The Bible does not support the idea that "as soon as you die it is judgement day." So to say that people are in Hell now is just wrong. People are in Sheol now.

I object to the term "Hell," as I said, because it used to refer to both Sheol and the Lake of Fire, which are not the same thing. It is tries to make them one, so that people think that judgement occurs at death, which it doesn't. Believing that is wrong. And it also leads to all kinds of other problems, because it also implies that people go straight to heaven when they die. And that people can go from Hell to Heaven and things like that.

I agree that on the surface, it may seem immaterial. But one of the major points in the Bible is to seek truth and understanding of the word of God. If you are willing to accept one wrong idea or misconception, it undermines the whole truth of the Bible, which in turn undermines what it means to be a Christian.

One can definitely do things that are not Christian and still be a Christian. But if you do them knowingly (lying to someone), or if you do not try to avoid them (i.e. resigning rather than going to war), and you are not repentant, then you are not a Christian. It doesn't mean you can't work towards becoming one. I guess to a large extent I feel that most Christians are actually working on becoming true Christians, and that there are very few true Christians.

I don't take the infinite denominations of Christianity as a good thing. I take it a sign that people are misinterpreting the Bible left and right and would rather agree to disagree than to know the real truth. There are many ways to show your faith, but God very explicitly tells us how to worship. And 99.99% of organized religions corrupt that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I take it a sign that people are misinterpreting the Bible left and right and would rather agree to disagree than to know the real truth. There are many ways to show your faith, but God very explicitly tells us how to worship. And 99.99% of organized religions corrupt that.

And what is it that makes you think you know better? What makes your interpretation of the Bible infallible?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

you and I will never agree. I do not believe that what you do is what makes you a Christian, or gives you salvation. Translating and interpreting the Bible literally is a bad thing. The bible is god's word through man, and man is fallible. No writing of the Bible can be 100% accurate or true. To try to keep specifically to the rules set out from over 2000 years ago is foolish, just as trying to live strictly by the rules of Mohammed is foolish for a Muslim. Christ taught tolerance and forgiveness. Accepting the differences in our faith, while still acknowledging the constant (Chirists death for our sins) is part of being a Christian. Regardless, you're assertion that the Presdient is, by definition, un-Chrsitian, just doesn't hold water.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think that my own reading is definitely fallible. I think I know better to some extent because I base what I believe on the Bible alone, and not the word of a Pope, Priest, Bishop, etc. If disagreeing with me makes everyone reread at least part of the Bible and question it, I am happy. Even if they draw the exact same conclusion, I am still happy. I want people to read, know, and trust the Bible, not the words of some guy in black robe or funny hat.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I think that my own reading is definitely fallible. But you don't see that as a serious problem?

If disagreeing with me makes everyone reread at least part of the Bible and question it, I am happy. Really? Even if they all come to different and contradictory conclusions? Frankly, that's a stupid goal.

I want people to read, know, and trust the Bible, not the words of some guy in black robe or funny hat. A guy in a black robe or funny hat speaking as God's representative, with God's mandate and guarantee of infallibility.

But hey, if you want to trust your interpretation of the very Word of God to your own admittedly fallible judgement, be my guest.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I respect that absolutely. Faith is a wonderful and special thing, and it is hard even for people who agree on the Bible to agree totally on what faith means.

I agree that translating and interpreting the Bible literally is bad. Translating it and interpreting it figuratively is bad. And before someone goes off on that, I mean doing 100% of anything is bad. Literally translating "loving one's neighbor as oneself" to be exactly that is not a bad thing. To think that loving things of this world means that you can't love another person or love your job or love triathlon is a bad literal translation. But if someone wants to eschew all of those things and just love God, there is nothing wrong with that either.

Accepting that people define and experience faith differently is indeed part of what makes following the teachings of the Bible great, provided you follow the fundamental truths.

In my own opinion, I believe that while being president doesn't mean being unChristian (for example, you don't have to go to war, you don't have to run a smear campaign, you don't have to lie, you don't have to give kickbacks and political favors), the reality is that being a president of today's America conflicts with a truly Christian lifestyle. I don't think you can disagree with that assertion holding water. I wish you could run for president without sinning, but I don't think you can. And I think choosing a profession where sinning seems to be required is not the mark of a true Christian.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

That is why I don't just sit back contentedly and think I know the Bible. I try to interpret it correctly. But I make mistakes. So I keep trying. I don't see that as a serious problem at all. I don't think God frowns upon failure. I think he frowns upon acceptance of failure.

