah, it is much worse for the chosen people. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
No I'm not. I don't accept any merely human proclamation on authority only. The Bible judges the RCC not the reverse.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what your saying is that ~1600 years ago the Catholics compiled the bible and judged it to be the word of God. However you do not accept that judgement because you do not believe the Catholic church had the authority to make it. However you still believe the Bible is the word of God. What happened here? Did the Catholic Church happen to just get lucky and pick all the right books?

[ QUOTE ]
The NT itself tells us that false doctrines were already appearing even while it was being written. No theologian of the RCC or any other denomination has been error free

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this mean that its possible the Catholic Church erred in how it compiled the bible? Do you think its possible that the scripture you follow today might have some fundamental flaws?

Stu

p.s. the bible does not judge anything.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So what your saying is that ~1600 years ago the Catholics compiled the bible and judged it to be the word of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say that. I say the New Testament existed within the community of believers for several hundred years before it was officially called the Canon. No one just picked it out. Christians as a group used it for teaching and there was a general consensus for several hundred years as to what formed the legitimate documents that represented the faith. It was judged to be the word of God from the 1st Century on. Some of the 2nd Century Christians knew the authors or knew their close associates. These books were not discovered in the 4th or 5th Century at which time a group of people thought it might be nice to call them the word of God. Many of the books were in circulation while most of the people who had witnessed the events were still alive. Lists were made long before the final Canonization detailing which books were accepted as authoritative and which were merely helpful or interesting.

Anyone interested in more about the authenticity, reliability and composition of the New Testament can start here (http://worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm)
which is a short work by the renowned scholar F.F. Bruce.

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this mean that its possible the Catholic Church erred in how it compiled the bible? Do you think its possible that the scripture you follow today might have some fundamental flaws?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, both are possible. I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate the flaws.