Ja der er mange ord sammensat i forskellige kombinationer i den der bog fra tidlig jernalder de kalder bivlen.
Men det er stort set alt sammen nonsens, og uden reel betydning, og derfor også irrelevant.
I’m sorry I can’t have this discussion in Danish, I’m still a beginner.
You can think that all the Bible is nonsense, it’s your right and maybe you’re right. But if someone calls themselves “Christian” they have to abide by the teaching of Jesus Christ, or you’ll be called hypocritical. It’s this hypocrisy I underlined.
The Bible is not a book, it’s a library with a lot of different authors and context of writing, and ideas, and publics and goals. There’s a lot of contradictions in it. That’s why we Christians prioritize some texts over others, and every denomination tends to prioritize other texts. We Lutheran use, like Luther said, the life and teachings of Jesus to do that (“was Christum treibet”). Again, you can think it’s stupid and again, you may even be right. But don’t call yourself Lutheran if you contradict the basic beliefs of Lutheranism. Or again again, it’s hypocritical.
But if someone calls themselves “Christian” they have to abide by the teaching of Jesus Christ, or you’ll be called hypocritical. It’s this hypocrisy I underlined.
One would think so, but there is always a counter scripture. and Christians are actually hypocrites. For instance the “no true Scotsman” applies. Throwing Bible verses around is futile. The way forward is reason and logic and understanding that the Bible does not promote justice or empathy or love or anything else it claims. It is actually contrary to it.
The Bible is not a book
Bible literally means book. But yes I am aware it contains scripture from different sources spanning across bronze to iron age. But the Bible is a specific collection acknowledged by the Catholic church at the time it was created.
I don’t think Morten Dahlin is a Lutheran, he is a protestant but Lutheran is just a branch of that.
I don’t understand how anyone can be Lutheran though, Martin Luther started out as a compassionate humanitarian, but ended out as an insane bigot.
So which part of the two is it Lutherans believe?
I am sorry if I am a bit harsh, you sound like an honestly good person, but as I see it, religion is actively harmful, and you are enabling it.
But yes I am aware it contains scripture from different sources spanning across bronze to iron age
Of course there’s no writing in the bronze age, and it goes to farther than iron age, the most recent books are from the beginning of the 2nd century of the common era, 7 centuries after the end of the iron age.
I don’t think Morten Dahlin is a Lutheran
I don’t know him enough, but I thought he was a member of the Church of Denmark, which is a Lutheran church. If he’s not, the first paragraph still applies, and the second probably too but with other names, as the precedence of Christ’s teaching is quite widely recognized, the only notable exception being American evangelicalism.
I see it, religion is actively harmful, and you are enabling it.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but from what I saw in your message your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is quite superficial. Sorry if I’m harsh too, but you should read more before being that much definitive in your opinions. You may be right, but you should recognise that you may be wrong too.
den danske folkekirke er en evangelisk-luthersk kirke.
your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is quite superficial.
I don’t think so, I investigated the matter thoroughly before deciding I was an Atheist. After that it has become ever more crystal clear to me that the Bible is false in every extraordinary claim it makes. And even a lot of the not so extraordinary are curiously false too.
you should read more before being that much definitive in your opinions.
I was told many times to read the Bible, so finally 30 years ago I decided to do it.
Which I guess many who recommend it actually haven’t. Reading the Bible may be the best cure against Christianity there is.
Reading the Bible may be the best cure against Christianity there is.
If it’s a cure against biblical literalism, it’s just the proof that you’re intelligent. But reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity, which is not reducible to the Bible.
That’s what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it’s a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That’s why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God’s free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?
Ja der er mange ord sammensat i forskellige kombinationer i den der bog fra tidlig jernalder de kalder bivlen.
Men det er stort set alt sammen nonsens, og uden reel betydning, og derfor også irrelevant.
Der står f.eks. også “Bring mig deres forhud.”
https://www.bibelselskabet.dk/brugbibelen/bibelenonline/1_mos/17
I’m sorry I can’t have this discussion in Danish, I’m still a beginner.
You can think that all the Bible is nonsense, it’s your right and maybe you’re right. But if someone calls themselves “Christian” they have to abide by the teaching of Jesus Christ, or you’ll be called hypocritical. It’s this hypocrisy I underlined.
The Bible is not a book, it’s a library with a lot of different authors and context of writing, and ideas, and publics and goals. There’s a lot of contradictions in it. That’s why we Christians prioritize some texts over others, and every denomination tends to prioritize other texts. We Lutheran use, like Luther said, the life and teachings of Jesus to do that (“was Christum treibet”). Again, you can think it’s stupid and again, you may even be right. But don’t call yourself Lutheran if you contradict the basic beliefs of Lutheranism. Or again again, it’s hypocritical.
One would think so, but there is always a counter scripture. and Christians are actually hypocrites. For instance the “no true Scotsman” applies. Throwing Bible verses around is futile. The way forward is reason and logic and understanding that the Bible does not promote justice or empathy or love or anything else it claims. It is actually contrary to it.
Bible literally means book. But yes I am aware it contains scripture from different sources spanning across bronze to iron age. But the Bible is a specific collection acknowledged by the Catholic church at the time it was created.
I don’t think Morten Dahlin is a Lutheran, he is a protestant but Lutheran is just a branch of that.
I don’t understand how anyone can be Lutheran though, Martin Luther started out as a compassionate humanitarian, but ended out as an insane bigot.
So which part of the two is it Lutherans believe?
I am sorry if I am a bit harsh, you sound like an honestly good person, but as I see it, religion is actively harmful, and you are enabling it.
I answered that later in my message.
No. Bible means books.
Of course there’s no writing in the bronze age, and it goes to farther than iron age, the most recent books are from the beginning of the 2nd century of the common era, 7 centuries after the end of the iron age.
I don’t know him enough, but I thought he was a member of the Church of Denmark, which is a Lutheran church. If he’s not, the first paragraph still applies, and the second probably too but with other names, as the precedence of Christ’s teaching is quite widely recognized, the only notable exception being American evangelicalism.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but from what I saw in your message your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is quite superficial. Sorry if I’m harsh too, but you should read more before being that much definitive in your opinions. You may be right, but you should recognise that you may be wrong too.
Lol I didn’t know that. I just thought it was just Protestant. But I checked it out and you are right.
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkekirken
I don’t think so, I investigated the matter thoroughly before deciding I was an Atheist. After that it has become ever more crystal clear to me that the Bible is false in every extraordinary claim it makes. And even a lot of the not so extraordinary are curiously false too.
I was told many times to read the Bible, so finally 30 years ago I decided to do it.
Which I guess many who recommend it actually haven’t. Reading the Bible may be the best cure against Christianity there is.
If it’s a cure against biblical literalism, it’s just the proof that you’re intelligent. But reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity, which is not reducible to the Bible.
Funny because it’s gods word, so one would think everything came from the bible. What other source trump what the alleged prophets wrote?
I also thought the whole point of Luther translating the bible, was to give people access to the word of god.
That’s what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it’s a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That’s why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God’s free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?