Fundamentalism

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's good but Christians are still fighting over just what the Bible means.

There are Christians in the past claiming to hold to scripture that the RCC stamped out.

Have you gone back to them?

I read the Bible and couldn't find any justification for Mary-worship, saint-worship, or the papacy, so I dumped that stuff.

Later on, I did the same thing with the Recovery, comparing their traditions with the writ of the New Testament.

If you don't keep the standard of the scripture in order to test things by, how can you know what is good and what is not? Maybe the pope is right. Maybe Lee was right. Maybe Mel Porter was right. How can you even know without some proper external standard by which to calibrate the inner "sensor" of you heart to?

Every pseudo-Christian cult, every religion in the world, every agnostic, and every atheist uses another standard other than God's word. I agree that some Christians will mis-use the standard of the scripture, but that does not mean that God has not left us with some standard.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree that some Christians will mis-use the standard of the scripture, but that does not mean that God has not left us with some standard.

"In 1844, the national Baptist General Convention for Foreign Missions refused to license slaveowning missionaries. One year later, that refusal led to the split between the northern and southern Baptists. The southern Baptists were absolutely convinced that the Bible taught that God had divinely sanctioned slavery. As early as 1823, Richard Furman, a leader of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, a slaveholder, and for whom Furman University is named, stated in a famous address to the Governor of South Carolina, "The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." [See Exposition of The Views of the Baptists, Relative To The Coloured Population In The United States]. The next year, in 1845, those firmly convicted defenders of slavery formed their own separate Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention."
http://etb-history-theology.blogspot...story-101.html

The standard God left us, as you say, has not always been the standard that lives up to what we would expect of God's standard. It's not that sort of magic pill. It can be, and has been, a standard for evil.

Ya can't blame me for being skeptical of that so called standard.

Moreover, from what I see, those that use it as a standard the most are the ones most likely to use it to beat other Bible believers over the head with, and condemning each other.

That standard, by this assessment, is a failing standard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree that some Christians will mis-use the standard of the scripture, but that does not mean that God has not left us with some standard.

Originally Posted by awareness

"In 1844, the national Baptist General Convention for Foreign Missions refused to license slaveowning missionaries. One year later, that refusal led to the split between the northern and southern Baptists. The southern Baptists were absolutely convinced that the Bible taught that God had divinely sanctioned slavery. As early as 1823, Richard Furman, a leader of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, a slaveholder, and for whom Furman University is named, stated in a famous address to the Governor of South Carolina, "The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." [See Exposition of The Views of the Baptists, Relative To The Coloured Population In The United States]. The next year, in 1845, those firmly convicted defenders of slavery formed their own separate Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention."
http://etb-history-theology.blogspot...story-101.html

The standard God left us, as you say, has not always been the standard that lives up to what we would expect of God's standard. It's not that sort of magic pill. It can be, and has been, a standard for evil.

Ya can't blame me for being skeptical of that so called standard.

Moreover, from what I see, those that use it as a standard the most are the ones most likely to use it to beat other Bible believers over the head with, and condemning each other.

That standard, by this assessment, is a failing standard.

I think you just proved my point.

Where does the Lord Jesus or his apostles endorse slavery? Self-serving men almost 2 centuries ago twisted obscure verses in scripture to justify their lust for "filthy lucre."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think you just proved my point.

Where does the Lord Jesus or his apostles endorse slavery?

Eph_6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Col_3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
Col_4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
1Ti_6:1 Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.
Tit_2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Eph_6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Col_3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
Col_4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
1Ti_6:1 Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.
Tit_2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,

I never thought those were endorsements, rather Christian survival skills under Caesar Nero and the Roman empire.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never thought those were endorsements, rather Christian survival skills under Caesar Nero and the Roman empire.

Well now, doesn't that just blow my mind? I've never thought of that. I knew that after Jerusalem was sacked, the Christians were kissing up to the Romans, blaming the Jews for killing Jesus (they killed their God, deicide, those Jesus killers), and letting the Romans off the hook, but I didn't think that was going on in Paul's time.

I'll have to think about that, and look into it.

Thanks for bringing it up bro Ohio

But it still didn't condemn slavery ... and were verses used by the Southern Baptist, and the state of S. Carolina, to justify the holding of slaves.

Come to think of it, Jesus didn't condemn slavery either. Why not? Wouldn't that be a Jesus thing to do? right up Jesus' alley, so to speak?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

But it still didn't condemn slavery ... and were verses used by the Southern Baptist, and the state of S. Carolina, to justify the holding of slaves.

Come to think of it, Jesus didn't condemn slavery either. Why not? Wouldn't that be a Jesus thing to do? right up Jesus' alley, so to speak?

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:17 (NKJV)

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed; Luke 4:18 (NKJV)

The Bible explicitly states that Jesus wasn't sent to condemn the world, so why should there an expectation that he would condemn issues like slavery? If His purpose on this earth was to solely to define moral issues, then I could see a problem with Him not speaking out against it. But that's not why He was here.

In Luke 4:18, it talks about proclaiming liberty to the oppressed, not condemning the oppressors. That is why if people want Jesus to fit the role of someone who condemns certain issues, it's just doesn't work like that, that's not who He was.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well now, doesn't that just blow my mind? I've never thought of that. I knew that after Jerusalem was sacked, the Christians were kissing up to the Romans, blaming the Jews for killing Jesus (they killed their God, deicide, those Jesus killers), and letting the Romans off the hook, but I didn't think that was going on in Paul's time.

I'll have to think about that, and look into it.

Thanks for bringing it up bro Ohio

But it still didn't condemn slavery ... and were verses used by the Southern Baptist, and the state of S. Carolina, to justify the holding of slaves.

Come to think of it, Jesus didn't condemn slavery either. Why not? Wouldn't that be a Jesus thing to do? right up Jesus' alley, so to speak?

Briefly breaking my silence.

I like Freedom's response. Here is a different view on it.

God did not set out to cause his followers to simply follow the highest moral sensibilities of the 21st century during much earlier times. Instead, he worked on his people, step by step, issue by issue. As Freedom pointed out, the purpose was not simply better moral positions from day one. But better moral positions was ultimately part of the goal. That would be evident from the initial charge, or purpose of man which was to bear God's image on the earth (not to enjoy God). But at the very best, the Children of Israel did not bear His image very well, although they did improve over time. (It took all the way to Babylon to get rid of idols.)

And rather than simply order the end to slavery, the way it was carried out was put everything under the microscope of a level of integrity. (And if anyone had managed to start thinking of their slaves in terms of the "neighbors" they were supposed to love as themselves, then the Christians would eventually begin to see beyond the customs of the day.)

I have come to believe that rather than a book simply "written by God," the Bible is a book heavily written by men — followers of God — who sometimes correctly attributed things to God, and sometimes did not, but still managed to paint a pretty good picture of who this God was/is. And over time the view improved. By the time we get to the place where He is ready to come in the flesh, things are far from perfect, but the time is ripe for a loosening of some of the outward laws as those are instead to be written within.

Yet in writing within, there is always the problem of interpretation. Yes, the book is still there. But it is not directly saying anything about slavery. But the rules within move that direction. It starts with the release of slaves by righteous owners. At some point, society begins to move toward the same general morality and laws change. Some changed peacefully while others not so peacefully.

But if you consider the 10 commandments and realize that all of the law is found in them, and further that even all of those are found in the Great Commandment (one commandment in two parts), then you see how continued reference to those results in progressive light on righteousness. We start with the presumption that the way things are is the way things are. But one day something about those ways seems to not quite fit within "love neighbor as self." It is not a bullet train, but a slow trek by foot. A thousand miles is not a couple of hours, but many days (metaphorically).

So the Bible did not condemn slavery. But it defined the relationship between God's followers and with others in such a way that they eventually had to arrive at the end of slavery — at least with respect to themselves even if not society in general. Yes, it took centuries. But here we are.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never thought those were endorsements, rather Christian survival skills under Caesar Nero and the Roman empire.

To me that seems to imply that Paul knew that slavery was wrong but just went along with it to appease the Romans. That goes against Paul's claim to be a man of principle as in Galatians.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To set at liberty those who are oppressed;[/COLOR] Luke 4:18 (NKJV)

No need to condemn. Slaves were oppressed. Why didn't Jesus set them "at liberty"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The Bible explicitly states that Jesus wasn't sent to condemn the world, so why should there an expectation that he would condemn issues like slavery? If His purpose on this earth was to solely to define moral issues, then I could see a problem with Him not speaking out against it. But that's not why He was here.

I am often amazed how similar the posters here in Alt-Views are to the Jews and Greeks of old. They had their requirements for a Savior. The Jews wanted signs and wonders to liberate their nation from Roman oppression, and the Greeks wanted wisdom and a hero like unto Zeus or Hercules.

In this regard, Jesus was a "failure"; he failed to exceed or to even meet their expectations. Jesus never solved any of the problems they had. He came and went, and we still have the poor, we still have wars, we still have slavery, we still have dictators, criminals, murderers, etc. We have illnesses they never could have imagined. Things have never improved, and I daresay they are only getting worse.

Everything they wanted Jesus to do, he will do when He returns a second time. He will put an end to every social ill you can imagine. Even the animals will stop killing each other. Unfortunately, He will also come to judge us all. No one will escape His righteous judgments. Quite a frightful thing lies in store for us all.

Fortunately he has given us some instruction to prepare us for His coming. He requires a life of faith and obedience to walk by His Spirit. Nitpicking the message, however, seems to be the M.O. for this forum. Citing the endless flaws in others is another common theme. Pointing out Jesus' "failures" is now the third.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

So the Bible did not condemn slavery. But it defined the relationship between God's followers and with others in such a way that they eventually had to arrive at the end of slavery — at least with respect to themselves even if not society in general. Yes, it took centuries. But here we are.

What does this mean? Does God have a prime directive not to interfere with humans like the crew of the Enterprise on Star Trek? Or he allows himself to give humans abstract principles but they have to figure out how to apply them in real life situations like slavery? Paul actually wrote against slavery in Philemon. That puts him radically ahead of his time. Chances are he didn't write the pro-slavery epistles. Such an explanation is a whole lot simpler than one which entails explaining God. The latter only seems to be required in order to maintain the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Paul actually wrote against slavery in Philemon.

If you are speaking of slavery as the chattel type (the American antebellum type), I think you'll only find support for Paul writing against slavery in Christian interpretative tradition.

I'm not sure Paul, in Philemon, is speaking of slavery in the sense that we think of slavery today. I think we're reading that into the text.

But I'm open to correction on that.

And thanks Freedom, Ohio, and OBW for your input. Y'all really drove your points home with aplomb. I just love when my mind is expanded, and when it's grounded as well.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

No need to condemn. Slaves were oppressed. Why didn't Jesus set them "at liberty"?

Jesus did free slaves, figuratively speaking. The kind of slavery that He was concerned with was slavery to sin, and that was made that clear:
John 8:32-34 (NKJV)
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

In His interaction with the Jews, Jesus talks about being a slave to sin. What I find interesting the statement the Jews made: “We… have never been in bondage to anyone”. They seem to have forgotten about Egypt. They weren’t too concerned about the physical slavery of their ancestors, and neither was Jesus concerned about physical slavery.

I do understand the concern as to why Jesus didn’t release slaves if He could. After all, He healed people and cast out demons. My take on this is that the miracles that He performed were part of what He did to show people who He was, not an attempt to solve all problems out there (He didn't cure all sickness or cast out all demons). Sicknesses could be healed. Demons could be cast out. Issues like slavery are not so simple. It was an integral part of societies of that time. Jesus wasn’t out to mess with governments, politics or sociological issues.

Lets say that Jesus freed all the slaves He met. The only thing that would have accomplished is that slaves who were lucky enough to come in contact with Him would be freed. Unless He abolished the various institutions of slavery across all governments of that time, the problem of slavery would have still existed. If He set 10 slaves free, people would go out and find 10 new slaves the next day.

Even if He had abolished slavery, there would plenty of other social injustices that remained. For example, maybe instead of discussing why Jesus didn’t speak against slavery, maybe people would be asking why He didn’t speak against wage inequality. Anyways, the point is that Jesus wasn’t out to solve problems of society or government, and thus I see no precedent that would indicate that Jesus would have dealt with slavery or any other social injustice.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus did free slaves, figuratively speaking. The kind of slavery that He was concerned with was slavery to sin, and that was made that clear:
John 8:32-34 (NKJV)
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

What are the socio-political consequences of acting only on a spiritual level when your nation is occupied by a foreign power the way Palestine was occupied by the Romans? It does seem as if the narrative has been scrubbed of the radical politics that got Jesus killed by the Romans. If so, why would that be?

In His interaction with the Jews, Jesus talks about being a slave to sin. What I find interesting the statement the Jews made: “We… have never been in bondage to anyone”. They seem to have forgotten about Egypt. They weren’t too concerned about the physical slavery of their ancestors, and neither was Jesus concerned about physical slavery.

So Jesus was just here to show up the religious people? How like the LC that take is.

I do understand the concern as to why Jesus didn’t release slaves if He could. After all, He healed people and cast out demons. My take on this is that the miracles that He performed were part of what He did to show people who He was, not an attempt to solve all problems out there (He didn't cure all sickness or cast out all demons). Sicknesses could be healed. Demons could be cast out. Issues like slavery are not so simple. It was an integral part of societies of that time. Jesus wasn’t out to mess with governments, politics or sociological issues.

Or perhaps he was killed so early in his ministry that he didn't have time to get some of these larger issues...well of course large in a socio-political way. What he was doing in a cosmic-spiritual way was much larger than that at least in the minds of his followers.

Lets say that Jesus freed all the slaves He met. The only thing that would have accomplished is that slaves who were lucky enough to come in contact with Him would be freed. Unless He abolished the various institutions of slavery across all governments of that time, the problem of slavery would have still existed. If He set 10 slaves free, people would go out and find 10 new slaves the next day.

That depends upon your presuppositions. Are you presupposing that Jesus is an ordinary human being?

Even if He had abolished slavery, there would plenty of other social injustices that remained. For example, maybe instead of discussing why Jesus didn’t speak against slavery, maybe people would be asking why He didn’t speak against wage inequality. Anyways, the point is that Jesus wasn’t out to solve problems of society or government, and thus I see no precedent that would indicate that Jesus would have dealt with slavery or any other social injustice.

It's true. Jesus did come preaching the Kingdom of God which would have been revolutionary if people actually lived as Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount for example. But, the ensuing generations domesticated the message which was a mixed blessing since, had they followed it, the Romans would have annihilated them. The Kingdom was made into an otherworldly symbol as Jesus says in John, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” But, in the domesticated spiritualized form it could survive and even thrive as the Church. As Ohio noticed Christianity early on had to accommodate to Roman circumstances in order to survive. If the Church had not survived, Jesus might be only a footnote in history.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

What are the socio-political consequences of acting only on a spiritual level when your nation is occupied by a foreign power the way Palestine was occupied by the Romans? It does seem as if the narrative has been scrubbed of the radical politics that got Jesus killed by the Romans. If so, why would that be?

Why do you assume Jesus had the ability to do this in the first place? In Matt 4:8, when Jesus is tempted, Satan offers to Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. To me that is indicative of Jesus not possessing the ability to implement broad social reform or political reform. Why would these things be offered to Jesus if he didn't already have that kind of power?

Also, Jesus said that he was not here to do his own will, so I take that to mean that out of all the things Jesus could have done it had to forgo doing what was not of the Father's will. So I don't know what all Jesus could have done, but I think his actions and works as described in the Bible were his purpose being here.

Originally Posted by zeek

Or perhaps he was killed so early in his ministry that he didn't have time to get some of these larger issues...well of course large in a socio-political way. What he was doing in a cosmic-spiritual way was much larger than that at least in the minds of his followers.

What I said above is also how I would respond here. I also agree with Ohio, in that if there is the expectation that Jesus would implement a broad social reform, then people are going to be disappointed.

What might also be worth pointing out is that with the people Jesus helped, they went on to tell others about him. If Jesus released slaves, and their masters happened to find them, they would have been brought back under slavery and Jesus would have become a laughing stock. Those that Jesus helped were those who could bear testimony of him. That's not to say that those who weren't helped were any lesser than those who were. The point is Jesus couldn't have helped everyone, that wasn't his primary purpose.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus did free slaves, figuratively speaking.

You mean to tell me that when it comes to slavery Buddha, hundreds of yrs before, was more advanced than Jesus??? In Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path he rejected the trading of slaves. And Jesus, while growing up, had to be exposed to Buddhism, and so had to be familiar with the issue. Maybe he couldn't have freed the slaves, but he could have at least spoken out against it in his sermon on the mount.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I do understand the concern as to why Jesus didn’t release slaves if He could.

In the first century it's estimated that a third of the population were held as slaves. It was a Roman institution. As you say, "It was an integral part of societies of that time." So ... if Jesus would have been outspoken against slavery it would have been seen as insurrection against the Roman Empire, and he would have been nailed on a cross before finishing his 3 yr ministry.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lets say that Jesus freed all the slaves He met.

He would have been arrested.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Even if He had abolished slavery, there would plenty of other social injustices that remained.

But like Buddha he could have at least taught something against it.

But then, the Southern Baptist church wouldn't exist today, and our civil war would likely not have happened. Certainly Christians couldn't have used the Bible to support slavery.

But we can't expect Jesus to be thinking 17 centuries into the future. Maybe he wasn't concerned about slavery because he believed God was going to correct it by ringing in His Utopian Kingdom soon, within his generation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why do you assume Jesus had the ability to do this in the first place? In Matt 4:8, when Jesus is tempted, Satan offers to Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. To me that is indicative of Jesus not possessing the ability to implement broad social reform or political reform. Why would these things be offered to Jesus if he didn't already have that kind of power?