I have faith in the Bible. I have faith that if people really read it, they would draw many of the same conclusions. I know history doesn't support this, but it doesn't mean that I will ever, or should ever, stop hoping that reading the Bible will lead people together rather than further apart.

I don't believe those men in black robes or funny hats speak as God's representative or with God's mandate or with God's guarantee of infallibility. That is where we differ. I would rather trust my own fallible judgement than the fallible judgement of another man.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I have faith in the Bible. I have faith that if people really read it, they would draw many of the same conclusions. I know history doesn't support this

Possibly the first accurate statement you've made in this whole thread. History most certainly doesn't support that.

I would rather trust my own fallible judgement than the fallible judgement of another man.

But for some reason you have enough trust in them to decide what books belong in the Bible. Why is that, do you think?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Because I don't believe that they did decide what books belong in the Bible. I believe God decided. Simple enough for you? You can choose to disagree, but you cannot prove that God is not the author and architect of the Bible. It may not be His hand that wrote it, but it is His word.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Because I don't believe that they did decide what books belong in the Bible. I believe God decided.

And how did God exercise that decision? By what means?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Whoah there tiger... guarantee of infallibility? Is that before of after they molest children?

---

_______________________________________________

I believe that God used His Holy Spirit to compel a variety of men and women to write down his word. I don't think that this makes it fallible. It would be fallible, perhaps, if God inspired these writings, but I don't believe that is the case. I believe that God essentially used men as vehicles to write down his word. His own perfection prevents the inherent flaws of man from mattering.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

guarantee of infallibility? Is that before of after they molest children?

I said guarantee of infallibility, not human perfection.

It's my fault for using Catholic shorthand. I should have said that the institution of the Catholic Church enjoys infallibility when teaching about Faith and morals. Which isn't to say that everything the Pope says is infallible, only issues of Faith, and only when he speaks ex cathedra.

Clearly, it doesn't mean priests are infallible men.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I believe that God used His Holy Spirit to compel a variety of men and women to write down his word.

And then compelled the Council of Carthage to define those books as the Bible? And then withdrew His inspiration from the Church, leaving all of us poor wretches to struggle to interpret His Work, knowing full well the consequences?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yup. Nobody ever said being a Christian was easy. He gave an awful lot to us on a silver platter. Should he have made it a grade school level test? What would that have proved? It is supposed to be hard to understand. You are supposed to think about it. I believe people allow the truth in the Bible to be corrupted. That isn't God's fault. He gave us the "user's manual" to finding salvation, and you want to complain that it isn't easy enough to understand?

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I'm complaining that you don't seem capable of seeing the inconsistency in your position.

Tell me, does your Bible include the seven books that Luther excised? If not, why not?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, my translation does not include the Apocrypha because they did not exist in the earliest Hebrew versions.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

my translation does not include the Apocrypha because they did not exist in the earliest Hebrew versions.

Well, that's interesting. A few posts back you were saying that the Council of Carthage was compelled by God to define those books as divine. Seems a bit of a problem you have for yourself, there.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I did not know the Council of Carthage included them. I apologize. I don't know every Bible fact there is to know. If what you say is true, and I don't believe you would lie about something that could be looked up as fact/fiction (not a matter of opinion), then I humbly retract my statement that they were doing God's will. Thank you for the education. I have no problem admitting when I don't know something.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I did not know the Council of Carthage included them

Included them? The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were assemblies of Catholic bishops. They defined what books were to be included in the Bible.

The simple fact is that without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I still say God defined what books were in the Bible. I believe the word of God would have found a way to survive and spread, with or without the Catholic Church. Since we can't rewrite history, we'll never know.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I still say God defined what books were in the Bible.

Fine, then my question to you is when did He do that? Cause now you're talking about a period of about 400 years when there was no defined Bible, and another 1100 years when there was a Bible with supposedly false books in it, and arguing, I guess, that God defined the Bible through Luther.

God defined the Bible through the Catholic Church.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I will say, flat out, that I really have no idea how God defined the Bible. I don't think anyone really knows. There is a lot of scholarly debate on how He or man/church/etc. did. But I think only God can really answer that question. I respect your tremendous knowledge of Christian history. When I have time to plow through a lot of my "reading list," I hope to have a better answer for you. At least something to engender discussion.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I responded to this philological point in the other thread on this topic.