what would the world be like if christians followed the bible, muslims followed the koran, and jews followed the torah 100%? like they all did exactly what their holy books told them?

>>17846877 (OP)
Which interpretation are they following 100%

Of all times in history this is the one that would change the least

>>17846877 (OP)
Nothing they are women ( only women care about morals )

>>17846877 (OP)
Christians, as the body of God upon the earth, would rule from their heavenly kingdom over all of the earth. Muslims, being the uncalled, would be their loyal dogs and enforcers. Jews, any left alive, would wander in exile awaiting their supposed messiah to make them rulers of the earth.

>>17846877 (OP)
The world would be a paradise.

>>17846877 (OP)
well, as always some evil fuck would start manipulating all of them by merely citing the verses that would make them act the way he wants them to

All the Christians would be Calvinists

>>17846877 (OP)
Unironically a good question by >>17846888. The Bible (including the Torah here) aren't written in a way where they could be just found by a stranger, read and followed. They were created as part of a Tradition and it requires that Tradition to follow, otherwise you fall into various theoretical questions trying to re-construct what a writer meant from archeology, then you realize the writer is irrelevant and the editor actually re-purposed a story and so on.
I know considerably less about the Quran, but from what I know it would also be difficult to follow as-is without any secondary scriptures.

So all-in-all your question cannot be answered but it can be repurposed into "what would the world be like if each theist followed their faith 100%?" and it would be amazing because we would probably see much clearly which religion is real and which isn't.

>>17846877 (OP)
they would all be dead many, many centuries ago

>>17847163
Your "tradition" has nothing to do with the bible, it's just a way to create excuses for why you don't believe or follow the bible and twist it into pretzel knots. The bible is perfectly clear on its own merits.

>>17847246
>The bible is perfectly clear on its own merits.
Isn't it odd then that protestantism (which tried precisely to understand the Bible on its own merit) has fractured into thousands of wildly differing versions while the denominations that claim the Tradition have remained few and mostly interchangeable on 95% of issues?

>>17847261
>Isn't it odd then
No it's not because this is counter-factual fiction papists have brainwashed themselves into believing by spamming memes at each other. In reality, groups that actually believe in sola scriptura have far more unity than those who deny it, if we restrict the competition between them and Rome or Constantinople, even then there is much more unity.
>denominations that claim the Tradition have remained few and mostly interchangeable on 95% of issues?
This is an expression of your own ignorance and proof you have never spoken to a knowledgeable Greek about their theology, for they are miles away from either one of us. Most tradcaths conceive of the Great Schism as a merely political historical event, they are wrong. It was the inevitable product of centuries of building division of doctrine and practice. This is without acknowledging the other groups that merely have broken off from you and claim your human tradition: how bout the old catholics or the many sedevacantists or pope Michael? These groups certainly qualify as different denominations of Romanism (this argument always presupposes a Romish ecclesiology), but they all have much less in common than two Presbyterian churches which happen to exist in different countries and exist as different denominations for practical reasons. The bloated multinational bureaucracy of Rome is foreign to scripture.

>>17847299
>In reality, groups that actually believe in sola scriptura have far more unity than those who deny it
It's a shame then that the Apostles are excluded from this unity.

The idea that the Bible is "perfectly clear on its own merits" isn't exclusive to sola scriptura denominations. I can just as well tell you that Armenian Orthodox are much more cohesive than sola scriptura followers, but that doesn't mean much because arbitrarily narrowing down Traditionalists and Protestants gives no insight.

>It was the inevitable product of centuries of building division of doctrine and practice.
I'm aware. And that's the 5% - filioque, extremes of mysticism, role of propositional thinking and theology and the like. But when a Catholic and an Orthodox read a chapter in the book of Judges, they will come to pretty much the same conclusions. Not to "well yeah this guy had 30 sons on 30 donkeys so what" that many literalists will stop at.
> groups certainly qualify as different denominations of Romanism
A couple more hundreds of those groups and Catholics will be on equal footing.