I'll be happy to answer your questions. But, I notice that you didn't answer mine. So I don't understand what position you are asking from. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed in dialogue. So, before I answer, tell me, are you presupposing that Jesus is an ordinary human being? If not, then what? Much depends on the presuppositions we bring to the text. Let's make those explicit.

Also, Jesus said that he was not here to do his own will, so I take that to mean that out of all the things Jesus could have done it had to forgo doing what was not of the Father's will. So I don't know what all Jesus could have done, but I think his actions and works as described in the Bible were his purpose being here.

This will depend on your Christology. I'm asking you to make it explicit.

What I said above is also how I would respond here. I also agree with Ohio, in that if there is the expectation that Jesus would implement a broad social reform, then people are going to be disappointed.

Again this depends upon your presupposition about Jesus. What were his powers? Where do you stand on this? I don't want to guess.

What might also be worth pointing out is that with the people Jesus helped, they went on to tell others about him. If Jesus released slaves, and their masters happened to find them, they would have been brought back under slavery and Jesus would have become a laughing stock. Those that Jesus helped were those who could bear testimony of him. That's not to say that those who weren't helped were any lesser than those who were. The point is Jesus couldn't have helped everyone, that wasn't his primary purpose.

Again, what is your understanding of Jesus? What you put in in terms of a presupposition will determine what you get out in terms of answers. How Jesus came to understand his "purpose" will be different depending your assumptions about what and who he was. Whether he could have helped, to what extent and how, depends on this. Once we explicate what Jesus was, even if only hypothetically, possible answers about what his mission will follow. So, please, tell me what your position is regarding Jesus, so I can get an idea how you arrived at the above conclusions. Then I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'll be happy to answer your questions. But, I notice that you didn't answer mine. So I don't understand what position you are asking from. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed in dialogue. So, before I answer, tell me, are you presupposing that Jesus is an ordinary human being? If not, then what? Much depends on the presuppositions we bring to the text. Let's make those explicit.

I'm posting based on the presupposition of Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God. When I evaluate what he did and didn't do, I base that upon his stated mission.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why do you assume Jesus had the ability to do this in the first place? In Matt 4:8, when Jesus is tempted, Satan offers to Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. To me that is indicative of Jesus not possessing the ability to implement broad social reform or political reform. Why would these things be offered to Jesus if he didn't already have that kind of power?

Satan had no idea what Jesus was capable of as a man. Satan would not even have bothered to personally come to the wilderness to tempt a starving man, except he knew that Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus lived His whole life basically incognito. Would Satan really believe some crazed baptizer in the river Jordan, who claimed some Galilean was the "Lamb of God?" But Satan already knew who Jesus was, and he knew His origin 30 years prior.

When Jesus confronted Pilate, He made it clear that He had all the power He needed to enact any "social reform" the Father desired. Pilate thought he had power, but Jesus implied that he was just a dunce to carry out the Father's eternal counsel. Jesus was the creator of the universe, who gave life and breath to every man, yet He basically told Pilate that legions of angels were instructed to "stand down."

As Lucifer, he and the Son of God had an eternity of interactions together. He was appointed to his lofty privilege and position over creation by the Son. His rebellion in the past was obviously a result of his personal rivalry with Him. Lucifer thought that he knew Jesus, but had he really known Him, then he would not have "crucified the Lord of glory!" -- I Cor 2.8

Originally Posted by Freedom

Also, Jesus said that he was not here to do his own will, so I take that to mean that out of all the things Jesus could have done it had to forgo doing what was not of the Father's will. So I don't know what all Jesus could have done, but I think his actions and works as described in the Bible were his purpose being here.

Jesus' primary mission during His first coming to this earth was to do the Father's will by fulfilling every demand of the Law, so that He could pay off our debt to the law with His own life. Our requirement was to believe in Him and what He has done for us.

The many wonders and miracles which He accomplished were secondary to this. In a sense, He needed to prove who He was. Many of these signs were used as opportunities to teach and unfold God's plan and His love. The temptation by Satan in the wilderness proved that Jesus had no desire for anything this earth could provide Him.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

You mean to tell me that when it comes to slavery Buddha, hundreds of yrs before, was more advanced than Jesus??? In Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path he rejected the trading of slaves. And Jesus, while growing up, had to be exposed to Buddhism, and so had to be familiar with the issue. Maybe he couldn't have freed the slaves, but he could have at least spoken out against it in his sermon on the mount.

In the first century it's estimated that a third of the population were held as slaves. It was a Roman institution. As you say, "It was an integral part of societies of that time." So ... if Jesus would have been outspoken against slavery it would have been seen as insurrection against the Roman Empire, and he would have been nailed on a cross before finishing his 3 yr ministry.

You are correct, Jesus would have probably been accused and killed for insurrection. But as I've tried to point out, Jesus wasn't about social reform, and social reform isn't something which happens and suddenly all problems are solved. The legacy of all social reformers is that, they do help to implement changes for the greater good, but there are always unsolved social issues that remain. Like Buddha, Jesus could have spoken out against slavery, but then people would wonder why he didn't speak out about some other social issue. There were plenty of social issues that Buddha could have spoken out against besides slavery that he didn't. Why not?

In the U.S., slavery was related to racism, so even after slavery ended, the problem of racism still existed. So what if Jesus had spoken against slavery, would that have dealt with all the social injustices that the U.S. encountered? It wouldn't have dealt with the underlying issue of racism. It's should also be noted that after slavery ended in the U.S. and abroad, there wasn't immediate social justice. That was and is an ongoing process.

Originally Posted by awareness

But then, the Southern Baptist church wouldn't exist today, and our civil war would likely not have happened. Certainly Christians couldn't have used the Bible to support slavery.

But we can't expect Jesus to be thinking 17 centuries into the future. Maybe he wasn't concerned about slavery because he believed God was going to correct it by ringing in His Utopian Kingdom soon, within his generation.

Not all Christians were supportive of slavery. There were plenty of abolitionist Christian groups. The thing about slavery in the U.S. is that people didn't need to own slaves to participate in the economic system, and there was also enough political opposition such that people could begin to stand up for what they really felt to be their values. Lastly, because there were Christian abolitionists, I see the issue as some using the Bible to justify evil, rather than interpreting what they Bible says as an endorsement of slavery. There is a big difference.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm posting based on the presupposition of Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God. When I evaluate what he did and didn't do, I base that upon his stated mission.

The terms "Messiah" and "Son of God"mean different things to different people. What do they mean to you? By "stated mission" are you referring to John 3:17 again?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

The terms "Messiah" and "Son of God"mean different things to different people. What do they mean to you? By "stated mission" are you referring to John 3:17 again?

It's hard to tell what exactly you're getting at. When I say "Messiah", I am viewing Jesus as the "coming one" who was prophesied of in the Old Testament, who people were both looking for and expecting. When I say "Son of God", I'm saying he is exactly that, God's son, a man named Jesus, sent to this earth to carry out the will of his Father. Is this the answer you're looking for?

When I make reference to his mission, I am making reference to what can be extrapolated from verses which state or in which Jesus states his mission. John 3:17 is one of those verses.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

What does this mean? Does God have a prime directive not to interfere with humans like the crew of the Enterprise on Star Trek? Or he allows himself to give humans abstract principles but they have to figure out how to apply them in real life situations like slavery? Paul actually wrote against slavery in Philemon. That puts him radically ahead of his time. Chances are he didn't write the pro-slavery epistles. Such an explanation is a whole lot simpler than one which entails explaining God. The latter only seems to be required in order to maintain the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Reading too much into things.

I simply said that, unlike the extremes of Fundamentalism, the expansion of the simple 10 commandments or great commandment into somewhat more subtle things not directly spoken of is designed to be revealed rather than dictated. No prime directive to not interfere (although I think that the evil and chaos in the world is at least partly because God does not simply interfere in everything). It is arguable that the 10 commandments apply to everyone at their most extreme interpretation and expansion because, if God is who we (or some of us) think he is, that is the yardstick for everyone. But it is not imposed with a here-and-now consequence for obedience, so in the present, it is not applicable to everyone except to the extent that the governments of the earth enforce laws that adhere to those principles. But since not all of those laws (in their full understanding) have been or ever will be enforced in that manner, we are free to ignore them in this life.

But that freedom is (according to what we understand from the Bible) of limited duration.

As for Paul's writing against slavery, the only thing I see that could be argued that was is the reference to Philemon receiving Onesimus back "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It could mean that. But it could simply mean that his status as a brother should take precedence over that of a slave. That does not necessarily mean that he would no longer be a slave, but that he would first be a brother.

And it could mean what you seem to read into it. But if it is a charge against slavery, it is rather muted, and would seem only to apply to someone who had been a slave but was now a brother/sister in Christ. Only a partial rejection of slavery. And as such, it would give ammo to those who declare that followers of other religions are sub-par to Christians and are therefore not worthy of being elevated to the level of neighbor. No need to love them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's hard to tell what exactly you're getting at. When I say "Messiah", I am viewing Jesus as the "coming one" who was prophesied of in the Old Testament, who people were both looking for and expecting.

Weren't most Jews looking for and expecting a Messiah who would liberate them from the domination of Rome and unite them as King of the nation of Israel? Jesus didn't do that. So it seems that Christianity transformed what it means to be a messiah. What does the term "messiah" mean to you?

When I say "Son of God", I'm saying he is exactly that, God's son, a man named Jesus, sent to this earth to carry out the will of his Father. Is this the answer you're looking for?

I'm looking for whatever the term means to you. How did a "man named Jesus" get "sent to this earth"? That's an extraordinary claim for a human being. In what sense is Jesus "the Son of God"? Apparently what this means to you is so obvious that it doesn't require an explanation. But, I find it incomprehensible on its face. So, please, explain what you mean.

When I make reference to his mission, I am making reference to what can be extrapolated from verses which state or in which Jesus states his mission. John 3:17 is one of those verses.

OK. John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." It isn't obvious to me that the world has been saved. So, please explain how Jesus saved the world.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Reading too much into things.

I simply said that, unlike the extremes of Fundamentalism, the expansion of the simple 10 commandments or great commandment into somewhat more subtle things not directly spoken of is designed to be revealed rather than dictated. No prime directive to not interfere (although I think that the evil and chaos in the world is at least partly because God does not simply interfere in everything). It is arguable that the 10 commandments apply to everyone at their most extreme interpretation and expansion because, if God is who we (or some of us) think he is, that is the yardstick for everyone. But it is not imposed with a here-and-now consequence for obedience, so in the present, it is not applicable to everyone except to the extent that the governments of the earth enforce laws that adhere to those principles. But since not all of those laws (in their full understanding) have been or ever will be enforced in that manner, we are free to ignore them in this life.

But that freedom is (according to what we understand from the Bible) of limited duration.

As for Paul's writing against slavery, the only thing I see that could be argued that was is the reference to Philemon receiving Onesimus back "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It could mean that. But it could simply mean that his status as a brother should take precedence over that of a slave. That does not necessarily mean that he would no longer be a slave, but that he would first be a brother.

And it could mean what you seem to read into it. But if it is a charge against slavery, it is rather muted, and would seem only to apply to someone who had been a slave but was now a brother/sister in Christ. Only a partial rejection of slavery. And as such, it would give ammo to those who declare that followers of other religions are sub-par to Christians and are therefore not worthy of being elevated to the level of neighbor. No need to love them.

So, it seems that the Bible, taken as a whole, is ambiguous with regard to slavery. As on other issues, people read it and think that they get all kinds of messages from it depending on their points of view. You have been reading it for years and you still don't know what to make of its teaching on the issue.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Weren't most Jews looking for and expecting a Messiah who would liberate them from the domination of Rome and unite them as King of the nation of Israel? Jesus didn't do that. So it seems that Christianity transformed what it means to be a messiah. What does the term "messiah" mean to you?

What the Jews expected didn't line up with the entirety of what God spoke through the prophets and the rest of the scriptures, and Freedom is not required to answer for their ignorance thousands of years later. Neither does he have to answer for what Jesus did or didn't do in relation to fulfilling any particular prophesy. He told you plainly what the Messiah means to him but you don't like the answer so you pretend he didn't answer. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed in dialogue.

I'm looking for whatever the term means to you. How did a "man named Jesus" get "sent to this earth"? That's an extraordinary claim for a human being. In what sense is Jesus "the Son of God"? Apparently what this means to you is so obvious that it doesn't require an explanation. But, I find it incomprehensible on its face. So, please, explain what you mean.

This is vacation Bible school stuff. Why should Freedom have to give you a free Bible lesson...especially when you reject the most basic of the teachings and history presented in the New Testament. Just give us your alternative view...you're going to hammer him with it sooner than later anyway.

OK. John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." It isn't obvious to me that the world has been saved. So, please explain how Jesus saved the world.

Lot's of things don't seem obvious to you because your knowledge of what Jesus and the apostles taught is incomplete, and worse, it is filtered through all sorts of non Judeo-christian filters. The answer to your question is plainly and clearly stated in the verse immediately preceding the one you quoted - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." "God so loved the world that he gave" is only half of the equation - "that whoever believes in him" is the oh so crucial second half. The first is a historical event, the second is a simple requirement for us to accept the first. If one denies the first the second is of no consequence (at least for now in this life)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What the Jews expected didn't line up with the entirety of what God spoke through the prophets and the rest of the scriptures, and Freedom is not required to answer for their ignorance thousands of years later. Neither does he have to answer for what Jesus did or didn't do in relation to fulfilling any particular prophesy. He told you plainly what the Messiah means to him but you don't like the answer so you pretend he didn't answer. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed in dialogue.

Why do you feel it's necessary to jump in and answer for Freedom? He hasn't said why he believes in one messianic theory versus another and I am asking him for clarification. He isn't required to do anything. It seems to me you are trying to shut down open discussion again. No? Why does it worry you so much?

This is vacation Bible school stuff. Why should Freedom have to give you a free Bible lesson...especially when you reject the most basic of the teachings and history presented in the New Testament. Just give us your alternative view...you're going to hammer him with it sooner than later anyway.

What one learns at vacation Bible school varies from one school to another so I can't be sure what Freedom's "school" teaches unless he spells it out for me, which is what I'm asking him to do. In that regard I suppose I think differently than you who supposes that he knows that I "reject the most basic of the teachings and history presented in the New Testament" even though I have never stated that. My alternative view, as I already stated is that "Son of God" is paradoxical and incomprehensible.

Lot's of things don't seem obvious to you because your knowledge of what Jesus and the apostles taught is incomplete, and worse, it is filtered through all sorts of non Judeo-christian filters. The answer to your question is plainly and clearly stated in the verse immediately preceding the one you quoted - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." "God so loved the world that he gave" is only half of the equation - "that whoever believes in him" is the oh so crucial second half. The first is a historical event, the second is a simple requirement for us to accept the first. If one denies the first the second is of no consequence (at least for now in this life)

Since, as you state, the "saving" is a matter of "belief" and not "a historical event", it is not only not obvious to me, but it is not obvious at all that the world is being saved. Just look around at what is going on in the world today. It is, rather, a matter of faith, which again, being subjective, is not obvious. As Isaiah [Isaiah 45:15], and Pascal and Witness Lee observed, God is one who "hides himself." So, no it isn't obvious. God and "his" ways are, if anything, hidden and mysterious and should not be passed over lightly as obvious "stuff" worthy only for a "vacation Bible school" class.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why do you feel it's necessary to jump in and answer for Freedom? He hasn't said why he believes in one messianic theory versus another and I am asking him for clarification. He isn't required to do anything. It seems to me you are trying to shut down open discussion again. No? Why does it worry you so much?

Why are you so sensitive? You really need some anger management skills.

You remind me of amrkelly. He really went off the planet when something didn't go his way.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, it seems that the Bible, taken as a whole, is ambiguous with regard to slavery. As on other issues, people read it and think that they get all kinds of messages from it depending on their points of view. You have been reading it for years and you still don't know what to make of its teaching on the issue.

On the contrary, it is (now) clearly understood as generally contraindicated by the command to love others as yourself. Unless you think that you should be a slave and be someone else's property, then you generally should not think that way concerning others.

I agree that it takes what should be painfully obvious and lets generations go by before they figure it out. Before the light goes on and they have to face their own stubbornness to respond and free their own slaves. All the OT did was require fair treatment. And the NT demanded that those in Christ be treated with the same respect that any other Christian received.

Yeah. It took a long time for them (us) to figure it out. I'm sure that some did earlier than we know of. But it was not common practice until long after.

And all of this stands in sharp contrast to the commonly-held position that everything is simply the result of God's sovereignty. That He is in control of everything. Not saying that God has no control or that he cannot control it all. But it would seem reasonable that he is at least somewhat hands-off at this time. Even as we blunder along trying to figure out how to "do" the Christian life, it is not simply spelled-out in detail.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why do you feel it's necessary to jump in and answer for Freedom? He hasn't said why he believes in one messianic theory versus another and I am asking him for clarification. He isn't required to do anything. It seems to me you are trying to shut down open discussion again. No? Why does it worry you so much?

Before I respond to your previous questions, I think you have to rewind a bit and look at the larger issue which we were discussing. When I jumped into this thread, I was responding to awareness' comment about Jesus not speaking out against slavery. Another question that quickly arose was why Jesus didn't free those in slavery if he could. In order to evaluate such question/statements it requires assuming the premise of Jesus being someone special, not an ordinary man (in other words the person many Christians believe him to be). I am sure that you know what this view encompasses, there is no need for me to define that.

