Is the Bible word of God?
Say, the word of God is something we, human beings need because we need something we can rely on.
Something not human-origin that can bind us to.
Then why, I wonder? Why?
Is it because humans are evil? Without something from higher authorities than our own, we won't submit our wild oats. That is, we are all evil.
Okay, I get that.
But every word and every syllable need to be divinely inspired so that we are religiously bound to make it a cause to oppress others?
Here, the very inevitability has revealed its own colors.
What if all we needed from the beginning was means of oppression, not divine message? Now God and his words have become our own tool to persecute others and enslave them to our own agendas.
Herold Camping: Christianity, the delusion
If you look at people who follow Camping's message or people in church or others of any form of religion for that matter, we all need something to follow.
In that sense, the word of Christ is poignantly correct: Sheep without a shepherd.
Why do they need the Bible to be the word of God, infallible and divinely inspired? Why indeed?
Wasn't it written by the hand of men? Yes, they admit it. But they still insist it to be something too special to be related to any flaw.
I wonder if it's another way of self-denial? On what ground can we even imagine a possibility of divine intervention in the writing of men?
What makes us convinced that God's intervention or special revelation is only possible in the form of writing, even by intelligent product of men?
I think that idea itself defies the plausibility unless we want God to shut up. Is it an act of human intelligent coup?
Of course it appears compatible with exclusive representation of Christ, that is salvation by faith in Christ alone, but do we have enough evidence for that?
Is it just too comfortable for us to bother investigating the root for that grand claim of exclusivity?
If Christ's Messianic vision had been wrongly understood in Jewish traditions, why couldn't we take into account a possibility that salvation through Christ alone could have been misinterpreted?
I heard many times over that salvation is only through Christ alone. I get that. But that exclusivity doesn't mean salvation through the institutional orthodox only, or does it?
The kingdom of God is spiritual, intangible and invisible, then why are we seeking something spiritual out of carnal, physical and institutional entities?
Are we sure if "salvation through Christ alone" gives us a right to dominate the world like Muslim?
Are we willing to consider a possibility that salvation by Christ alone doesn't give Christianity as an institutional religion a right to denounce other religions as gospel of Satan?
What matters is not knowledge but real practice in life, said Christ. And preachers would say the same.
Then why do we even bother whether it's inspired by God or not or how much divinely it is handled or not?
Say, the Bible is the word of God. What's the use if people don't believe it, or even worse people believe it but don't do as it says?
What is real problem? To convince others that the Bible is the word of God or not whether it's fallible or not is more important than just live according to its principle?
Say, same teaching is found in the Bible and Koran or other religious creed, then is the teaching it biblical? Or is the teaching considered as biblical in the Koran? Something morally right in the Koran or other religion texts is not worth doing?
Christians are among them how different they are in doctrinal standpoint and waste time and efforts to set things right? The so called theology and denomination and their creed and points of belief.
I wonder if that makes them better Christian.
Can they really afford to argue and divide on the matter of theology and practices? Or they need to focus on how to live according to the teaching of the Bible if the Bible is the word of God as they said?
They would say there is right teaching and bad teaching. Yeah the so called heretics. Ha! The more I see it, that's another politics in the mask of religion. How to control people under the umbrella of their own doctrine is a way of politics.
To have people subscribed to my sector is a way of making political influence. People per se creates a political entity whether they intend or not. In the name of right sector, to lead sheep in the way of salvation they are engaged in politics.
Look how famous preachers try to influence social issues, because they know that's how to control people and control societies. They would say that's something to do with gospel. So fundamentally, religion cannot separate from politics. It's inborn dual identity.