>>17847322
>It's a shame then that the Apostles are excluded from this unity.
They certainly have not
>The idea that the Bible is "perfectly clear on its own merits" isn't exclusive to sola scriptura denominations.
Consistently, it is.
>arbitrarily narrowing down Traditionalists and Protestants gives no insight
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, you mean you want to compare Protestants to everyone who rejects biblical authority in favor of human ones? Ok, what do Rome and the Mormons have in common?
>And that's the 5%
It's considerably more than that. Do you know why they reject the filioque? It's not because the pope added it without asking. Are you aware they deny even the cross is a propitiation, let alone the mass?
>But when a Catholic and an Orthodox read a chapter in the book of Judges, they will come to pretty much the same conclusions
No you won't, two papists won't agree about it except that it has no authority. This sharp unity of tradition you assume exists, it's fantasy. Rome and Constantinople are wildly different about much more than something as facile as philosophy. In part, it's because "tradition" itself as a deposit of faith does not exist and never did, the term is merely an excuse that is thrown out when one is challenged for believing and doing things the apostles never did, it simply means "whatever we happen to be doing at the time".
>A couple more hundreds of those groups and Catholics will be on equal footing.
You've already surpassed us, again, there is unity of faith and doctrine between our churches.

>>17847357
>>The idea that the Bible is "perfectly clear on its own merits" isn't exclusive to sola scriptura denominations.
>Consistently, it is.
This is so factually wrong I must only conclude that the term "consistently" is doing some very avant-garde lifting here.
>you mean you want to compare Protestants to everyone who rejects biblical authority in favor of human ones?
It means I want to compare Catholics and Orthodox to Protestants. Mormonism was created during Protestant revivalism of the 1820s.
>>And that's the 5%
>It's considerably more than that. Do you know why they reject the filioque?
How many percent would you wager?
Yes, "they" reject it because it usurps the monarchy of the Father and because it inappropriately re-presents the persons against the essence. Which is a very fair point, but in terms of a Christian's life there will be maybe 4 occasions when this distinction alone will make a difference. Hence 5% to be generous with post-schiscm developments.
>things the apostles never did
How do you know? Peter taught for years and years and years and only wrote a few pages that we know of. Don't you think the Chuch (the actual thing Christ established to carry the faith) would be more of a repository than a few pages that survived by happenstance while other didn't?
>You've already surpassed us, again, there is unity of faith and doctrine between our churches.
If only a narrow selection of the churches is considered, definitely. But that is statistical dishonesty.

>>17847389
>Mormonism was created during Protestant revivalism of the 1820s.
If the year is the problem you have, Rome and Constantinople are both medieval.
>How many percent would you wager?
I wouldn't put a number on it
>Hence 5% to be generous
You anathematize each other, sir. In order to pretend like you have anything in common you have to ignore and smooth over such worlds of difference as this that you may as well say you have 95% in common with muslims.
>How do you know?
They wrote a book.
>If only a narrow selection of the churches is considered, definitely
I am not only considering a narrow selection, I am considering all of our churches which affirm the 5 solas of the Reformation.

(cont.)

>>17847389
>Don't you think the Chuch (the actual thing Christ established to carry the faith) would be more of a repository than a few pages that survived by happenstance while other didn't?
This betrays the incredibly low and faithless view of scripture which Romanism necessitates. You have just reduced the words of God to chance, as if He had no sovereign power or did not inspire the text. It is interesting you should cite Peter for this example, since he is the one who said "no prophecy of scripture came about by human interpretation, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". God spoke to men with the intention that His words would be understood and lead them. Now, looking particularly at the true Church, it is the ideal repository of truth insofar as it has received it from the revelation of God given in scripture alone, but where she departs from the scripture her testimony is of no more value than any other merely human source. Now, what is the Church, and what does it look like for her to contain the truth? It is not a bureaucratic monstrosity like exists in Rome, and it is not by her own authoritative decrees. Where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered, there is the Church. The truth which is upheld by the Church is not from human wisdom or demonic influence (which is false religion and worthless) but from the revelation of God (which is given in scripture alone). Rome does much worse than merely derive doctrine outside of divine revelation, she actively contradicts that revelation and prostitutes her own authority over against scripture to silence its tribunal over her. She is apostate and heretical, having failed from the faith once delivered to the saints and teaching various deadly heresies and thrusting them forward to be believed under pain of a curse.