Notice that as part of awareness' original statement, he asks: " Wouldn't that be a Jesus thing to do? right up Jesus' alley, so to speak? " Those types of questions attempt to deduct what Jesus should have done, based upon the commonly held view of who Jesus was. The logic is based on the assumption that Jesus was someone who could condemn slavery (having notable influence), or even do something about it (having extraordinary power).

If you start with the opposite premise, that Jesus was just an ordinary human, then it doesn't even makes sense to ask why he didn't take action on slavery. For starters, there would have been nothing he could do about it. He was not a political figure, so there would have been no expectation for him to take any position or action in regards to slavery.

So it seems what you are asking me to do is to embark upon an inductive line of argument in order to prove that Jesus was the person we are already assuming him to be for the premise of our little "debate". This is why I think UntoHim jumped in. There is no need for me to "prove" anything about the identity of Jesus in order to have a discussion regarding his position on slavery. It is an inherently deductive process. We take things that the Bible says about Jesus and then evaluate accordingly. The premise is assumed, and that has nothing to do with whether you believe it to be true or false. The issue is always what conclusion(s) can be drawn if the premise were to be true.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why are you so sensitive? You really need some anger management skills.

Why? Are you giving lessons?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

On the contrary, it is (now) clearly understood as generally contraindicated by the command to love others as yourself.

It's good to see you take a stand on the issue, OBW. But, I was responding to what you said in the previous post where meanings were meanings appeared to be ambiguous for you:

As for Paul's writing against slavery, the only thing I see that could be argued that was is the reference to Philemon receiving Onesimus back "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It could mean that. But it could simply mean that his status as a brother should take precedence over that of a slave. That does not necessarily mean that he would no longer be a slave, but that he would first be a brother. And it could mean what you seem to read into it. But if it is a charge against slavery, it is rather muted, etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK. John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." It isn't obvious to me that the world has been saved. So, please explain how Jesus saved the world.

Just gotta jump in and add something of great import ... with cosmic consquences.

In the Greek the word for "world" is actually "Kosmos." So John 3:17 is actually saying God didn't send His Son to condemn the Cosmos, but to save the Cosmos.

And bro Zeek, how do you know that didn't happen? Parts of the Cosmos might have been breaking down, and Jesus saved it ... for all you know ... so the new earth and heaven could happen FOR YOU ... for all you know.

God works in mysterious ways. Just look at all the mystery in the Cosmos and ya can't deny that. And don't even ask why God did it all. Or why God (or something, if that's as far as you can go -- a higher power -- if you will. Back to subject ...) Or why God created you and I, and the crowds down here in AltVs at this very moment. Or why God created this very moment. It's all a mystery. A wonderful mystery, of God.

So it is true that we can look at God's grand plan, what can see and surmise of and about it, and not be able to make sense of it. (And then makeup wild stuff of it.)

I can't even make sense of the five fundamentals.

Like Ohio I think it needs a new number one: Born Again.

And like OBW I think they needed a 7th: The Ten Commands.

Then they would have 7 fundamentals, and seven is a heavenly number, the number for completion.

Wouldn't that make sense, that the fundamentals also stood for completion?

Okay, Sorry, for this interruption of the regularly scheduled programming. Now, as MOTA, get back to featuring 'AltVs Only -Season 1 - Eposode 22, entitled, "Fundamentalism,"' and make sure it's filled with lots of tension, intrigue, and drama. Now back to your regularly scheduled serious programming.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Before I respond to your previous questions, I think you have to rewind a bit and look at the larger issue which we were discussing. When I jumped into this thread, I was responding to awareness' comment about Jesus not speaking out against slavery. Another question that quickly arose was why Jesus didn't free those in slavery if he could. In order to evaluate such question/statements it requires assuming the premise of Jesus being someone special, not an ordinary man (in other words the person many Christians believe him to be).

No it doesn't. He could have unequivocally said, "Slavery is wrong and you need to stop it." No special powers required. Freeing slaves would have been harder. But, without special powers, he could have tried.

Notice that as part of awareness' original statement, he asks: " Wouldn't that be a Jesus thing to do? right up Jesus' alley, so to speak? " Those types of questions attempt to deduct what Jesus should have done, based upon the commonly held view of who Jesus was. The logic is based on the assumption that Jesus was someone who could condemn slavery (having notable influence), or even do something about it (having extraordinary power).

It required no special power to condemn it or try to stop it. Whether such an effort could have succeeded is quite another thing.

If you start with the opposite premise, that Jesus was just an ordinary human, then it doesn't even makes sense to ask why he didn't take action on slavery. For starters, there would have been nothing he could do about it. He was not a political figure, so there would have been no expectation for him to take any position or action in regards to slavery.

This is simply untrue. He could have tried. Apparently ending slavery wasn't top priority as far as his vision and mission. Maybe if he had lived longer he would have gotten to it.

So it seems what you are asking me to do is to embark upon an inductive line of argument in order to prove that Jesus was the person we are already assuming him to be for the premise of our little "debate".

Nope. I haven't asked you to prove anything, just to define your terms.

This is why I think UntoHim jumped in. There is no need for me to "prove" anything about the identity of Jesus in order to have a discussion regarding his position on slavery. It is an inherently deductive process. We take things that the Bible says about Jesus and then evaluate accordingly. The premise is assumed, and that has nothing to do with whether you believe it to be true or false. The issue is always what conclusion(s) can be drawn if the premise were to be true.

Who knows why UntoHim does anything? I'm grateful he lets me post at all. He has kicked me off a couple times.

Again, I didn't ask you to prove anything, just to define what you meant by terms that we Christians sometimes take for granted but which can mean different things to different people and have different implications depending what they mean.

And sure, I'm not expecting you have to stick to one definition all the time. For the sake of one proposition I could assume that Jesus is a biologically typical human, while for the sake of another assume that he is the omnipotent God. But, if I don't make explicit what I am assuming, readers could become confused.

Oh, and unless you have something else to add, I think UntoHim's interjection of John 3:16 explained how Jesus saved or is saving the world i.e. one single individual at a time.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nope. I haven't asked you to prove anything, just to define your terms.
..
Again, I didn't ask you to prove anything, just to define what you meant by terms that we Christians sometimes take for granted but which can mean different things to different people and have different implications depending what they mean.

And sure, I'm not expecting you have to stick to one definition all the time. For the sake of one proposition I could assume that Jesus is a biologically typical human, while for the sake of another assume that he is the omnipotent God. But, if I don't make explicit what I am assuming, readers could become confused.

I will attempt to clarify my views on the terms "Messiah" and "Son of God" in little bit later, but I'm not going to spend too much time doing that. You won't be in for any big surprises regarding my views, because I view Jesus as being the person that many Christians would view him as. I believe in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I don't see why this view needs so much "explanation", because this is not by any means an uncommon view.

Originally Posted by zeek

No it doesn't. He could have unequivocally said, "Slavery is wrong and you need to stop it." No special powers required. Freeing slaves would have been harder. But, without special powers, he could have tried.

The issue I take with your position is that you attempt to qualify what Jesus should have done irrespective of who he was. There are different "views" of who he was, but his teachings cannot be correctly evaluated without taking one of those views a premise. Different conclusions can be formed depending on which premise is chosen.

Generally speaking, there is no expectation that public figures take a stance on social issues. There might be that expectation for political figures, but not public figures in general. So if we put Jesus under the microscope to determine why he didn’t speak against or fight slavery, then would I ask why he needed to? What makes him different than any other non-political figure (assuming that we make no premise about who Jesus was)? If you simply are critiquing Jesus' lack of action, then why not critique L. Ron Hubbard for his lack of activism in regard to income inequality? Or why not criticize Arnold Schwarzenegger for not taking a strong stance on stopping child labor? Do you see where I’m going with this? You can make a judgement regarding any public figure for any just about any issue, but unless there is a specific reason to criticize a person on that issue, then it is inconsequential.

I already stated my position that Jesus came into the world to accomplish a particular purpose, that is to save the world, to free people from the bondage of sin. Everything else was secondary to that. So I see your argument being along the lines of saying that if Jesus was divine or if Jesus was the person people think he was, then it would have been a moral imperative for him to speak out against slavery. Is this what you are saying?

[awareness]

This was an excellent post bro Freedom. Some thoughts and remarks:

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . When I jumped into this thread, I was responding to awareness' comment about Jesus not speaking out against slavery. Another question that quickly arose was why Jesus didn't free those in slavery if he could. In order to evaluate such question/statements it requires assuming the premise of Jesus being someone special, not an ordinary man (in other words the person many Christians believe him to be).

Well it is possible that Jesus wasn't thinking that his work would have the impact it turned out to have, and would have the staying power to deal with the slavery question.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Notice that as part of awareness' original statement, he asks: " Wouldn't that be a Jesus thing to do? right up Jesus' alley, so to speak? " Those types of questions attempt to deduct what Jesus should have done, based upon the commonly held view of who Jesus was. The logic is based on the assumption that Jesus was someone who could condemn slavery (having notable influence), or even do something about it (having extraordinary power).

Yes, are you saying that Jesus knew slavery was wrong but didn't think he could do anything about it, and so didn't even mention it, or try to do anything about it?

Originally Posted by Freedom

If you start with the opposite premise, that Jesus was just an ordinary human, then it doesn't even makes sense to ask why he didn't take action on slavery.

It makes sense if Jesus, even as just a man, knew his movement would have impact. Then speaking out against slavery would be the right thing to do, just because as a man with impact it would stand for the dignity of all humans.

Originally Posted by Freedom

For starters, there would have been nothing he could do about it. He was not a political figure, so there would have been no expectation for him to take any position or action in regards to slavery.

Again only if he didn't expect to have impact.

Originally Posted by Freedom

So it seems what you are asking me to do is to embark upon an inductive line of argument in order to prove that Jesus was the person we are already assuming him to be for the premise of our little "debate". This is why I think UntoHim jumped in. There is no need for me to "prove" anything about the identity of Jesus in order to have a discussion regarding his position on slavery. It is an inherently deductive process. We take things that the Bible says about Jesus and then evaluate accordingly. The premise is assumed, and that has nothing to do with whether you believe it to be true or false. The issue is always what conclusion(s) can be drawn if the premise were to be true.

Sorry Freedom, I didn't quite get that. Please try to explain it in another way. Sorry I'm such an idiot.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Weren't most Jews looking for and expecting a Messiah who would liberate them from the domination of Rome and unite them as King of the nation of Israel? Jesus didn't do that. So it seems that Christianity transformed what it means to be a messiah. What does the term "messiah" mean to you?

The term "messiah" means the same thing to me that it means to everyone else, that being the "anointed one" or the "anointed king". I will start by agreeing that most Jews were looking for a king. The issue is what kind of king they were looking for.

Zechariah 9:9 indicates which kind of King they should have been expecting:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.
Yes, I am aware of the argument that Jesus consciously fulfilled this prophecy or arranged the finding the colt so that he could, but the bigger point is that he fit the role of a “lowly king”. That is the person who we know Jesus to be.

I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity transformed the meaning of the Messiah. What happened is that Jesus fulfilled the expectation of some who were looking for the Messiah. Those who felt that Jesus was such a person moved forward with that belief, thus becoming known as Christians. Those who didn’t accept that Jesus was the Messiah continued in the expectation that someone else would better fulfill their notion of who a Messiah would be.

There are several instances that come to mind of those who came into contact with Jesus and recognized him as the Messiah:
Luke 2:25-35
And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
“Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, According to Your word; For my eyes have seen Your salvation Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel.”
And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

John 1:41-42
He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.

John 1:48-49
Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

John 4:25-26
The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

There is really no common denominator between those who recognized Jesus as being the Messiah. In other words, no one attempted to “change” the view of who the Messiah would be, they just recognized him as such. Of all people, I see Simeon as having the most credibility to know who Jesus really was. As Jews, Andrew and his brother Simon Peter also recognized also recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

I find the case of the Samaritan woman interesting because Samaritan beliefs would have been similar to Jewish beliefs. I am not too familiar with the specifics of Samaritans beliefs, but because Jesus fit the role of both a “Jewish” and “Samaritan” Messiah, it to me indicates that no one was finding a way to “fit” him into that role. Rather, they saw him and he was the natural fit for that role.

Lastly, Nathanael recognized Jesus as the King of Israel. I don’t see any indication of Nathanael being told that, rather he was the one who made that statement, probably based on Jesus saying that he saw him “under the fig tree”.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm looking for whatever the term means to you. How did a "man named Jesus" get "sent to this earth"? That's an extraordinary claim for a human being. In what sense is Jesus "the Son of God"? Apparently what this means to you is so obvious that it doesn't require an explanation. But, I find it incomprehensible on its face. So, please, explain what you mean.

Matthew 17:5
While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”

John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:34
34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

John 1:49
49 Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Just from these verses there are a few things I would point out. In regards to who Jesus is:
• God says Jesus is his Son
• John(the author) says the Word (Jesus) was begotten of the Father
• John the Baptist testifies that Jesus is the Son of God
• Nathanael testifies that Jesus is the Son of God

That is good enough for me. What else could someone possibly take these verses to mean? It’s hard to read anything else into these verses.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's good to see you take a stand on the issue, OBW. But, I was responding to what you said in the previous post where meanings were meanings appeared to be ambiguous for you:

The ambiguity, in my mind, was not sufficient to drive a "Paul is taking a stand against slavery" truck through. The ambiguity is only whether he might be hinting (hinting, not declaring openly) that a Christian slave owner should free a Christian slave. It is not clear that even the hint is intended. And in the context of the day and age, even simply declaring that you should treat one of your slaves as an equal in any manner was a significant step forward.

And it is consistent with the intent of my first post which was to weigh-in on the idea that Paul took a stance against slavery in Philemon. I don't think it is there, but even if it is, it is cloaked in desert camouflage and would seem to only apply to a Christian slave of a Christian slave owner, not generally to the practice of slavery.

[zeek]

I will attempt to clarify my views on the terms "Messiah" and "Son of God" in little bit later, but I'm not going to spend too much time doing that. You won't be in for any big surprises regarding my views, because I view Jesus as being the person that many Christians would view him as. I believe in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I don't see why this view needs so much "explanation", because this is not by any means an uncommon view.

I'm not asking for an explanation so much as an explication by which I mean an explicitly stated proposition. It seems to me that speculation about what Jesus could or could not do must be based on assumptions about what his powers are. And, since I know of no way of testing our assumptions empirically, I don't see how it can become more than speculation. We can of course compare our speculative assumptions with the Biblical texts. But, how we read the text is based on our method of interpretation. There is a hermeneutic circle involved in that which means that we get out of it what we put in. But, in any case, it will useful for understanding if we make what we are doing explicit.

Generally speaking, there is no expectation that public figures take a stance on social issues. There might be that expectation for political figures, but not public figures in general. So if we put Jesus under the microscope to determine why he didn’t speak against or fight slavery, then would I ask why he needed to? What makes him different than any other non-political figure (assuming that we make no premise about who Jesus was)? If you simply are critiquing Jesus' lack of action, then why not critique L. Ron Hubbard for his lack of activism in regard to income inequality? Or why not criticize Arnold Schwarzenegger for not taking a strong stance on stopping child labor? Do you see where I’m going with this? You can make a judgement regarding any public figure for any just about any issue, but unless there is a specific reason to criticize a person on that issue, then it is inconsequential.

Given your presuppositions, it is a categorical error to compare Jesus to to public figures generally. You have stated above that Jesus was incarnated, crucified and resurrection. Incarnation implies that he is somehow God in the flesh. Therefore, your proposition about what is expected generally about public figures, even if true, which I doubt, doesn't apply to Jesus. Jesus is a unique figure incomparable with other public figures. If Jesus is the omniscient God, his will and judgment about every moral issue including slavery is absolutely consequential. Based on your assumptions, your conclusion is wrong.

I already stated my position that Jesus came into the world to accomplish a particular purpose, that is to save the world, to free people from the bondage of sin. Everything else was secondary to that. So I see your argument being along the lines of saying that if Jesus was divine or if Jesus was the person people think he was, then it would have been a moral imperative for him to speak out against slavery. Is this what you are saying?

No, I wasn't. You apparently came up with that yourself. Do you think it's true? I mean he did address other human social institutions like marriage, why not slavery?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well it is possible that Jesus wasn't thinking that his work would have the impact it turned out to have, and would have the staying power to deal with the slavery question.

I don't think Jesus was concerned with what "impact" his work would have other than what he set out to accomplish. When talking with his disciples, he was only "forward thinking" in regards to knowing that he would be crucified, so it would seem that this is the "impact" he was concerned with.

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, are you saying that Jesus knew slavery was wrong but didn't think he could do anything about it, and so didn't even mention it, or try to do anything about it?
...
It makes sense if Jesus, even as just a man, knew his movement would have impact. Then speaking out against slavery would be the right thing to do, just because as a man with impact it would stand for the dignity of all humans.

Well this all depends on what kind of person you see Jesus as. My view of Jesus doesn't see him as someone who would engage in "extra-curricular" activities. In John 5:30 Jesus said "I can of Myself do nothing", so his work was simply carrying out the Father's will.

Going back to the discussion Ohio and I were having about Jesus being tempted. I see more validity to the point he made now, Jesus was tempted in ways that would have caused him to do something not of the Father's will, thus creating a problem of insubordination.

I don't think Jesus had any notion of having a big "impact" other than to be a Savior to humans, so the world could be saved one sinner at a time. In Phil 2:5-8, it says that Jesus made himself of "no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant". Based upon this, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that he was a man concerned with making an impact with his teachings, or having a "legacy". Of course, Jesus did have a legacy, but I think the intention was that there would be no part of his "legacy" that would supersede his main purpose on this earth.

