Ask Me Help Desk - Beliefs that are harmful and corruptions of the Christian faith:

Beliefs that are harmful and corruptions of the Christian faith:

1. Total depravity -- the idea that we’re all just awful and that’s why we need God to save us.

2. We are all constantly at risk of going to hell because of something we do or believe or doubt.

3. You get saved by accepting Jesus as your personal savior.

4. There is an “order of creation” ordained by God that establishes gender roles, family structure, etc.

5. The Bible is inerrant.

6. Shun people who believe differently than those in your church.

7. All religions actually lead us on the same path to God.

8. Religions are mutually exclusive.

9. Priests/ministers/rabbis should be men because Jesus was a dude.

10. America was founded as a Christian nation.

Do you agree that any of the above are harmful or corruptions? If so, why? If not, why not?

1. Total depravity -- the idea that we’re all just awful and that’s why we need God to save us. We are sinners in need of a Savior. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [f]and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

2. We are all constantly at risk of going to hell because of something we do or believe or doubt. True for unbelievers because of sin. It's a very plain and clear Biblical truth. John 3:16 for instance.

3. You get saved by accepting Jesus as your personal savior. The most thoroughly Biblical statement a person can make.

4. There is an “order of creation” ordained by God that establishes gender roles, family structure, etc. There are gender roles and family structure in the Bible.

5. The Bible is inerrant. Not sure on that one. I lean in that direction, but still not 100% in.

6. Shun people who believe differently than those in your church. No. Just the opposite.

7. All religions actually lead us on the same path to God. This is a list of harmful and corrupted beliefs, so I would agree that this statement is harmful and a corruption of the truth.

8. Religions are mutually exclusive. The Christian faith is radically different from all other faiths.

9. Priests/ministers/rabbis should be men because Jesus was a dude. No. I've never even heard that one before.

10. America was founded as a Christian nation. No. To say we were founded on Biblical principles would be closer to the truth.

For the first nine, it's not what we "believe" that makes the difference. The plain and clear teaching of the Bible is what counts. At least it is so long as we consider our beliefs to come from the Bible and not from our own personal inclinations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Do you agree that any of the above are harmful or corruptions? If so, why? If not, why not?

This reads like a fundamentalist manifesto.

It's a perfect example of a primitive religion stuck in the throes of a strongman "God" and, in this case, by a series of books written by as many authors over several centuries. The Bible is hardly inerrant but it does contain many good things along with many allegories unfortunately taken as literal by too many of its adherents resulting in absurdities.

The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century. The Bible was further changed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It may yet be changed again at some point in the future as more and more is learned about how it was written.

Like all religions, Christianity has both good and bad. Your list contains the bad and I would add to that list the existence of hell and the existence of the devil - both notions lifted from other cultures/religions at the time.

A mature Christianity has evolved over the centuries since its founding and the modern version properly understood and interpreted is admirable for its lessons and worthy of imitation.

Tell us where it was changed. Be specific. And please no fake quotes.

You sure got off topic in a hurry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

8. Religions are mutually exclusive. The Christian faith is radically different from all other faiths.

Consider a god impregnating a human female -- a few examples:
***Zeus came to Danae in the form of a golden shower and left her pregnant with the Greek hero, Perseus.
***Jupiter forcibly overcame Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducted her. He imprisoned her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.
***The earliest accounts of Zoroaster’s birth had him born of a human father and mother, but in later accounts his mother was pierced by a shaft of divine light.
***The Buddha’s mother Maya, in a dream, found herself pregnant after being entered from the side by a god.
***Helen of Troy, the rare female offspring of a god-human mating, was produced when Zeus took the form of a swan to get access to Leda.
***The Virgin Mary got pregnant when the spirit of the Lord came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her.

Well, you are confirming your status as an anti-Bible, anti-truth sinner. Amazing. Jesus is nothing more to you than Helen of Troy or Zoraster. Nothing in the Bible is to believed in your view. Sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, you are confirming your status as an anti-Bible, anti-truth sinner. Amazing. Jesus is nothing more to you than Helen of Troy or Zoraster. Nothing in the Bible is to believed in your view. Sad.