>>17847493
>>17847499

>If the year is the problem you have
It is not.
>>How many percent would you wager?
>I wouldn't put a number on it
Pretty please. You appeared so knowledgeable so far, now you would hesitate to quantify what chunk of doctrines diverge in a meaningful way?
>>Hence 5% to be generous
>You anathematize each other, sir.
Including for non-doctrinal issues such as schismatism.
>>>things the apostles never did
>>How do you know?
>They wrote a book.
And what would that book be? Surely you're not referring to them writing a bunch of letters and a handful of those letters being later compiled with no claims to comprehensiveness?
>You have just reduced the words of God to chance, as if He had no sovereign power or did not inspire the text.
Many inspired speeches are lost to time. To make your case it is not sufficient that the Bible is a collection of inspired texts, it is necessary that they form a comprehensive picture of Christ's teachings and apostolic practices. Which they don't.
>God spoke to men with the intention that His words would be understood and lead them.
In the Church, yes. That's why Christ founded the Church instead of writing down texts.
>revelation of God given in scripture alone
Really? So all the countless things Christ has taught and done don't count unless they were written down? You have to be joking...
>Where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered, there is the Church.
I would actually agree. The only problem is that the understanding of the gospel and sacraments comes from participative understanding of Christ, not from reading about him. And this is carried in a human way, not in a textual way.

Your argument boils down to
>The scripture is clear because I trust my interpretation.
Well great, so do millions of others. But your interpretation is very unlikely true if it doesn't conform to people who received their interpretative framework from apostles themselves.

>>17846895
hahaha

>>17847521
>now you would hesitate to quantify what chunk of doctrines diverge in a meaningful way?
I don't hesitate, I deny it. Religion is not mathematical.
>Including for non-doctrinal issues such as schismatism.
Not limited to that, though even then it is not unrelated to doctrinal issues such as the authority of the Roman pontiff, defiance of whom you are defining as "schism".
>And what would that book be?
The New Testament of Jesus Christ.
>Surely you're not referring to them writing a bunch of letters and a handful of those letters being later compiled with no claims to comprehensiveness?
What does 2 Timothy 3:14-17 say?
>Many inspired speeches are lost to time
How many of them were authored by God for His Church in every age?
>To make your case it is not sufficient that the Bible is a collection of inspired texts
Yes it is, because the bible alone is inspired. Hence it is the only font of divine religion, and to derive religion from anything else is to derive it from something other than God.
>Which they don't.
Can you defend that claim? I think you can't, it's an arbitrary assertion which is typical of Romanist attacks on the bible.
>In the Church, yes
You have snuck your bureaucrats in where they are not welcome. We must not forget precisely what it is you mean when you say "Church": men in pointy hats arrogating to themselves the power to bind men's consciences. These are not only unnecessary for scripture to function they are incompatible.
>So all the countless things Christ has taught and done don't count unless they were written down?
Can you show me where the words of Christ are outside of scripture?
>The only problem is that the understanding of the gospel and sacraments comes from participative understanding of Christ, not from reading about him.
I agree, reading the scriptures will give you an entirely different understanding of the gospel and sacraments than you will receive from the church of Rome.
>Your argument boils down to
Strawman fallacy.

>>17847521
>But your interpretation is very unlikely true if it doesn't conform to people who received their interpretative framework from apostles themselves.
Your priests did not receive anything from the apostles, your human traditions are medieval innovations which very frequently cannot be traced to within half a millennium of the apostles. The interpretative framework I use to read scripture is the very same one you are using right now to read my words, which all men always do and must use to communicate with each other, and which is only abandoned when one desires not to understand the meaning but impose it.

Hello everyone, I saw in telegram that one person is killing animals in the channel, help me what to do