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry Freedom, I didn't quite get that. Please try to explain it in another way. Sorry I'm such an idiot.

All I was saying is we have to deduce what Jesus should have done, based on a "view" of Jesus. This starts with stating a premise of who Jesus was, which could be either true or false. We then consider the evidence and see what conclusions can be drawn. I was basing my line of reasoning upon what you might call a "traditional" view of Jesus, which is explicitly defined elsewhere. Zeek was asking me what I thought about the meaning of the term "Messiah" and "Son of God", and I made the effort to provide a quick explanation, but I don't feel is particularly relevant to the discussion. Establishing the validity of any particular "view" of Jesus is a different discussion than the the discussion of whether or not he was obligated to act on the issue of slavery.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't think Jesus was concerned with what "impact" his work would have other than what he set out to accomplish. When talking with his disciples, he was only "forward thinking" in regards to knowing that he would be crucified, so it would seem that this is the "impact" he was concerned with.

Well this all depends on what kind of person you see Jesus as. My view of Jesus doesn't see him as someone who would engage in "extra-curricular" activities. In John 5:30 Jesus said "I can of Myself do nothing", so his work was simply carrying out the Father's will.

Going back to the discussion Ohio and I were having about Jesus being tempted. I see more validity to the point he made now, Jesus was tempted in ways that would have caused him to do something not of the Father's will, thus creating a problem of insubordination.

I don't think Jesus had any notion of having a big "impact" other than to be a Savior to humans, so the world could be saved one sinner at a time. In Phil 2:5-8, it says that Jesus made himself of "no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant". Based upon this, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that he was a man concerned with making an impact with his teachings, or having a "legacy". Of course, Jesus did have a legacy, but I the intention was that there would be no part of his "legacy" that would supersede his main purpose on this earth.

All I was saying is we have to deduce what Jesus should have done, based on a "view" of Jesus. This starts with stating a premise of who Jesus was, which could be either true or false. We then consider the evidence and see what conclusions can be drawn. I was basing my line of reasoning upon what you might call a "traditional" view of Jesus, which is explicitly defined elsewhere. Zeek was asking me what I thought about the meaning of the term "Messiah" and "Son of God", and I made the effort to provide a quick explanation, but I don't feel is particularly relevant to the discussion. Establishing the validity of any particular "view" of Jesus is a different discussion than the the discussion of whether or not he was obligated to act on the issue of slavery.

Well there's another good post, and thoughtful too. Thanks.

So the bottomline is Jesus did not speak out against holding humans as slaves. Apparently, it wasn't his problem ... if he even thought it was a problem at all.

I guess he couldn't help it. The culture all around him held slaves. And nowhere in the OT does it forbid slavery. I guess it's not fair to expect Jesus to think outside those boxes. All he came for was to save the Cosmos.

So the question is not the problem of slavery, but, did he save the Cosmos?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The term "messiah" means the same thing to me that it means to everyone else, that being the "anointed one" or the "anointed king". I will start by agreeing that most Jews were looking for a king. The issue is what kind of king they were looking for.

Zechariah 9:9 indicates which kind of King they should have been expecting:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.
Yes, I am aware of the argument that Jesus consciously fulfilled this prophecy or arranged the finding the colt so that he could, but the bigger point is that he fit the role of a “lowly king”. That is the person who we know Jesus to be.

OK, but if we place the verse in its context, we get this ;

Zechariah 9:9-13 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Coming King
9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.
10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.’[a]
God Will Save His People
11 “As for you also,
Because of the blood of your covenant,
I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
12 Return to the stronghold,
You prisoners of hope.
Even today I declare
That I will restore double to you.
13 For I have bent Judah, My bow,
Fitted the bow with Ephraim,
And raised up your sons, O Zion,
Against your sons, O Greece,
And made you like the sword of a mighty man.”

This seems to portray the king in question as a warrior with a large dominion unlike Jesus. And what does Judah bent like a bow to battle Greece have to do with Jesus?

I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity transformed the meaning of the Messiah. What happened is that Jesus fulfilled the expectation of some who were looking for the Messiah. Those who felt that Jesus was such a person moved forward with that belief, thus becoming known as Christians. Those who didn’t accept that Jesus was the Messiah continued in the expectation that someone else would better fulfill their notion of who a Messiah would be.

That's true. Some first century Jews expected the messiah to be a warrior king like David and thus rejected Jesus. Others expected the messiah to be a supernatural cosmic judge from heaven. But until the New Testament I know of no record claiming that the messianic king would suffer and die for the sins of humanity. The verses cited in the New Testament from the Psalms and Isaiah 53 make no reference to the messiah. Viewed from a naturalistic POV, the vision of a man who combines the suffering dying savior and future cosmic king seems to have been a Christian innovation inspired by the life of the historic Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's true. Some first century Jews expected the messiah to be a warrior king like David and thus rejected Jesus. Others expected the messiah to be a supernatural cosmic judge from heaven. But until the New Testament I know of no record claiming that the messianic king would suffer and die for the sins of humanity. The verses cited in the New Testament from the Psalms and Isaiah 53 make no reference to the messiah. Viewed from a naturalistic POV, the vision of a man who combines the suffering dying savior and future cosmic king seems to have been a Christian innovation inspired by the life of the historic Jesus.

Daniel 9.26 prophesied this, and also predicted the very year it would happen:

"Then after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be put to death, but not for himself."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hey cosmic zeeky, can we cut with the "future cosmic king" nonsense, with its allusions to DC comic super-villians? How about a little respect for our Lord and Savior?

You think you are so daring courageous? Let me see you disrespect the mooslim god on some internet forum, and see what happens.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daniel 9.26 prophesied this, and also predicted the very year it would happen:

"Then after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be put to death, but not for himself."

In that translation, the verse could well refer to Jesus. Unfortunately, there is a highly partisan scholarly controversy about the time period in question, the word "messiah" and last clause which is often translated "he shall have nothing". For that matter, the phrase translated "put to death" is usually translated less specifically as "shall be cut off." It would be tragic if the whole matter of the messiah's identity boiled down to one ambiguous verse. But thank you for the citation, which is a possible exception to my previous statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hey cosmic zeeky, can we cut with the "future cosmic king" nonsense, with its allusions to DC comic super-villians? How about a little respect for our Lord and Savior?

No disrespect intended. I was simply making a distinct between belief in a messiah one who reigns over the entire universe from who reigns solely over a nation.

You think you are so daring courageous? Let me see you disrespect the mooslim god on some internet forum, and see what happens.

No. I'm just trying to understand my faith. Islam is peripheral to my concern.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daniel 9.26 prophesied this, and also predicted the very year it would happen:

"Then after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be put to death, but not for himself."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hey cosmic zeeky, can we cut with the "future cosmic king" nonsense, with its allusions to DC comic super-villians? How about a little respect for our Lord and Savior?

You think you are so daring courageous? Let me see you disrespect the mooslim god on some internet forum, and see what happens.

Bro Ohio, I'm rather certain you didn't intended it, but methinks perchance you contradict yourself by introducing both the book of Daniel and "illusions to DC Comics" in the same post.

But I like it. As I read it, Daniel came out of the same literary age as the book of Revelation; the period of apocalyptic writings; there's many of 'em; starting with the Zoroastrians. And I'm sorry for being so dumb but those books do seem to me to be like DC Comic Books.

Methink that perchance, if the Bible is the word of God then, the books of Daniel and Revelation are God's idea of comic books ... that He intends to confound us with.

Daniel 9:26 is nothing but confusing to me.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

This seems to portray the king in question as a warrior with a large dominion unlike Jesus. And what does Judah bent like a bow to battle Greece have to do with Jesus?
..
That's true. Some first century Jews expected the messiah to be a warrior king like David and thus rejected Jesus. Others expected the messiah to be a supernatural cosmic judge from heaven. But until the New Testament I know of no record claiming that the messianic king would suffer and die for the sins of humanity. The verses cited in the New Testament from the Psalms and Isaiah 53 make no reference to the messiah. Viewed from a naturalistic POV, the vision of a man who combines the suffering dying savior and future cosmic king seems to have been a Christian innovation inspired by the life of the historic Jesus.

Matthew 24:31-33 (NKJV)
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

Revelation 19:11-16 (NKJV)
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

The second coming of Jesus is where the warrior/ruler/judge aspect of the Messiah comes into play. Taking into account what Revelation says about Jesus, him fitting the "complete" role of the Messiah can be said to take place in the future.

Since you didn’t reference this second coming, I’m curious as to what your eschatological views are. Do you see the Jesus in Revelation as the same Jesus who appears in the four gospels? If not, would you agree that based upon the presupposition that he is the same Jesus, that he fits different parts of the role of a Messiah during each appearance on earth?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, I'm rather certain you didn't intended it, but methinks perchance you contradict yourself by introducing both the book of Daniel and "illusions to DC Comics" in the same post.

But I like it. As I read it, Daniel came out of the same literary age as the book of Revelation; the period of apocalyptic writings; there's many of 'em; starting with the Zoroastrians. And I'm sorry for being so dumb but those books do seem to me to be like DC Comic Books.

Methink that perchance, if the Bible is the word of God then, the books of Daniel and Revelation are God's idea of comic books ... that He intends to confound us with.

Daniel 9:26 is nothing but confusing to me.

Zorro Austrians are confusing to me.

Here's cosmic zeek's cosmic king god ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zorro Austrians are confusing to me.

Here's cosmic zeek's cosmic king god ...

Let's just recall that we got to the proposition of Jesus as cosmic savior through John 3:16-17 where the Greek words translated world are κοσμον and κοσμος which transliterate as cosmos.

“For God so loved the cosmos that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the cosmos to condemn the cosmos, but in order that the cosmos might be saved through him.

Thus, that Jesus is cosmic savior is literally the Gospel of John's proposition. If that seems funny to you, your issue is with John, not me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Matthew 24:31-33 (NKJV)
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

Revelation 19:11-16 (NKJV)
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

The second coming of Jesus is where the warrior/ruler/judge aspect of the Messiah comes into play. Taking into account what Revelation says about Jesus, him fitting the "complete" role of the Messiah can be said to take place in the future.

Since you didn’t reference this second coming, I’m curious as to what your eschatological views are. Do you see the Jesus in Revelation as the same Jesus who appears in the four gospels? If not, would you agree that based upon the presupposition that he is the same Jesus, that he fits different parts of the role of a Messiah during each appearance on earth?

What I get from reading the messianic prophesies of the OT is that the messiah was expected to be a warrior king and set up his kingdom when he came. I don't see where he was expected to come twice. The two advents seems to be a Christian innovation which pulls together ostensibly unrelated passages and verses as proof texts to explain that Jesus came as a suffering servant and sacrificial lamb the first time and the next time he is coming as a warrior-king to put right the universal order.

By including the book of Revelation in the NT, the framers of the NT canon, imply that the two characterizations of Jesus are somehow united in one person. There are various way of attempting to reconcile the two. Needless to say, the Son of Man who sits at the right hand of God, and the warrior Jesus of Revelation are not historically verified.

[awareness]

Freedom & Zeek,

Seems to me that by quoting Matthew and Revelation Freedom is confirming Zeek's claim that: "until the New Testament I know of no record claiming that the messianic king would suffer and die for the sins of humanity. The verses cited in the New Testament from the Psalms and Isaiah 53 make no reference to the messiah. Viewed from a naturalistic POV, the vision of a man who combines the suffering dying savior and future cosmic king seems to have been a Christian innovation inspired by the life of the historic Jesus."

[awareness]

Bro Ohio,

Cosmic Zorro is not a matter of eternal consequences.

But it was cute ... good job on the comic ...

And by the way the Greek word "cosmos" is used 152 times in the NT.

[UntoHim]

The second coming the Lord Jesus is a "fundamental" element for most evangelical, orthodox Christians, so I think it is very much on topic for this thread.

Freedom has it spot on in a previous post:

Originally Posted by Freedom

The second coming of Jesus is where the warrior/ruler/judge aspect of the Messiah comes into play. Taking into account what Revelation says about Jesus, him fitting the "complete" role of the Messiah can be said to take place in the future.

This is the correct way to interpret the Bible - by using the Bible as your main source of information. (aka Using the Bible to interpret the Bible) Too bad that many of the Jews in Jesus' day didn't use this method, else they would not have rejected the Messiah which God placed in their very midst.

Of course any careful reading of the Gospels clearly reveals the source of "the second coming" of Jesus Christ - it is Christ himself. In fact it was one of the things he spoke of the most, with the only other larger subjects being the Kingdom of God and the fact that as the Messiah he was going to suffer and die for the sins of the people and be raised on the third day. (cf: "The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again" - Luke 24:7 and many others)

The early apostles and disciples simply repeated what the Lord Jesus plainly and clearly related to them regarding his death, resurrection and second coming. It should be noted that any talk of an earthly, physical, political kingdom is not part of the Gospel, or the teachings of the early apostles. Even though it seems that many expected the Lord's return in their lifetime, I think most realized that the preaching of the Gospel to the entire Earth (as Christ taught) and the church maturing to become the bride (as Paul taught) was going to happen first.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio,

Cosmic Zorro is not a matter of eternal consequences.

But it was cute ... good job on the comic ...

And by the way the Greek word "cosmos" is used 152 times in the NT.

There are lots of common Greek words that do not transliterate exactly into the English language in every connotation even thought they may be close enough to use disrespectfully as cosmic zeek appeared to do so.

Take for example "Philip" which means a "lover of horses." Now I doubt if we could categorize the "objects" of Philip Lee's many amorous tendencies behind closed doors at the LSM offices as "horses."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are lots of common Greek words that do not transliterate exactly into the English language

Not so in this case, I believe. Pythagoras, 500 yrs circa before the Greek gospels were written, used the word to mean the universe, or starry heavens, which included the earth. We use it in the same sense today.

Originally Posted by Ohio

they may be close enough to use disrespectfully as cosmic zeek appeared to do so.

I don't agree that calling Jesus the cosmic savior is disrespectful in the least. In fact, I think it endows Jesus with even more respect than just "savior of the world."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't agree that calling Jesus the cosmic savior is disrespectful in the least. In fact, I think it endows Jesus with even more respect than just "savior of the world."

I'm not buying your premise that zeek used the phrase in a "respectful" way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying your premise that zeek used the phrase in a "respectful" way.

Only bro zeek can answer that.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Freedom & Zeek,

Seems to me that by quoting Matthew and Revelation Freedom is confirming Zeek's claim that: "until the New Testament I know of no record claiming that the messianic king would suffer and die for the sins of humanity. The verses cited in the New Testament from the Psalms and Isaiah 53 make no reference to the messiah. Viewed from a naturalistic POV, the vision of a man who combines the suffering dying savior and future cosmic king seems to have been a Christian innovation inspired by the life of the historic Jesus."

In Isaiah 53, the following is said of "My Servant", who is the stated subject of of that passage:
Isaiah 53:12 (NKJV)
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Regardless of your views on the Messiah, it's fair to say that no ordinary human could be one who "bore the sin of many", so I don't think this passage could be referring to anyone else.

I also agree with Ohio, Daniel 9:26 also refers to that to the death of Jesus, but apparently some people here are confused by that verse???

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In Isaiah 53, the following is said of "My Servant", who is the stated subject of of that passage:
Isaiah 53:12 (NKJV)
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Regardless of your views on the Messiah, it's fair to say that no ordinary human could be one who "bore the sin of many", so I don't think this passage could be referring to anyone else.

I also agree with Ohio, Daniel 9:26 also refers to that to the death of Jesus, but apparently some people here are confused by that verse???

Well if you want to believe something bad enough you can see anything you want in the OT. It does appear that that is what the NT writers were doing. But even they, referencing Isaiah almost 70 times, never once used it in reference to the Messiah. And "my servant" in Isaiah refers over and over again to Jacob.

Are you sure you're not just seeing things that aren't there? possibly seeing a mirage?

It's pretty clear that the OT does not consider that the Messiah would be a suffering and dying savior of the world.

Plus, there were other Messiah's, so called, in NT times, that were expected to drive out the Romans, and set up God's kingdom. They too were hung on crosses. Was that for the sins of the world?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if you want to believe something bad enough you can see anything you want in the OT. It does appear that that is what the NT writers were doing. But even they, referencing Isaiah almost 70 times, never once used it in reference to the Messiah. And "my servant" in Isaiah refers over and over again to Jacob.

Are you sure you're not just seeing things that aren't there? possibly seeing a mirage?

It's pretty clear that the OT does not consider that the Messiah would be a suffering and dying savior of the world.

Plus, there were other Messiah's, so called, in NT times, that were expected to drive out the Romans, and set up God's kingdom. They too were hung on crosses. Was that for the sins of the world?

In reference to Isaish 53:12, if you don't think it's referring to the messiah, then are you saying it would refer to Jacob? If so, it could read as "Jacob bore the sins of many", or you could insert other names who "My Servant" can also refer to (Moses, David, Job, etc). But none of that would make any sense. The narrative of the NT is that Jesus was a sin-bearer and thus it makes sense for me to accept that view. I'm not trying to "force" Jesus into fitting that role, rather, he is the only one historically who I can see as fitting that role.

The whole the story of Jesus seems a bit far fetched if he was just someone claiming to be a messiah. Those nowadays who make claims that they are an oracle of God (such as Lee) are usually a bit full of themselves. So how do you reconcile that with type of person Jesus was? I mean he didn't even defend himself when he faced Pilate. It just doesn't seem that he would be someone falsely claiming to be a messiah. For him to claim to be a messiah (and not be), there would have had to be some benefit in it for him. He knew very well that when he said some things ("Before Abraham was, I AM"), that people would want to kill him. Was he just going around trying to get himself killed? Like I said, the whole story just doesn't seem to make sense from that point of view.