Why would the Gospel writers frame the story of Jesus' conception to be so like that of gods in other religions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Consider a god impregnating a human female -- a few examples:
***Zeus came to Danae in the form of a golden shower and left her pregnant with the Greek hero, Perseus.
***Jupiter forcibly overcame Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducted her. He imprisoned her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.
***The earliest accounts of Zoroaster’s birth had him born of a human father and mother, but in later accounts his mother was pierced by a shaft of divine light.
***The Buddha’s mother Maya, in a dream, found herself pregnant after being entered from the side by a god.
***Helen of Troy, the rare female offspring of a god-human mating, was produced when Zeus took the form of a swan to get access to Leda.
***The Virgin Mary got pregnant when the spirit of the Lord came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her.

These are excellent examples of the stories current in the days of writing the Gospels. It made it quite easy for the story of the Virgin birth as "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit to be accepted by the early believers in Jesus.

Get ready to be called a heretic and a lost sinner on the way to eternal hell - another story taken at face value by the early believers and especially the Christian establishment .

Quote:

Tell us where it was changed. Be specific. And please no fake quotes.

You sure got off topic in a hurry.

Still needs an answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Still needs an answer.

You can't figure this out for yourself with the huge internet at your fingertips? How lazy can one person be?

During the Protestant Reformation, the following books were dropped or changed:

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, Daniel and Esther.

Next time, do your own research.

Quote:

Why would the Gospel writers frame the story of Jesus' conception to be so like that of gods in other religions?

How do you know they did?

You really think the account of the virgin birth parallels these stories??? Were any of those stories prophesied six hundred years before they happened? Do you have eye witness accounts written within seventy years of those occurrences?

Quote:

Jupiter forcibly overcame Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducted her. He imprisoned her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.

Oh yeah. That sounds a LOT like the virgin birth account.

Quote:

***The earliest accounts of Zoroaster’s birth had him born of a human father and mother, but in later accounts his mother was pierced by a shaft of divine light.

Except that there are no early accounts that say Jesus was born of a human mother and father.

Quote:

***The Buddha’s mother Maya, in a dream, found herself pregnant after being entered from the side by a god.

Not even close.

Quote:

You can't figure this out for yourself with the huge internet at your fingertips? How lazy can one person be?

During the Protestant Reformation, the following books were dropped or changed:

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, Daniel and Esther.

Next time, do your own research.

So the New Testament, which was of course the topic of discussion ("The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century."), was not changed. Whew! That's a relief. And notice that I did not have to insert any words into what was actually a quote from you...for real!!

Why should I do research for your outlandish remarks?

Where were Daniel and Esther changed? Specifically. Especially considering that the Masoretic text, which is the basis for our Old Testament, dates from the tenth century, about six centuries PRIOR to the Reformation. Kind of doesn't make sense, does it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Except that there are no early accounts that say Jesus was born of a human mother and father.

Mary and her husband Joseph.

Quote:

Where were Daniel and Esther changed?

Wikipedia has a good article about the Apocrypha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century."), was not changed.

I wrote "The Bible has been changed etc etc Protestant Reformation". THE BIBLE! Good Lord, there you go, changing the words again to suit yourself.

Quote:

Why should I do research for your outlandish remarks?

Easy - to get the answer you seek. Then when you get it, come back and tell us if it's still "outlandish". You probably won't, tho'. See how we know your BS?

Quote:

Where were Daniel and Esther changed?

Look it up. Another simple exercise.

Quote:

the basis for our Old Testament, dates from the tenth century, about six centuries PRIOR to the Reformation. Kind of doesn't make sense, does it?

That didn't bother you when it came to citing non-existent copies of Gospels in 70 AD - did it?

1, Changed words? No, that's your area. I quoted you exactly. Remember those little quotations mark do-daddies? But if you don't know, then that's fine

2. As usual, you cannot support your own claims and are reduced to the childish effort of trying to get someone else to help you cheat on your homework.

3. Again, you have no clue

4. Who said they were non-existent? Oh wait. That's right, you make a claim, and someone else is supposed to research it. I keep forgetting!

BTW, it was yet another non answer.