Regarding the messianic prophecies, it is important to stop and think about what "problem" actually needed to be solved. The first indication that I see of God addressing widespread problems in regards to humanity is in Genesis 6:5 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Those are problems I would label as being related to sin. From this point of view, all other problems are subservient to sin or originate from sin. This is not by any means an uncommon view. So what good would it be to address any given problem without also wanting to address the problem of sin itself. The OT gives plenty of indication that this problem of sin is to be addressed. My point here is that according to the narrative of the OT, it wouldn't make much sense for the problem of sin to be left unaddressed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The whole the story of Jesus seems a bit far fetched if he was just someone claiming to be a messiah.

If every single "concern" posted on this site were removed, then dozens more would simply spring up. There will always be sufficient doubt for those who refuse to believe. There will never be enough "proof."

Luke 16 tells us that even if someone rose from the dead, some will still refuse to believe, and that is exactly what happened when Lazarus was raised by Jesus, many days after he was buried. What is evident from scripture is that each person must choose whether to believe or not. No one can believe for another person, and those who refuse to believe will never be persuaded by mere fact or reason.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The second coming the Lord Jesus is a "fundamental" element for most evangelical, orthodox Christians, so I think it is very much on topic for this thread.

Right we accept it a priori as a presupposition.

Freedom has it spot on in a previous post:

Amen!

This is the correct way to interpret the Bible - by using the Bible as your main source of information. (aka Using the Bible to interpret the Bible) Too bad that many of the Jews in Jesus' day didn't use this method, else they would not have rejected the Messiah which God placed in their very midst.

What experience is to an empiricist, so the Bible is to the fundamentalist.

Ah see but the New Testament hadn't been compiled yet, so what exactly the OT prophesies meant was subject to interpretation without the life of Jesus of Nazareth to interpret it by.

Of course any careful reading of the Gospels clearly reveals the source of "the second coming" of Jesus Christ - it is Christ himself. In fact it was one of the things he spoke of the most, with the only other larger subjects being the Kingdom of God and the fact that as the Messiah he was going to suffer and die for the sins of the people and be raised on the third day. (cf: "The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again" - Luke 24:7 and many others)

Right . But, of course even if he didn't say it all that would have been clear to the author after the fact, just sayin.

The early apostles and disciples simply repeated what the Lord Jesus plainly and clearly related to them regarding his death, resurrection and second coming. It should be noted that any talk of an earthly, physical, political kingdom is not part of the Gospel, or the teachings of the early apostles.

So God's Kingdom has no earthly, physical or political implications? Interesting.

Even though it seems that many expected the Lord's return in their lifetime, I think most realized that the preaching of the Gospel to the entire Earth (as Christ taught) and the church maturing to become the bride (as Paul taught) was going to happen first.

Do you think they understood it would take this long? If so, why do you think so?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying your premise that zeek used the phrase in a "respectful" way.

Making an issue of my alleged attitude is just a diversionary tactic to get the focus off of the truth of the NT proposition that Jesus is putative savior and hence messiah of the cosmos i.e. the universe. Even Witness Lee taught the world was the cosmos. "The world, the cosmos, is composed of many ages." (Life-Study of 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon, Chapter 20, Section 1) and that through the cross Jesus saved the cosmos. “In His flesh” Christ terminated all the negative things in the universe (Satan, the devil, the enemy of God—Heb. 2:14; sin—Rom. 8:3; John 1:29 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the cosmos!" ; the flesh of fallen man—Gal. 5:24; the world, the cosmos, the evil system of Satan—John 12:31; the old creation represented by the old man—Rom. 6:6; and the separating ordinances of the law—Eph. 2:15).(Crystallization-Study Outlines—Ephesians, Chapter 1, Section 3)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Making an issue of my alleged attitude is just a diversionary tactic to get the focus off of the truth of the NT proposition that Jesus is putative savior and hence messiah of the cosmos i.e. the universe. Even Witness Lee taught the world was the cosmos. "The world, the cosmos, is composed of many ages." (Life-Study of 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon, Chapter 20, Section 1) and that through the cross Jesus saved the cosmos. “In His flesh” Christ terminated all the negative things in the universe (Satan, the devil, the enemy of God—Heb. 2:14; sin—Rom. 8:3; John 1:29 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the cosmos!" ; the flesh of fallen man—Gal. 5:24; the world, the cosmos, the evil system of Satan—John 12:31; the old creation represented by the old man—Rom. 6:6; and the separating ordinances of the law—Eph. 2:15).(Crystallization-Study Outlines—Ephesians, Chapter 1, Section 3)

So you changed your story from the "cosmic king" to the "Savior of the cosmos." And now you are even referencing Witness Lee Life Studies for legitimacy, and on top of that quoting scripture.

So have you made a complete return to orthodoxy? UntoHim will be so excited.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So you changed your story from the "cosmic king" to the "Savior of the cosmos." And now you are even referencing Witness Lee Life Studies for legitimacy, and on top of that quoting scripture.

So have you made a complete return to orthodoxy? UntoHim will be so excited.

There's been no change in my position. I was characterizing Christian orthodoxy when I used those terms. Of course, that "Jesus is Lord" over the cosmos is a faith position, because it can still look like Satan is in control of the cosmos at least on this planet much of the time. Thus, Christians look forward to the time when Jesus' cosmic Lordship will be fully manifest.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So you changed your story from the "cosmic king" to the "Savior of the cosmos." And now you are even referencing Witness Lee Life Studies for legitimacy, and on top of that quoting scripture.

So have you made a complete return to orthodoxy? UntoHim will be so excited.

I never liked Lee's Life-Studies. I sure wish I knew you bro Ohio back in the LC, and you would have related to me Lee's use of cosmic to DC comic books.

I might have liked Lee's Life-Studies more then.

What comic book superhero would Lee make? or would he have been a villain superhero?

Or was he the oracle of The Cosmos?

[zeek]

Although Paul's view was basically monotheistic, he seems to have been influenced by aspects of a dualistic view of the cosmos, according to which the created order is at least partly under the control of the god of darkness. As a result of Hellenism, Zoroastrian dualism had spread though Mediterranean culture. Its influence can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, when they distinguish between the angel of darkness and the angel of light, the children of darkness and the children of light. The influence of this terminology can be seen on Paul, as, for example, in 2 Corinthians 11: 14, where Satan is said to disguise himself as the ‘angel of light’. Satan is thus the ‘angel of darkness’.

Witness Lee went further in the dualistic direction making him susceptible to the charge of Gnosticism. For example he said this,

The third involvement with the flesh is the world. God did not create the world. God created an earth. But Satan came in to systematize the entire earth, making it a cosmos, which we call the world. This cosmos is full of Satan's power and evils. It is the domain, the little monarchy, of Satan. The cosmos is Satan's kingdom which attracts and usurps people. So our flesh is attracted and usurped by the world. Such a flesh is poisoned by Satan, the enemy of God, contaminated and corrupted with sin, which is the nature of Satan, and also attracted and usurped by the world.(Crystallization-Study of the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 2, Section 2)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I never liked Lee's Life-Studies. I sure wish I knew you bro Ohio back in the LC, and you would have related to me Lee's use of cosmic to DC comic books.

I might have liked Lee's Life-Studies more then.

What comic book superhero would Lee make? or would he have been a villain superhero?

Or was he the oracle of The Cosmos?

I picture Lee as Magneto from the X-Men. Started out good, but ended up as a menace to the rest of us "mutants."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee went further in the dualistic direction making him susceptible to the charge of being a gnostic. For example he said this,

Wow! Witness Lee? What were you saying?

It's been posited that the second coming is germane to this thread. Well so is dualism.

But Witness Lee has amped up Satan to the point that he's everything and everywhere; almost like there is no dualism; God being so eclipsed by Satan that Satan is everything. Satan to Lee is omnipresent, just like God. And he's in everything, including us, and even created the world, or cosmos.

I'm surprised he didn't, like the Mormons, say that Satan is a brother of Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I picture Lee as Magneto from the X-Men. Started out good, but ended up as a menace to the rest of us "mutants."

It sure would have been best for us "mutants" to see Lee's Life-Studies as comic books.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It sure would have been best for us "mutants" to see Lee's Life-Studies as comic books.

Some of those Life-Studies were really good though!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of those Life-Studies were really good though!

"Good" as in you liked what he said. Yeah, I liked some of them too. Now, did they have any basis in reality? Ah, that's a different question. It's the question LCD is devoted to and as we have seen over and over, many of his propositions were questionable at best and others outright wrong with deleterious effects on those of us who bought into them and tried to live accordingly. And that may be true even of the ones we liked. Of course, if someone decides to hold on to what they like even though it has no basis in fact, they can do that too. That's their first amendment Constitutional right.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of those Life-Studies were really good though!

Is the quote zeek presented in post #1068 about Satan and the cosmos one of the good ones ... or is it one of Lee's comic books?

And how about Satan being a super hero super villain?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Good" as in you liked what he said. Yeah, I liked some of them too. Now, did they have any basis in reality? Ah, that's a different question. It's the question LCD is devoted to and as we have seen over and over, many of his propositions were questionable at best and others outright wrong with deleterious effects on those of us who bought into them and tried to live accordingly. And that may be true even of the ones we liked.

Much of what Lee said and was written in books was very good -- healthy, proper, based in reality, sound teaching, etc. One could basically hear the same message in another church outside of the Recovery. The problem is the leaven, just as the Lord told His disciples, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

The difficulty is that there is no easy way to separate out the leaven. Look at the disciples -- after the Lord ascended, they all departed from the Pharisees, and began something new.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Much of what Lee said and was written in books was very good -- healthy, proper, based in reality, sound teaching, etc. One could basically hear the same message in another church outside of the Recovery.

Well not in any of the churches around here. None of them is preaching the Recovery, nor the organic body of Christ, nor that they are the one true church, nor do any of them have the MOTA.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The problem is the leaven, just as the Lord told His disciples, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

The problem with Lee is his and LSM's authoritarian system ... and all the "good" teachings, so called, are to that end. That means the whole thing is leaven.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Much of what Lee said and was written in books was very good -- healthy, proper, based in reality, sound teaching, etc. One could basically hear the same message in another church outside of the Recovery. The problem is the leaven, just as the Lord told His disciples, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

The difficulty is that there is no easy way to separate out the leaven. Look at the disciples -- after the Lord ascended, they all departed from the Pharisees, and began something new.

Originally Posted by awareness

Well not in any of the churches around here. None of them is preaching the Recovery, nor the organic body of Christ, nor that they are the one true church, nor do any of them have the MOTA.

Obviously those teachings are the leaven.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously those teachings are the leaven.

What! The teachings on the body of Christ is leaven? Surely you didn't mean that.

[zeek]

5.0 out of 5 stars Here’s my interview with Brad [Jersak] on this important and beautifully written book, April 23, [2015
By Frank Schaeffer
This review is from: A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel (Paperback)
Was Jesus “Christlike?” — The Christian God has been twisted into something not unlike that of radical Islam
April 22, 2015 by Frank Schaeffer

“The Christian God has been twisted into something not unlike that of radical Islam.” So says Brad Jersak. We first met because we were both interviewed for the movie “Hellbound?” Then we became friends. Now Brad has an important book out–A More Christlike God–that challenges the received lazy “wisdom” of both conservatives and liberals, atheists and believers about Christ. Here’s my interview with Brad on this important and beautifully written book.

Q: Tell my readers a bit about your background.

Brad: Like you Frank, I grew up in the Evangelical world in the era when Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority hit their stride. It was also a time when your father, Francis Schaeffer, was my favorite thinker and hero … he did offer some culture and sanity to the Evangelical scene. Also, like you, the notion of a violent, retributive God eventually soured on me. The journey so far has led me to a more Christlike vision of God (and, like you, to the Orthodox church). Out of that fresh (but ancient) vision came this book.

Q: What was your inspiration for the title, A More Christlike God – more Christlike than what?

Brad: All of us, Christian or not, including atheists—carry images of ‘God’ in our minds. Whether we love and worship that ‘God’ or despise and reject him (or her or it), I believe human conceptions of God are incomplete, distorted and can even be dangerous. This is especially troubling when we see fundamentalists of all stripes emulating a violent god of their own making.

We become like the god we worship. How is it that our portrayals of God are so often utterly un-Christlike? In this book, I continually return to the claim that Jesus Christ is the “image of the invisible God” and “the exact representation” of who God is. In other words, if you want to know what God is really like—exactly like—look at Jesus.

Q: The churches in America present a god who is completely un-Christlike. They are stuck on the bad-ass god that could be lifted from ISIS videos as they behead people or as they burn people to death. After all Billy Graham, and the editors of Christianity Today preach a literal hell, and a god who created humanity to burn most people who don’t “accept” Jesus.

Brad: Right. I think of it this way: literally millions of thoughtful folks are abandoning the whole church scene. But many of them still care about who or what ‘God’ is. As a matter of conscience, they can no longer stomach the God of wrath often portrayed by Christendom if you don’t jump through their hoops. They have begun to suspect that the Christian God has been twisted into something not unlike that of radical Islam. Even the ‘New Atheists’ are citing the Bible and asking tough questions about the so-called ‘toxic texts’ that describe divinely sanctioned genocide, justification of slavery, oppression of women and a wrathful God who tortures unbelievers forever.

On the other hand, many of the same people very much like and respect the person of Jesus. They like his call to love, forgiveness and nonviolent peacemaking. In our most basic instincts, we know that if God is nothing like Jesus, something doesn’t fit related to our own hopes for humankind. Those who’ve taken the nearest exit still have questions—good questions, hard questions—questions about how a good God can allow or even inflict so much suffering in the world.-A More Christlike God attempts to engage those challenges head-on in a way that doesn’t just pile the B.S. platitudes even deeper.

Q: If we look at Jesus, what are we meant to see? How does Jesus show us what God is like?

Brad: Ironically, the vision of God that we get through Jesus is not that of an All-Supreme Emperor in the sky. The clearest picture we get comes from the Cross. On Good Friday, Jesus unveiled God as ‘cruciform,’ which means ‘Cross-shaped.’ In other words, something about Jesus’ suffering and death says more about God than anything else – it trumps every other image of God that religion has conceived.

In the book, I define ‘the Cross’ as the revelation that God is by nature “self-giving, radically forgiving, co-suffering love.” This is what it means for God to be both Christlike and cruciform. Jesus shows us a God who, by nature, empties himself into the world as redeeming love and infinite mercy.

Q: The climax of the book is your chapter about ‘A More Beautiful Gospel.’ Tell us about that.

Brad: I compare and contrast two ways the gospel has been presented. The first version shows the very conditional gospel of the evangelicals and roman Catholics and for that matter the more fundamentalist “Orthodox” : if you turn to God, he will turn to you. The whole thing starts with God’s indignation and we find his so-called love for us is entirely conditional.

The second version walks us through the story of Jesus. We see how God in Christ is always in pursuit of us, even and especially when we have “turned from him” as the evangelicals would say. We see how God never turns his back on anyone and, in fact, he pursues us like a lover.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/franksc...#ixzz3Y8R23G6d

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

5.0 out of 5 stars Here’s my interview with Brad [Jersak] on this important and beautifully written book, April 23, [2015
By Frank Schaeffer
This review is from: A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel (Paperback)
Was Jesus “Christlike?” — The Christian God has been twisted into something not unlike that of radical Islam
April 22, 2015 by Frank Schaeffer

Just curious, have you read this book? Is it something you're recommending? I don't know that I would agree with what it sounds like the book's premise is, but it sound like it might be an interesting read.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Just curious, have you read this book? Is it something you're recommending? I don't know that I would agree with what it sounds like the book's premise is, but it sound like it might be an interesting read.

I've read the first third, and on that basis I would highly recommend it . But, read it anyway.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Just curious, have you read this book? Is it something you're recommending? I don't know that I would agree with what it sounds like the book's premise is, but it sound like it might be an interesting read.

I'm assuming ya both know who Frank Schaeffer is. That he's the son of the renowned fundamentalist theologian and author Francis Schaeffer, more or less the founder of the religious right. Many conservative evangelicals consider him a traitor.

And I love him. He's an atheist that believes in God. And he's able to hold two opposing ideas in his head at the same time without his head exploding. He says:

“He, she or it exists and he she or it doesn’t exist. I don’t seesaw between these opposites; I embrace them.”

He's a breath of fresh air.

Obviously his daddy and the religious right really did a number on his head.

I identify with him.

[UntoHim]

Brad Jersak:

I believe human conceptions of God are incomplete, distorted and can even be dangerous

...then he goes on to give his very own incomplete, distorted and even dangerous human conceptions of God. To put a finer point on it, Jersak (and Schaeffer) do nothing much more than give us the age-old, humanistic, incomplete and distorted version of the true Gospel as presented to us in the entire Bible. This is what happens when people swing the pendulum so far away from a literalist view as to free themselves to present a god of their own making, only using bits and pieces of the Bible that suit their presentation. Ironically, this is what people of Jersak and Schaeffer's ilk accuse Christian fundamentalist of doing, and in many cases they're right....but they are doing the exact same thing, and what's worse they are doing it under the guise (really pretense) of being "enlightened" enough to tell us what God is really like.

Jersak does makes a very keen and biblically sound observation:

Brad: Ironically, the vision of God that we get through Jesus is not that of an All-Supreme Emperor in the sky. The clearest picture we get comes from the Cross. On Good Friday, Jesus unveiled God as ‘cruciform,’ which means ‘Cross-shaped.’ In other words, something about Jesus’ suffering and death says more about God than anything else – it trumps every other image of God that religion has conceived.

But he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge, or even recognize, what brought about the need for the Cross in the first place - Original Sin - Man's disobedience and rebellion against God Himself. I doubt that I'd be going out on a limb assuming that Jersak considers most of the opening chapters of Genesis as nothing more than Jewish myths. Like most liberal "Christians" of his persuasion, he wants his theological cake and eat it too. He wants the Jesus who forgave the adulteress (and rebuked the hypocrites), but he doesn't want the Jesus who told her "go, and sin no more".(Jn 8:11) He wants the Jesus who says "Judge not, and you will not be judged"(Lk 6:37), but he doesn't want the Jesus who says "Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me."(Jn 8:16)

The whole thing starts with God’s indignation and we find his so-called love for us is entirely conditional.

No, the whole thing doesn't start with God's indignation. The whole thing starts with God as the Creator of a Man with a free will and placing him within a creation. Unfortunately, a certain influential, powerful creature had already rebelled and disobeyed, thus God warned the Man about coming under the influence of the rebellious and disobedient creature. God also sternly warned the Man of the grave consequences that would befall him if he disobeyed - "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".(Gen 2:17) And this is where the Gospel, the real, genuine, complete, beautiful Gospel actually starts - God was ready and willing to preach the Gospel of grace, mercy and salvation to the fallen man from the start. Unfortunately, man had subjugated his free will and became a disobedient rebel. And such is the history of mankind - even the history of the ones He has called out of the rebellious and disobedient creation. Eventually God will set everything right and destroy all rebellion and disobedience. Until then we remain, and suffer to one degree or another, under the consequences of what happened in Genesis 3....whether we believe it or not.

[Ohio]

I'm assuming ya both know who Frank Schaeffer is. That he's the son of the renowned fundamentalist theologian and author Francis Schaeffer, more or less the founder of the religious right. Many conservative evangelicals consider him a traitor.

And I love him. He's an atheist that believes in God. And he's able to hold two opposing ideas in his head at the same time without his head exploding. He says:

“He, she or it exists and he she or it doesn’t exist. I don’t seesaw between these opposites; I embrace them.”

He's a breath of fresh air.

Sounds like another naughty kid that refused to grow up, making money and a name off his Dad. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan Junior.

An "atheist that believes in God," or not. Who cares, just as long as he can peddle his wares on line. Smells more like a smoky basement hangout, rather than some fresh air.

[zeek]

UntoHim--Before I respond, tell me, are you basing your conclusions solely on the interview below or have you read or seen more of Brad Jersak's theology?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm assuming ya both know who Frank Schaeffer is. That he's the son of the renowned fundamentalist theologian and author Francis Schaeffer, more or less the founder of the religious right. Many conservative evangelicals consider him a traitor.

And I love him. He's an atheist that believes in God. And he's able to hold two opposing ideas in his head at the same time without his head exploding. He says:

“He, she or it exists and he she or it doesn’t exist. I don’t seesaw between these opposites; I embrace them.”

He's a breath of fresh air.

Obviously his daddy and the religious right really did a number on his head.

I identify with him.

The article I posted was about a book by Brad Jersak. Schaeffer was just the interviewer. So really, passing judgment on Schaeffer one way or the other is irrelevant to my post.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

UntoHim--Before I respond, tell me, are you basing your conclusions solely on the interview below or have you read or seen more of Brad Jersak's theology?

After you made your original post I watched this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yY782_FPwc
It's pretty much an expanded version of the interview you posted. Nothing in this video changed my initial impression from your posting. Jersak is very similar to Rob Bell, Brian Mclaren and others in the Emergent group. The Bible is only to be considered literal where it makes them feel good, the rest can be considered the ramblings of evil intending religionists who invented a vengeful, immoral god out of thin air. There's nothing new under the sun. These kind of guys have been around since the beginning spewing out the same old stuff.

Jersak's main theme of "we are going to have to move from the Bible being the final, authoritative word of God to Jesus being the final, authoritative word of God." and "Jesus is the final living word, he's infallible, he's inerrant, not the book about him" is at best theologically naive and sophomoric, and at worst is some of the most dangerous kind of deceptive, postmodern garbage infiltrating Christianity today. Again, there's nothing new under the sun. I don't have to read a whole book to know where this guy is coming from....I can recognize this kind of stuff from 20 paces in the dark. In this respect these guys are kind of like Witness Lee, all the helpful stuff is totally outweighed by the harmful.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

After you made your original post I watched this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yY782_FPwc
It's pretty much an expanded version of the interview you posted. Nothing in this video changed my initial impression from your posting. Jersak is very similar to Rob Bell, Brian Mclaren and others in the Emergent group. The Bible is only to be considered literal where it makes them feel good, the rest can be considered the ramblings of evil intending religionists who invented a vengeful, immoral god out of thin air. There's nothing new under the sun. These kind of guys have been around since the beginning spewing out the same old stuff.

Thanks for sharing your source. I hadn't seen that video. Jersak doesn't claim that his hermeneutic is new. In fact he cites pre-Nicene fathers as holding similar positions. Your position isn't new either. I suppose also that your position makes you feel good too. I certainly hope so.

Jersak's main theme of "we are going to have to move from the Bible being the final, authoritative word of God to Jesus being the final, authoritative word of God." and "Jesus is the final living word, he's infallible, he's inerrant, not the book about him" is at best theologically naive and sophomoric, and at worst is some of the most dangerous kind of deceptive, postmodern garbage infiltrating Christianity today.

No that isn't his "main theme". As I understand it, his main theme is to view the Jesus of the gospels as the hermeneutic through which to understand the Bible.

Again, there's nothing new under the sun. I don't have to read a whole book to know where this guy is coming from....I can recognize this kind of stuff from 20 paces in the dark. In this respect these guys are kind of like Witness Lee, all the helpful stuff is totally outweighed by the harmful.

Again your position isn't new either. What's the helpful stuff here that's outweighed by the harmful in your opinion? What is wrong with focusing on the life and ministry of Jesus as the standard by which all else is measured?

[awareness]

I agree that I'm first to misunderstand something. So I've learned, or try to, to watch out for doing that.

For a long time I admit that I haven't understood the unChrist-like-God in the OT. That I've seen it as a projection of a human imagination upon God; a false fantasy depiction of God.

Eventually I discovered there were early Christians that saw it that way too. They called the OT God a demiurge. They were called Gnostics, and branded heretics.

Now I may also be misunderstanding Jersak with his filtering the Bible thru a Christ-like God, dismissing all unChrist-like depictions of God in the Bible, and that Christ is the Word of God and the Bible is not.

I agree that that might also be a product of the human imagination upon God and Christ; another false fantasy depiction.

So I'm stuck. Which fantasy depiction of God do I embrace. Which fantasy, if that's what they are, will bear good fruit and which bad?

Jersak does make one statement that I think is unquestionable: that humans mimic their God. So as far as I'm concerned, the sooner humankind can ditch the unChrist-like God in the OT the better, and the sooner we can find the Christ-like God also the better.

So I don't understand why UntoHim considers Jersak "the most dangerous kind of deceptive, postmodern garbage infiltrating Christianity today."

I see a Christ-like God as the best thing that ever happened to Christianity ... and to humanity. It's about time, as far as I'm concerned.

Am I misunderstanding something again?

[zeek]

Jersak's view is an alternative to fundamentalism, so the fundamentalist must reject it in order to be faithful to his dogmatic commitment. But what of the seeker who is committed to God alone? What should he or she do? Well, Jersak proposes a solution to a real problem faced by believers who cannot stomach the Biblical depiction of a God who uses intimidation and violence to bring wayward humans into submission. If you're a person who has been perplexed by this Biblical problem, why not give him a fair hearing? There is the video that UntoHim linked and others by Jersak on youtube, so it isn't even necessary to buy his books for an impression of what he is getting at.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jersak's view is an alternative to fundamentalism, so the fundamentalist must reject it in order to be faithful to his dogmatic commitment. But what of the seeker who is committed to God alone? What should he or she do? Well, Jersak proposes a solution to a real problem faced by believers who cannot stomach the Biblical depiction of a God who uses intimidation and violence to bring wayward humans into submission. If you're a person who has been perplexed by this Biblical problem, why not give him a fair hearing? There is the video that UntoHim linked and others by Jersak on youtube, so it isn't even necessary to buy his books for an impression of what he is getting at.

Why would anyone swallow Jersak's views when they can have a real understanding of God by reading the Bible?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I see a Christ-like God as the best thing that ever happened to Christianity ... and to humanity.

Agreed! But unless we read the Gospels, then we only have someone's vain imagination of what "Christ-like" looks like.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jersak's view is an alternative to fundamentalism, so the fundamentalist must reject it in order to be faithful to his dogmatic commitment.

Maybe that's why UntoHim thinks Jersak's views is "the most dangerous kind of deceptive, postmodern garbage infiltrating Christianity today."

And maybe its infiltrating because fundamentalism is fading and dying, and a change is needed. It's pretty obvious that, Christianity needs to be saved.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jersak's view is an alternative to fundamentalism, so the fundamentalist must reject it in order to be faithful to his dogmatic commitment. But what of the seeker who is committed to God alone? What should he or she do? Well, Jersak proposes a solution to a real problem faced by believers who cannot stomach the Biblical depiction of a God who uses intimidation and violence to bring wayward humans into submission. If you're a person who has been perplexed by this Biblical problem, why not give him a fair hearing? There is the video that UntoHim linked and others by Jersak on youtube, so it isn't even necessary to buy his books for an impression of what he is getting at.

I downloaded the Kindle version of the book, and I've read a few chapters already. I will admit that he has some interesting points, not all of which I agree with, but worthy of consideration.

Where I do agree with Jersak is that people project God in the ways they want to. It's not bad to be introspective about who you view God as. Coming from a LC background, there are a number of "ditches" that I find myself falling into, such as the idea of God being someone to punish or judge those who leave the LC. It's a silly notion, but one that's deeply rooted within me. The superstition lasts much longer than getting rid of the notion itself.

I will say that my initial hesitation with what I've read so far is that Jersak might be falling into the same trap that he warns about. I haven't read the whole book, so it might be too early to make that judgement, however, it seems he sees Jesus someone who is supposed to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside (as the supposed antithesis to God in to Old Testament). I asked myself, what about at the end of John 6 when many of Jesus' disciples left him after he spoke of his flesh being food and his blood being drink? What about when Jesus cleansed the temple? These passages say just as much about Jesus as any other passage does.

So my hesitation here is that, yes, Jesus expressed love as it should be expressed (and people, including Christians fall very short of this), but above all He also purposeful, meaning that in order to do what he really set out to do, it involved making enemies, making people uncomfortable, and being criticized. Let's face it, not everyone viewed Jesus as a 'hero' figure. Some though he was blasphemous, claiming to be the King of the Jews.

[awareness]

For the life of me I can't fathom how the idea of a Christ-like God could ever be dangerous in any way whatsoever.

Somebody please explain it to me.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

For the life of me I can't fathom how the idea of a Christ-like God could ever be dangerous in any way whatsoever.

Somebody please explain it to me.

I wasn't planning on posting too much until I finished the book, but here goes. The problem I have with using the term "Christ-like" to make implications about God is who gets to define "Christ-like"? It seems people will make Jesus fit whatever role they want him to, but the Bible presents multiple aspects/roles of Christ.

The point I tried to make in my last post is that trying to make Jesus G-rated doesn't work, in the same way that trying to make God G-rated doesn't work. Along the same line, in Rev 5:5, Christ is referred to "the Lion of the tribe of Judah". So it seems that everyone wants the 'lamb' view of Jesus, but not the 'lion' view.

I know I'm digressing here, but have you ever read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? In that book Aslan the lion is used as a allegory of Jesus, and it struck me, C.S. Lewis using that deception wasn't an accident. There is a line in that book where it was asked if Aslan is 'safe' and the response was something like "no, but he's good". I think that kind of depiction was specifically meant to help people get away from the notion of Christ only fitting the mold people want him to. It's not like 'dangerous' and 'good' are mutually exclusive.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

I agree that I'm first to misunderstand something. So I've learned, or try to, to watch out for doing that.

For a long time I admit that I haven't understood the unChrist-like-God in the OT. That I've seen it as a projection of a human imagination upon God; a false fantasy depiction of God.

I won't comment on all of the post.

I don't know that I can go where the Gnostics went, or where Rob Bell and Brian McLaren have more recently gone. But I have noticed that there is something about how the Bible we have came to be that seems to go against the "every word recorded" view. There are places where Moses and various others (primarily the prophets) wrote something that was specifically given by God. But there are other parts that are simply the record of how man progressed, then how God dealt with the Children of Israel over several centuries that are full of revelation of God mixed with just the history of the nation. While God did intervene to keep a couple of foreign hot shots from violating Abraham's wife, the fact that he (Abraham) set the problem in motion is hardly a record of God. Maybe a record of the "all things" that God managed to use for Abraham's learning. I mean, while he was a man of faith, he was also a man of little faith.

And all those records where they claimed God told them to wipe out everything and everyone (thinking especially of the inhabitants of the good land). If they had actually done it, as was claimed in some of the accounts, then why do the same, now annihilated peoples keep giving them trouble?

It looks to me like the record of God's deeds is good and accurate and is imbedded in man's record of history.

Yet I still have the ability to say things like "accurate" and "infallible" because what it would appear that we are to learn from the OT (about God) is not whether the Israelites did, or were supposed to, wipe out every person of certain lineage. I know that there are a lot of people that will have a cow over that. And I realize that there could be a "slippery slope" in there. But if 6 days of creation was metaphorical to boil it all down to stages of how it came to be over millions (billions?) of years, why do we think that the things that people from the eras of barbarism would put into their histories have to be "the word of God"?

Yet God is there to be found throughout it all.

I will not bother pontificating on the existence of Hell. It is beyond my scope of knowledge. And it is beyond this age, and under the purview of the One who is over all. If that is the way it is and I don't like it, I have determined that I will not argue a different god into being. Not going to create him in my image, according to my likeness (or my likes). It is what it is. We may not understand it as clearly as we think. Or maybe we do. I don't know. But if the God of the Bible is the one true God, I'll leave it to Him.

[awareness]

Great post OBW, thanks for the balanced response. I too won't respond to your whole post. Just what applies to Jersak.

Originally Posted by OBW

If that is the way it is and I don't like it, I have determined that I will not argue a different god into being. Not going to create him in my image, according to my likeness (or my likes).

I can't say if Jersak is making God in HIS own image or not. He sounds like he's trying to make God in Christs' image.

And I think Freedom touched on the problem : What is Christs' image, according to the whole canon?

I think Jersak is drawing his image of Christ from the gospels. I'm not reading the book, so I'll defer to Zeek and Freedom to confirm that. (I'll buy the book when I'm convinced Jersak is really onto something).

Jersak considers Jesus The Inerrant Word of God, and not the Bible, so I don't know what he thinks about the book of Revelation. I don't think I need to paint the image of Christ in that book, but only need mention the bowls of wrath of God.

If the image of Christ is lifted from that book then Christ looks a whole lot like the OT God. Jersak dismisses incidents of God in the OT as not Christ like. So now, in the book of Rev. we have Christ not acting Christ like, if we go by Jersak's gospels based Christ likeness. So we have Christ acting OT God like, not God acting like Jersak's Christ likeness.

So I think I've perchance bumped into why UntoHim thinks Jersak's message is so dangerous.

First, "a Christ like God" rings true. It has a very strong appeal. It's a worm that bores down into even the hardest exterior, into the core of the thinking processes ... and sticks to the neurons, permanently changing them, never to be the same.

Second, in order to maintain the ideal of Christ likeness, much of the Bible has to be negated. Much of the Bible is not Christ like, by Jersak's Christ likeness standard.

And that knocks down the very first plank of the five fundamentals.

Is that why Jersak is so dangerous? Are we perchance hanging desperately to the wrong Word of God; to a book, and not to Christ, the real and actual Word of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

For the life of me I can't fathom how the idea of a Christ-like God could ever be dangerous in any way whatsoever.

Somebody please explain it to me.

This morning i read where (Mark 9) Jesus said we should cut off our hand, foot, or eye if it causes us to sin. Isnt that a little dangerous?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This morning i read where (Mark 9) Jesus said we should cut off our hand, foot, or eye if it causes us to sin. Isnt that a little dangerous?

For a literalist, yes.

[zeek]

The book of Samuel says that God ordered Saul to commit genocide. Is a god who orders genocide Christ-like or not? If we are going by the depiction of Jesus in the gospels, I think the answer is obviously "no." Yes, people have viewed God differently through the ages. But, Jesus said "If you have seen me you've seen the Father." If the revelation of God in Jesus as the Christ in the gospels is accepted as the highest revelation of God, then it may supersede un-Christ-like depictions of God, even ones that are in the Bible. Of course, our Biblical inerrantist brethren are going to have a problem with this hermeneutic. Jesus teaches us to pray for them. [And them to pray for us too, by the way.]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This morning i read where (Mark 9) Jesus said we should cut off our hand, foot, or eye if it causes us to sin. Isnt that a little dangerous?

I don't know of anyone that has done this ... and as far as I can see we all sin. But no hands, feet, or eyes cut off or out.

But Jesus doesn't do it. He advises for you to do it to yourself. And that's easy to say, for someone that doesn't sin.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know of anyone that has done this ... and as far as I can see we all sin. But no hands, feet, or eyes cut off or out.

But Jesus doesn't do it. He advises for you to do it to yourself. And that's easy to say, for someone that doesn't sin.