See what I mean about people who make grandiose claims but have no ability at all to support them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

1, Changed words? No, that's your area. I quoted you exactly. But if you don't know, then that's fine

Here is what I said, word for word - The Bible was further changed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

Go away, will you? You really are becoming a pest.

You keep forgetting that AMHD keeps great records. This is what you said. I underlined the part I quoted and you are trying desperately to forget about.

Quote:

The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century. The Bible was further changed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It may yet be changed again at some point in the future as more and more is learned about how it was written.

Remember now?

Quote:

Except that there are no early accounts that say Jesus was born of a human mother and father.

Mary and her husband Joseph.

You know of an early source that says Joseph was the physical father of Jesus? Where? And please don't tell me to google it.

Quote:

Where were Daniel and Esther changed?

Quote:

Wikipedia has a good article about the Apocrypha.

Thank you for answering a question that was not asked. This was the question. "Where were Daniel and Esther changed?" Those two books are not in the Apocrypha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You keep forgetting that AMHD keeps great records. This is what you said. I underlined the part I quoted and you are trying desperately to forget about.

Remember now?

Dear God, how dopey can you be? The very statement I made is in your actual quote of mine. You asked for a specific - I gave you one, (actually I gave you several). For additional examples, I told you to look it up on the internet. You refuse to do that because you know what you will find and you don't like it.

You gave me nothing from the NT which is exactly what I said. I will not help you cheat on your homework. Truth is, you have no clue. You made a big, bold statement and then got called on it. That's on you.

Note for the future. I will call you out every time you try that silly strategy. Be prepared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"Where were Daniel and Esther changed?" Those two books are not in the Apocrypha.

Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it's Labor Day and I'm resting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's on you.

No it's on you. It's ALWAYS been on you. Always.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it Labor Day and I'm resting.

Plus it's Monday - the traditional day of rest. Rest well, WG.

Quote:

Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it Labor Day and I'm resting.

I wouldn't waste my time doing your bidding. If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.

The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I wouldn't waste my time doing your bidding. If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.

Wow, not very nice.

Quote:

The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?

Another example of your discombobulation. (I like that word - thanks for helping me coin it).

Quote:

The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?

Another example of your discombobulation. (I like that word - thanks for helping me coin it).

You are certainly good at nonsense words. Now as to serious answers, well, not so good as your fourth or fifth non-answer illustrates. But here's the question again if it helps any. "The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century?"

Have you guys ever noticed how frequently you are reduced to the plea, "Google it yourself"? I have listened to many serious debates, but I've never heard anyone respond with that advice. Wonder why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are certainly good at nonsense words.

Discombobulation (and its variations) is a word, has been in use since the early 19th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

9. Priests/ministers/rabbis should be men because Jesus was a dude. No. I've never even heard that one before.

You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Have you guys ever noticed how frequently you are reduced to the plea, "Google it yourself"? I have listened to many serious debates, but I've never heard anyone respond with that advice. Wonder why not?

Because when we quote a source, you spit on us and say it's worthless. If you research it HONESTLY yourself....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.

The Lutherans even split in two during the '60s and '70s because of this very thing. Now there's ELCA (women as pastors) and LCMS (only men can be pastors).

Quote:

You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.

Never heard of it being related to Jesus being a man. But I'm not Catholic for a variety of reasons. The only claim I make is that I am able to support my claims without resorting to, "You need to Google it."

Quote:

Because when we quote a source, you spit on us and say it's worthless.

You posted one source earlier, and then YOU spit on it. Be honest. So like I said after that, if you want me to read your links, then don't post losers.

Quote:

If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.

Not very nice? It's my constant retort to you two. Has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with treating topics seriously and wanting everyone who reads these posts to know that you two cannot support your grandiose, bold claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Not very nice? It's my constant retort to you two. Has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with treating topics seriously and wanting everyone who reads these posts to know that you two cannot support your grandiose, bold claims.

We do but you refuse to even consider them. Like you refused to read that terrific blog on what is hell.

It came on the heels of the link that you blew up yourself. If you want someone to take time to read your articles, then provide good ones. EVEN BETTER, just provide the answers yourself. Ever notice how infrequently I suggest you go to this or that article? Why not copy and paste the pertinent sections? Do the work yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. And no, that is not meant to be mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

10. America was founded as a Christian nation. No. To say we were founded on Biblical principles would be closer to the truth.