When my children were little, they used to love it when I read Amelia Bedelia books to them. The publisher say this about the book "Amelia Bedelia is a housekeeper who takes her instructions quite literally. Reading the list of chores that her employer has left her, Amelia begins with "Dust the furniture." How odd, Amelia thinks to herself. "At my house we undust the furniture." Nonetheless, she dutifully locates the "Dusting Powder" in the bathroom, and proceeds to sprinkle it all over the living-room furniture and floor. Next she is asked to "Draw the drapes when the sun comes in." So of course, Amelia sits down with a sketchpad and gives it her best shot. Children who are 6 and older can successfully interpret the figurative meaning behind most adult idioms. Being told to "keep an eye on the cat," for example, might compel some preschoolers to stick their eyeballs on a cat's face, eliciting peals of laughter from know-it-all grownups. But older children know better, and they love the fact that they know better."The Bible is dangerous in the hands of people who think like Amelia Bedelia.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible is dangerous in the hands of people who think like Amelia Bedelia.

Yeah, a Christ like God couldn't ever be as dangerous as the Bible has been thru the ages.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great post OBW, thanks for the balanced response. I too won't respond to your whole post. Just what applies to Jersak.


I can't say if Jersak is making God in HIS own image or not. He sounds like he's trying to make God in Christs' image.

And I think Freedom touched on the problem : What is Christs' image, according to the whole canon?

I think that the problem with the OT may be at least partly what we call scripture and what they called scripture. While virtually the whole of what we call the OT was important for the Jews, it was at least two-tiered, if not three. There was the Pentateuch and everything else. And it might be that the Prophets and possibly a couple of others stood apart from the rest.

So you look to the books of Moses as being clearly God speaking. Or at least mostly God speaking with some history thrown in. Then you have the Prophets which also are mostly God's speaking. Then you have the rest which is mostly man recording history or speaking about God.

Now don't think that I dismiss any of the "man's speaking" as irrelevant or not part of the whole of the revelation of God. But when man is speaking, there is the issue of the biases and times of the writer to take into account. (And there is a little of that in the books of Moses as well, but not as much.) They tended to wax extreme when speaking of going into battle. The rhetoric of the time was to declare the opponent as either wiped-out, or intended to be wiped out. Few would record history in terms of simply defeating. To them defeating was to cause them to cease to be relevant as a separate group, therefore wiped-out. Does this account for all of such rhetoric in the OT? I don't know.

To say that Jersak is trying to make the God of the OT to be more like what we see in the person of Christ in the gospels is not necessarily an incorrect thing. Christ clearly shows a side of God that was not observable, or at least not easily observable, prior to that time. Surely God did much to care for the Children of Israel. Even stepping in to do some miraculous things in the defeat of enemies that were poised to destroy them. Somehow a rather large hail storm comes to mind in at least one case.

But does Christ simply avoid the "Hell" issue? Or is it more like it is in terms that we feel comfortable monkeying around with the meaning of the terms to be as we want them? I will be honest to say that I mostly try to stay out of the discussions in terms of "it is this way" because I am not sure that I know which it is. But because I am not sure, I cannot say that it is not eternal damnation. Or ultimate annihilation. Or temporary damnation followed by some kind of restoration. My readings tend to lead me toward the former more than the latter, but I see the arguments for the latter.

But I am clear that if God really is God, then He has the right to make it any of those and can justify it in terms of ultimate righteousness. Who are we to think that we know what ultimate righteousness really is?

[zeek]

Does God command a thing because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does God command a thing because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

To answer in a way that is complete yet vague (I should be a politician), God commands from within his nature. Whether we think it is good or not is irrelevant unless we think we can overthrow him. If we cannot, then I guess it is as good as it gets.

If we ignore God, good is in the eye of the beholder. Some would say that wiping out the neighboring country is good. Others would stand in horror. Still others could point to good things about it while arguing that it is not a good thing to do, or questionable as to the overarching "goodness" of it.

So who gets to say what is good and what is not? If there is just us, it seems that the majority rules, yet cannot fully force its definition on everyone. So good remains an uncertainty. If there is a God of the stature that that Bible speaks of, then He gets the last work on the subject no matter what we think about it in the interim.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

To answer in a way that is complete yet vague (I should be a politician), God commands from within his nature.

OK, then is God's nature good because it is his or because it is good in and of itself?

Whether we think it is good or not is irrelevant unless we think we can overthrow him.

Then, a thing is good because God commands it. So, there is no intrinsic good there is only what God commands by His authority.

If we cannot, then I guess it is as good as it gets.

Which may not be good at all.

If we ignore God, good is in the eye of the beholder. Some would say that wiping out the neighboring country is good. Others would stand in horror. Still others could point to good things about it while arguing that it is not a good thing to do, or questionable as to the overarching "goodness" of it. So who gets to say what is good and what is not?

But if good is just what someone says about it, even if that someone is God, then it is nothing in and of itself and all judgments are ultimately arbitrary.

If there is just us, it seems that the majority rules, yet cannot fully force its definition on everyone. So good remains an uncertainty.
If there is a God of the stature that that Bible speaks of, then He gets the last word on the subject no matter what we think about it in the interim.

So does that settle it then? Whoever has the authority gets to determine what is good? Your conclusion is basically that a thing is good because God commands it. If that's true then if God commands genocide, genocide is good. Is that where we should leave the matter?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, then is God's nature good because it is his or because it is good in and of itself?

. . .

Then, a thing is good because God commands it. So, there is no intrinsic good there is only what God commands by His authority.

I won't post it all.

At some level, I left the definition of good out of it. Since there are so many different opinions as to what is good, at some level agreeing on good ultimately is about taking someone else's definition (unless you happen to be the one that everyone is looking to for guidance).

I am not saying that good is not definable. Neither am I saying that whatever God says or does is simply good because he is the one that says or does it. But it could seem that way.

And when we look at any particular action by anyone and we get different opinions as to its goodness, or lack thereof, there are many reasons for the differences of opinion. Among those is a lack of complete information. Or as disagreement as to what is the relevant information to use for the decision. Otherwise we would all agree.

As to whether "as good as it gets" "may not be good at all" I would say that is an excellent example of what I am talking about.

I have told the story of the retired Army guy (presumed to be) who decided he was not yet too old to do something else with his life and went back to school. Only had one class with him. Business Law. So here we are, a bunch of business students learning just a little law from a a real lawyer. On several occasions, the instructor was talking about one aspect of law or another. This guy would start to say "well, what if . . ." and change the facts just a little. Typically the same answer. But he kept on morphing the facts until suddenly we were in a different aspect of the law, and the answer was different. He thought he had found a problem with the law, but instead was ignorantly demanding that a now-inapplicable portion of the law continue to rule and since it didn't, it must be broken.

Sometimes I think that trying to decide that something we do not have all the facts concerning, or a penchant for divergent ideas (like those people who have no remorse at harming others) is a little like what we get when the little that is recorded in the Bible is used as if it is all the facts. And conclude that the correct perspective is ours and not the person that is actually there and is making the decision (in this particular case, God).

We might legitimately question why, but until we get all the facts, our conclusion can only be tentative.

Yes, to us all judgements may seem arbitrary. And the idea that if God says it then that is the way it is may be the way it actually is. Since it is clear that even ignoring God we don't all agree on what is good, then if we come to any situation, the determination that it is good may seem both arbitrary and wrong. So if there is God, then his decision as to what is good ultimately rules the day no matter how arbitrary any of us may think it is. That would be true even if there was no God and all you have is the current rulers of our society. I don't agree with everything that they say. I think that certain things that are punished should not be and things that are not should be. Probably not really a lot of difference, but there is some. And it happens at all levels and in all kinds of places.

The ultimate answer is that without a supreme being, there is no ultimate answer. And with one, we ultimately don't get a say. Neither is completely perfect to our imperfect minds.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The ultimate answer is that without a supreme being, there is no ultimate answer. And with one, we ultimately don't get a say. Neither is completely perfect to our imperfect minds.

On a theoretical level, the issue is indeterminate. But, for Christian faith, God is love and for the definition of what love is we have Jesus who as the Christ is "the image of the invisible God." Unlike those religious leaders who seek to dominate others by claiming God's authority, Jesus "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave." So through faith we do have an answer and a pattern to live by which is to empty ourselves in love. And, if your life is anything like mine, you come across plenty of opportunities to do that every day.

[OBW]

I said

The ultimate answer is that without a supreme being, there is no ultimate answer. And with one, we ultimately don't get a say. Neither is completely perfect to our imperfect minds.

to which zeek responded

Originally Posted by zeek

On a theoretical level, the issue is indeterminate. But, for Christian faith, God is love and for the definition of what love is we have Jesus who as the Christ is "the image of the invisible God." Unlike those religious leaders who seek to dominate others by claiming God's authority, Jesus "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave." So through faith we do have an answer and a pattern to live by which is to empty ourselves in love. And, if your life is anything like mine, you come across plenty of opportunities to do that every day.

I think that about sums it up. I often submit my will, through faith, to that of God/Christ/Spirit. Or at least I think I am based on my understanding of what we know about God.

Of course, I often retain my will on contradiction to His.

The thing is that there are many still trying to dominate. Which means taking a position above that of God.

Yes, I have many opportunities to know my place and choose to take that route at least some of the time. Would that the percentage was greater. But I assume that no matter how much I step up my game, I will still be saying that when I am 90.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I said
to which zeek responded
I think that about sums it up. I often submit my will, through faith, to that of God/Christ/Spirit. Or at least I think I am based on my understanding of what we know about God.

Of course, I often retain my will on contradiction to His.

The thing is that there are many still trying to dominate. Which means taking a position above that of God.

Yes, I have many opportunities to know my place and choose to take that route at least some of the time. Would that the percentage was greater. But I assume that no matter how much I step up my game, I will still be saying that when I am 90.

What I find is that when I fail, which may be every time, and even at those times when I have sinned most grievously, Jesus' commandment to love calls me to back to my higher self.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill saga holds some very important lessons for the Christian community at large, and even more specifically for our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church, I believe.

Driscoll is an extremely talented and powerful teacher, with a penchant for making the Gospel and Scriptures "culturally relevant" to a younger, unchurched audience. He used this talent and force of personality (mostly in a positive manner) to take a fledgling church of 20-30 people meeting in his apartment, all the way to a multi-site megachurch of over 5,000 - all in his 20s and 30s. Eventually, Driscoll's influence and powerful mega-personality became more powerful and influential to the leadership, and by extension to the rank and file members, than the message and work of the Gospel which they strove to proclaim. All the other sordid details of the Mars Hill meltdown are probably not as important to note, at least for us on LCD, as the fact that the person and work of Mark Driscoll became more important than the Person and Work of Jesus Christ (aka The Gospel).

Now to maybe the most important lesson. At some point Mark Driscoll, either through his own initiative or on the behest of others, created an elder council or board, which was empowered to discipline, and remove from leadership if necessary, any church leader, including Driscoll himself. So when the mega personality of the megachurch became a mega distraction to the main mission of the church (preaching, teaching and practicing the Gospel) Driscoll was placed under mandatory discipline, and rather than coming under the biblically mandated discipline mechanism which he himself helped create, he chose to take the easy way out and resign. There is very little doubt, that without this bilbically mandated discipline mechanism in place, Dricoll would have continued to do what he had apparently been doing for years - ignore the biblical and godly input from the elders of the church. God is not mocked. He will NOT share his glory with another, not even with the the mega personality of a megachurch. He may replace you, or he may just leave your house desolate. Either way he will get the glory.

Interesting, but I don't accept your hypothesis, UntoHim. It makes God look like a bigger ego-maniac than Driscoll. But, if Driscoll thinks God is glory seeker, then it's understandable that he seek glory in the process of following him. He was simply projecting his own egotism onto his image of God.

What does the Bible say? It tells us that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God" and "Be ye followers of God as dear children and walk in love as Christ also has loved us and given himself as an offering and a sacrifice for sweet smelling savor." The glory of the cross. Anyway, at least Driscoll set up a board with the power to discipline him. Witness lee would never have done anything like that which would have put his absolute authority at risk. Driscoll should be commended for that at least.

[Dave]

Fundamentalism raises the question: Either eternal life or eternal damnation? In our limited minds in regards to eternal life we presume that all the real Christians will all be with God for eternity: what does that look like? We can't fathom eternity other than forever and forever without end. An astrophysicist takes a brief look at living 10,000 years.
https://youtu.be/RxN5YdFCye4

On thing that puzzles me is why people say at a funeral or otherwise when someone who is presumed to be a Christian dies---he/she is in a better place, he/she went to join their wife (who died several years ago), he/she is in heaven, etc. Paul makes it clear that "the dead shall rise first" (I Thess 4:15-16) and those who are alive shall not precede those who have died. The fact is that every Christian who has died is still in their graves. They are not in a better place. They have been waiting in their graves up to 2000 years for the coming of the Lord. This includes Paul, all the disciples, Martin Luther, James Darby, Watchman Nee etc.

Of course there are several theories about the Judgment day to include that everything was concluded by 70AD: http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvin...happen-106058/ Is it a roll of the dice as to who is right? Does it matter? There have been those that argue that it is better to be a Christian and live the Christian life on the chance it is correct. Is that a worthwhile theory?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Fundamentalism raises the question: Either eternal life or eternal damnation?

Actually it is the Bible, and most specifically the Gospel, that presents us with the consequences of rejecting God's Son. If this truth is presented by a "fundamentalist" it is no less true, and if it is rejected by a "non-fundamentalist" is it still no less true . It is God Himself, via his Word, who clearly warns man of the position he is born into - "You were at that time separated from Christ... having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph 2:12) The simple fact is that we were born into eternal damnation. To use a crude illustration, we were born on a sinking ship, and God has graciously thrown us a life saver. To reject the salvation which is provided in Christ is to reject the life saver God has provided. This is the most fundamental, basic understanding of the Gospel preached by Christ himself and the early apostles.

On thing that puzzles me is why people say at a funeral or otherwise when someone who is presumed to be a Christian dies---he/she is in a better place, he/she went to join their wife (who died several years ago), he/she is in heaven, etc. Paul makes it clear that "the dead shall rise first" (I Thess 4:15-16) and those who are alive shall not precede those who have died. The fact is that every Christian who has died is still in their graves. They are not in a better place. They have been waiting in their graves up to 2000 years for the coming of the Lord. This includes Paul, all the disciples, Martin Luther, James Darby, Watchman Nee etc.

You're confusing the death of the body (which every man will suffer unless the Lord returns before) with the eternal spirit/soul of the believer. The apostle Paul clearly delineated between the two, and also clearly indicated that the believer, upon the physical death of his earthly body, would come into the presence of Christ. (cf: For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Phil 1:21 NIV) For an even more vivid illustration, check out 1 Corinthians 15 (a chapter all us ex LCers are familiar with) Paul uses the illustration of our body as a type of seed, which must go through death (What you sow does not come to life unless it dies- Vr 36) Eventually we will receive a "spiritual body" which will be joined again with our eternal spirit/soul. In the meantime, those who have died "in Christ" are in his presence, this is clear.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Fundamentalism raises the question: Either eternal life or eternal damnation? In our limited minds in regards to eternal life we presume that all the real Christians will all be with God for eternity: what does that look like? We can't fathom eternity other than forever and forever without end. An astrophysicist takes a brief look at living 10,000 years.
https://youtu.be/RxN5YdFCye4

On thing that puzzles me is why people say at a funeral or otherwise when someone who is presumed to be a Christian dies---he/she is in a better place, he/she went to join their wife (who died several years ago), he/she is in heaven, etc. Paul makes it clear that "the dead shall rise first" (I Thess 4:15-16) and those who are alive shall not precede those who have died. The fact is that every Christian who has died is still in their graves. They are not in a better place. They have been waiting in their graves up to 2000 years for the coming of the Lord. This includes Paul, all the disciples, Martin Luther, James Darby, Watchman Nee etc.

Of course there are several theories about the Judgment day to include that everything was concluded by 70AD: http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvin...happen-106058/ Is it a roll of the dice as to who is right? Does it matter? There have been those that argue that it is better to be a Christian and live the Christian life on the chance it is correct. Is that a worthwhile theory?

And here's another view; a bona fida Alternative View:

"The first time the Deity came down to earth, he brought life and death; when he came the second time, he brought hell.

Life was not a valuable gift, but death was. Life was a fever-dream made up of joys embittered by sorrows, pleasure poisoned by pain; a dream that was a nightmare-confusion of spasmodic and fleeting delights, ecstasies, exultations, happinesses, interspersed with long-drawn miseries, griefs, perils, horrors, disappointments, defeats, humiliations, and despairs— the heaviest curse devisable by divine ingenuity; but death was sweet, death was gentle, death was kind; death healed the bruised spirit and the broken heart, and gave them rest and forgetfulness; death was man’s best friend; when man could endure life no longer, death came and set him free. In time, the Deity perceived that death was a mistake; a mistake, in that it was insufficient; insufficient, for the reason that while it was an admirable agent for the inflicting of misery upon the survivor, it allowed the dead person himself to escape from all further persecution in the blessed refuge of the grave. This was not satisfactory. A way must be contrived to pursue the dead beyond the tomb.

The Deity pondered this matter during four thousand years unsuccessfully, but as soon as he came down to earth and became a Christian his mind cleared and he knew what to do. He invented hell, and proclaimed it. Now here is a curious thing. It is believed by everybody that while he was in heaven he was stern, hard, resentful, jealous, and cruel; but that when he came down to earth and assumed the name Jesus Christ, he became the opposite of what he was before: that is to say, he became sweet, and gentle, merciful, forgiving, and all harshness disappeared from his nature and a deep and yearning love for his poor human children took its place. Whereas it was as Jesus Christ that he devised hell and proclaimed it! Which is to say, that as the meek and gentle Savior he was a thousand billion times crueler than ever he was in the Old Testament— oh, incomparably more atrocious than ever he was when he was at his very worst in those old days! Meek and gentle? By and by we will examine this popular sarcasm by the light of the hell which he invented.