Here's another one: Jl says, This nation is founded on Biblical principles. Let's take a look at that one.

For example, the great laws handed down to Moses - The Ten Commandments.

1. I am the Lord thy God. No, not that one. The nation purposely left that one out - in fact denied it was a founding principle in the First Amendment.
2. No carved images. Nope. We have lots of carved images.
3. Take God's name in vain. Nah. It's not nice but not a founding principle.
4. Keep holy the sabbath, Nope.
5. Honor Mom and Dad. Good idea, but not a founding principle.
6. Do not murder. Yup. There's one - definitely a founding principle, even a law.
7. Adultery. Never even mentioned as founding principle.
8. Do not steal. Yes, again.
9. Do not lie. Well, maybe - especially in a court of law. Partial credit
10. The coveting business. Actually, the nation's economy is built on coveting. Definitely NOT a founding principle.

There you have it. Two out of ten - a .200 batting average. Pretty weak.

The USA is more founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, the era that prospered after the Church lost influence. Those principles were rooted in thousands of years of human civilization including much trial and error.

Religions certainly helped when they promoted unity and good behavior from the earliest Sumerians to the present day. But they were never the prime mover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It came on the heels of the link that you blew up yourself. If you want someone to take time to read your articles, then provide good ones. EVEN BETTER, just provide the answers yourself. Ever notice how infrequently I suggest you go to this or that article? Why not copy and paste the pertinent sections? Do the work yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. And no, that is not meant to be mean.

I've tried the c/p thing and got shot down. It's never good enough for you, no matter what I do. Only if I post something you agree with is it good enough.

Quote:

" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

WG, I'd love to see you answer this one.

Quote:

Here's another one: Jl says, This nation is founded on Biblical principles. Let's take a look at that one.

For example, the great laws handed down to Moses - The Ten Commandments.

You brought up the Ten Commandments, not me. I didn't say we were founded on the Ten Commandments, but on Biblical principles. But bear in mind that just because something is not in law does not mean it is not honored. There was a day when adultery, lying, and dishonoring parents were frowned upon.

I'm going to start a list of questions you guys are unable or unwilling to answer. I'll work on that tomorrow. There have been several just tonight.

Quote:

I've tried the c/p thing and got shot down.

When?

Quote:

It's never good enough for you, no matter what I do. Only if I post something you agree with is it good enough.

I ask questions and you evade them. You provide links that even you don't agree with. What am I to do with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I didn't say we were founded on the Ten Commandments, but on Biblical principles.

Please list the Biblical principles this nation is founded on. Be specific.

A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.

A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law

That's a good start.

Some more material of interest. "The body of the Constitution makes no reference to God. The Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath. The President was given 10 days to sign a bill into law. The counting of the 10 days does not include the Sabbath. This is found in Article 1, Section 7, and Clause 2 which in part follows:“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”

When the Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, it was signed by the delegates then to be ratified by the states. The delegates signed the Constitution in the “Year of our Lord.” This is a direct reference to Christianity. This is found in Article 7 which in part follows:"

http://www.internationalcopsforchris...istian-nation/

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.

A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law

That's a good start.

Why don't the citizens respect those principles?

Because we are no longer a nation with respect for the Bible. Frankly, we have become like you. We like the parts that agree with us. And again, not mean, but truthful.

This question so illustrates that. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?" You are excited about "unconditional love" which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and yet refuse to accept hell which is mentioned throughout the NT. See what I mean? That's not mean or condescending. It's simply a statement you can respond to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Because we are no longer a nation with respect for the Bible. Frankly, we have become like you. We like the parts that agree with us. And again, not mean, but truthful.

The parts that I like and agree with? So, if I don't believe all of it literally, every word is true, I don't respect the Bible?

Quote:

" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?" You are excited about "unconditional love" which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and yet refuse to accept hell which is mentioned throughout the NT. See what I mean? That's not mean or condescending. It's simply a statement you can respond to.

Worth repeating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Worth repeating.

Agape, God's love, unconditional. Even our Greek scholar who has been fascinated by that language since he was a kid and learned it and Hebrew in college, agreed with that.