Twain, Mark (2013-03-26). Letters from the Earth: Uncensored Writings (Perennial Classics) (p. 53-54). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

And this before the five fundamentals were formed. Already, before the framers of the five fundamentals, fundamentalism had taken shape. And Twain made fun of it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You're confusing the death of the body (which every man will suffer unless the Lord returns before) with the eternal spirit/soul of the believer. The apostle Paul clearly delineated between the two, and also clearly indicated that the believer, upon the physical death of his earthly body, would come into the presence of Christ. (cf: For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Phil 1:21 NIV) For an even more vivid illustration, check out 1 Corinthians 15 (a chapter all us ex LCers are familiar with) Paul uses the illustration of our body as a type of seed, which must go through death (What you sow does not come to life unless it dies- Vr 36) Eventually we will receive a "spiritual body" which will be joined again with our eternal spirit/soul. In the meantime, those who have died "in Christ" are in his presence, this is clear.

I would agree it is confusing considering the verses you have quoted but if we place this in perspective then it becomes clearer. However, if we use your interpretation then it remains confusing, at least to me.

1 Cor. 15 is the chapter I was originally quoting from. In reading 1 Cor. we realize that Paul is building up to chapter 15. The Corinthians conduct inside and outside of their services was such that they were involved in all kinds of irregular activities which Paul was addressing in Corinthians up till Chapter 15 (e.g. misuse of the gifts, indulging in sexual immorality, men praying with something on their head and women praying without something on their head, divisions among them when they come together, getting drunk when they get together, eating food sacrificed to idols, taking grievances to court against one another, man living with his father’s wife, arrogance, fleshly, deceived etc.).

In Corinthians 15 he gets to the crux of the problem. They believed that the physical body was not important and they could become involved in all kinds of sinful activity because it wouldn’t matter since it was just their spirit/soul which mattered. In any case, Paul makes the point that if Christ was not raised from the dead then their faith was futile and he was the first fruits of those who died. 15:23 Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end… Paul makes the point, v30-33 “If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” v42 …resurrection of the dead…v 46 … But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual… v51-52..a mystery…We will not all die but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed…” There is considerable evidence in the NT that Paul in his earlier writings believed that Christ was going to return in his generation.
In 1 Thess 4:15-17 --- Paul states, “…For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died….with the a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of the trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever…”


As to your quoting of Philippians 1:24 aren’t you contradicting yourself? Or is Paul contradicting himself or is it what it appears to be---consistent with 1 Thess and 1 Cor. 15. Paul states, to depart and be with Christ…he has already stated that the dead shall rise first so if he died he would be part of the first fruits….”the dead shall rise first”. I don’t believe there is any scripture indicating that Christians spirit/soul go to be with Christ when they die and their imperishable body comes later. That is inconsistent with the resurrection of Christ, 1 Cor and 1 Thess. Please note that 1 Thess 5:23 states, “May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

[zeek]

I think UntoHim correctly grasped that Tyson in the video is talking about extension of natural life which is not the object of Christian faith. True religion involves recognition that life involves a mystery that goes beyond our limited understanding. One way of thinking about this is to see it as everything coming from and returning to a hidden source we call God. Obviously this source must be unbounded or infinite. Our very finitude as existing human beings implies as much. That fact of our existence is inescapable.
But how we relate to this condition of existence is a matter of choice. The religious symbolize this relationship using metaphoric language including words like 'heaven' and 'hell'. The fundamentalist concretizes or literalizes these symbols and as a result thinks he knows something about this great mystery that he doesn't. Militant atheists interpret religious symbols as the fundamentalists do and therefore reject them.
Even 'resurrection' which seems to entail a proposition of the utmost concreteness, and is the sine qua non of Christian hope must remain a symbol. The NT texts show that resurrection is essentially paradoxical. And it seems that it must remain that way for us at least until it becomes an actuality for us, because, viewed as a phenomenon it is beyond our knowledge and experience.

[UntoHim]

I was going to address Dave's response, but zeek's post here is so darn interesting and thought provoking I just gotta get to this first. Besides, my response to Dave is just going to be one of my strictly theological/eschatology rants anyway. It can wait.

I would conditionally agree that

Originally Posted by zeek

True religion involves recognition that life involves a mystery that goes beyond our limited understanding.

I would prefer to use the biblical proposition “We walk by faith not by sight”, but I wouldn't argue too vigorously if you said it means the same thing. Your statement

But how we relate to this condition of existence is a matter of choice

indicates to me that you agree with the notion that someone or something has bestowed upon man a free will. I believe that this points strongly to the Creator-God of the the Bible. Some people of a more liberal persuasion may prefer to use the term “intelligent design”. I would be interested to know your view of this as a “Christian existentialist”.

The fundamentalist concretizes or literalizes these symbols and as a result thinks he knows something about this great mystery that he doesn't

I think if one reviews 1 Corinthians 15 fairly, one would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that the apostle Paul considered the resurrection of the believers anything but an eschatological certainty, and all the metaphoric language he employed was only to point to a certain reality. Moreover, as Gorden Fee, Richard Gaffin and others have posited, “the resurrection of Christ and the believers is a reality that belongs to the past, present and future” (paraphr). This coincides with Jesus words “I am the ressurrection and the life”, and maybe even to a greater degree in Paul's “for me to live is Christ and to die is gain”.

Speaking of Paul, it's interesting you should utilize the term “mystery” here. Sticking with 1 Corinthians 15, I would note that Paul used this term in the linchpin verse 51 “Behold I tell you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”. The finishing of the Christian experience ends with the resurrection of our physical bodies. In this simplest of declarations, Paul has actually let us in on the grandest of all mysteries. The greek word μυστήριον mysterion is often translated “secret” - Through “a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12) Paul has let us in on the biggest secret. It is a secret no more. I think this contradicts your understanding that “it is beyond our knowledge and experience.”

*Some of what I have written here is a response to Dave, but his thoughtful post deserves a more specific response which I plan to give him ASAP.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Speaking of Paul, it's interesting you should utilize the term “mystery” here. Sticking with 1 Corinthians 15, I would note that Paul used this term in the linchpin verse 51 “Behold I tell you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”. The finishing of the Christian experience ends with the resurrection of our physical bodies. In this simplest of declarations, Paul has actually let us in on the grandest of all mysteries. The greek word μυστήριον mysterion is often translated “secret” - Through “a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12) Paul has let us in on the biggest secret. It is a secret no more. I think this contradicts your understanding that “it is beyond our knowledge and experience.”

*Some of what I have written here is a response to Dave, but his thoughtful post deserves a more specific response which I plan to give him ASAP.

I wish I knew, specifically, the secret you are talking about. Maybe your response to Dave will clarify.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would conditionally agree that I would prefer to use the biblical proposition “We walk by faith not by sight”, but I wouldn't argue too vigorously if you said it means the same thing. Your statement indicates to me that you agree with the notion that someone or something has bestowed upon man a free will. I believe that this points strongly to the Creator-God of the the Bible. Some people of a more liberal persuasion may prefer to use the term “intelligent design”. I would be interested to know your view of this as a “Christian existentialist”.

I am happy to see that we agree on something, UntoHim. And to me that "biblical proposition" is germane to the issue.

I think if one reviews 1 Corinthians 15 fairly, one would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that the apostle Paul considered the resurrection of the believers anything but an eschatological certainty, and all the metaphoric language he employed was only to point to a certain reality. Moreover, as Gorden Fee, Richard Gaffin and others have posited, “the resurrection of Christ and the believers is a reality that belongs to the past, present and future” (paraphr). This coincides with Jesus words “I am the ressurrection and the life”, and maybe even to a greater degree in Paul's “for me to live is Christ and to die is gain”.

All we have of Paul are texts attributed to him. What he thought about the texts we have, is inaccessible to us. We have only our suppositions about that--all more or less true and none testable except against the texts we have. The degree to which our suppositions are true cannot be anything more than a judgment in the mind of someone. It can never be a known fact in this life.

Speaking of Paul, it's interesting you should utilize the term “mystery” here. Sticking with 1 Corinthians 15, I would note that Paul used this term in the linchpin verse 51 “Behold I tell you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”. The finishing of the Christian experience ends with the resurrection of our physical bodies. In this simplest of declarations, Paul has actually let us in on the grandest of all mysteries. The greek word μυστήριον mysterion is often translated “secret” - Through “a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12) Paul has let us in on the biggest secret. It is a secret no more. I think this contradicts your understanding that “it is beyond our knowledge and experience.”

No. I Corinthians plainly says that it is not a physical body but a spiritual body that is resurrected. I have never "seen" a spiritual body, so, whatever I think of such a thing, if I give any credence to it whatsoever it is "not by sight" that I do so. The text states that such a body is "incorruptible." I've never seen an incorruptible thing. If anyone claims to have knowledge or experience confirming such a proposition as this, if I accept the claim, I must accept it "by faith" because it exceeds mine. So, you see, the whole thing remains a mystery not a matter of knowledge or experience.

[OBW]

One of the funniest things about so much of Bible reading — in the LCM and in evangelical/fundamental Christianity — is that a very few verses are too often used to overcome a large body of text that is not about what those few verses say. It is not that I think the few verses are wrong, but that rather than provide some insight into the bulk of scripture (or a little spice to the mix) they are used in place of the rest.

For example, let's say there are 5 verses that speak of grace in a manner that would seem to negate any kind of work on our part (wrongly or rightly interpreted to say that), so we grasp onto those and reject the large body of text that would seem to say otherwise. And for the most part, it is the "commentary" that adds the grace, while the "word of God" (in this case, the words of Jesus in the gospels) are set aside by the commentary.

We miss that the gospels, while written from a perspective and not providing every word spoken, are focused on and around Jesus while the epistles are commentary for understanding the gospels. If that is the case, then why do we start with the epistles, focusing even on just very small parts of them, to the detriment of the things that Jesus commanded? Things that include works? Why do even Paul's charges to DO what is right get ignored because of over-focus on the "spiritual" stuff that is argued as making the other irrelevant?

Because we want it to be easy. We don't want to have to be righteous. We want something counted to us as righteousness without actually getting there. Yes, in the grand scheme of things there is truth in that. But in this life, willfully ignoring righteousness because of grace is to misuse grace.

Just one example.

I'm less worried about what Paul was thinking. I think it would be significant to just read all of Paul and not just the parts that seem to say to be spiritual. There actually are few if any such parts.

[zeek]

Fundamentalism gone horribly wrong: the theological justification of sexual slavery and rape:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/wo...=16525139&_r=0

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Fundamentalism gone horribly wrong: the theological justification of sexual slavery and rape:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/wo...=16525139&_r=0

So disingenuous to associate fundametal Christianity with ISIS terrorists.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Fundamentalism gone horribly wrong: the theological justification of sexual slavery and rape:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/wo...=16525139&_r=0

WOW!!! Completely reprehensible! But nothing new. The Israelites did pretty much the same thing. Read Numbers 31.

Moses:
Num 31:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
Num 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

The difference, I suppose, is that the Israelites weren't saying they were establishing a caliphate, and they were doing it long before the age of knowledge. Like ISIS.

Face it. ISIS is an example of what religion in control can do. They can use religion to justify their lusts and perversions, slavery, and even their eventual loss; as they believe they'll be beaten down to a small number, and Jesus will come back to save them.

Unbridled religion is very dangerous. And ugly ugly ugly. Sickening really.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So disingenuous to associate fundametal Christianity with ISIS terrorists.

Feel free to delineate the difference, brother. It's you who have been whining about the lack criticism of the "Mooslims" [sic] on this thread. Explain why the Evangelical Republican candidates on stage with Trump didn't call him out for his misogyny. If there's a difference, between the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic ones, explain how it is more than a matter of degrees on the misogyny continuum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

WOW!!! Completely reprehensible! But nothing new. The Israelites did pretty much the same thing. Read Numbers 31.

Moses:
Num 31:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
Num 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

The difference, I suppose, is that the Israelites weren't saying they were establishing a caliphate, and they were doing it long before the age of knowledge. Like ISIS.

Face it. ISIS is an example of what religion in control can do. They can use religion to justify their lusts and perversions, slavery, and even their eventual loss; as they believe they'll be beaten down to a small number, and Jesus will come back to save them.

Unbridled religion is very dangerous. And ugly ugly ugly. Sickening really.

Jesus said "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." [John 10:10]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus said "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." [John 10:10]

But he did nothing for this 12 yr old girl, and all the others enslaved by ISIS. What did they do to deserve no abundant life, and no Jesus blessings?

Ya wanna know why the young people are turning away from Christian fundamentalism? Because they can see clearly that religion his a big problem, and relate it to what they see.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Feel free to delineate the difference, brother. It's you who have been whining about the lack criticism of the "Mooslims" [sic] on this thread. Explain why the Evangelical Republican candidates on stage with Trump didn't call him out for his misogyny. If there's a difference, between the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic ones, explain how it is more than a matter of degrees on the misogyny continuum.

Am I now responsible for Donald Trump? Serious?

And not one Christian is offended by Trump? Seriously!

Trump said Rosy O was a pig -- quite distasteful -- and that's on par with widespread rape, murder, and sex slavery by ISIS?

Seriously bro, you need a megadose of common sense perspective.

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus said "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." [John 10:10]

Amen to that!
Btw, I have nothing against peace-loving Mooslims. They need Jesus.

Muslims --> Mooslims, Koran --> Qur'an, you need to get up to date.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

WOW!!! Completely reprehensible! But nothing new. The Israelites did pretty much the same thing. Read Numbers 31.

Moses:
Num 31:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
Num 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

The difference, I suppose, is that the Israelites weren't saying they were establishing a caliphate, and they were doing it long before the age of knowledge. Like ISIS.

Face it. ISIS is an example of what religion in control can do. They can use religion to justify their lusts and perversions, slavery, and even their eventual loss; as they believe they'll be beaten down to a small number, and Jesus will come back to save them.

Unbridled religion is very dangerous. And ugly ugly ugly. Sickening really.

Read the rest of the story in context. Israel was doing what God had commanded to do, but not initially since they spared people, which they often did.

Religion may be dangerous and ugly, but in this event, your problem is not with religion per se, but with a serious and holy God.

ISIS is not about religion, ISIS is about murder, power, lust, hatred. They need religion, as nearly all of the other Mooslims will tell you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read the rest of the story in context. Israel was doing what God had commanded to do, but not initially since they spared people, which they often did.

Religion may be dangerous and ugly, but in this event, your problem is not with religion per se, but with a serious and holy God.

You got that right. I can't add up a holy God with commanding genocide. How holy can such a God be that commands such a thing?

And this holy Lord demanded a tribute of the plunder and spoils. In the case of the virgins this holy God got a tribute, a offering, of 32 virgins.

Please add it up for me bro Ohio, and explain how any of this was holy? I can't. Not after learning of the God of Jesus.

The Bible, to me, seems to be giving God a very bad and ugly name.

And the Koran, and Islam, sprang up from the Jewish scriptures. Just read the Koran and see for yourself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You got that right. I can't add up a holy God with commanding genocide. How holy can such a God be that commands such a thing?

It's called righteous judgment. We saw it with Noah, in Sodom, in Egypt, and other times, and we will see it again.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's called righteous judgment. We saw it with Noah, in Sodom, in Egypt, and other times, and we will see it again.

And isn't that the problem? That genocide, according to the Bible, can be both righteous and holy? That's the example the Bible gives us, that God considers genocide righteous & holy.

Is there any wonder Christians came to America and committed genocide on the Indians, while writing home that they were taking The Promise Land? They had their Bible to support it.

Sadly, ISIS didn't invent it. God did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he did nothing for this 12 yr old girl, and all the others enslaved by ISIS. What did they do to deserve no abundant life, and no Jesus blessings?

Ya wanna know why the young people are turning away from Christian fundamentalism? Because they can see clearly that religion his a big problem, and relate it to what they see.

Jesus died on a cross.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus died on a cross.

Was he the only one the Romans put on a cross? Should I only care about just one? Jesus wasn't human. He could defy gravity. How could he die?

Yet I'm told God demanded he die.

I guess I'm just too sensitive. Mark Twain quipped: "I don't believe in evolution. Man didn't evolve. He devolved, into the lowest form of animal on the earth."

It hurts me what I see man does to man. It hurts me what I see man does to the other species. And it hurts me deeply if God is even lower than the lowest form of animal on the earth.

Not God too! Not that! Please tell me it isn't so. It's got to be lies. Surely the Jews made those stories up ... and attributed to God their animal natures. Please, please, not God too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Was he the only one the Romans put on a cross? Should I only care about just one? Jesus wasn't human. He could defy gravity. How could he die?

Yet I'm told God demanded he die.

I guess I'm just too sensitive. Mark Twain quipped: "I don't believe in evolution. Man didn't evolve. He devolved, into the lowest form of animal on the earth."

It hurts me what I see man does to man. It hurts me what I see man does to the other species. And it hurts me deeply if God is even lower than the lowest form of animal on the earth.

Not God too! Not that! Please tell me it isn't so. It's got to be lies. Surely the Jews made those stories up ... and attributed to God their animal natures. Please, please, not God too.

Mammaliomorphism? I feel ya bro. Yours is an offended consciousness. Your protests are expressions of the offense not the product of reason.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your protests are expressions of the offense not the product of reason.

I think I agree.

Once we elevate ourselves to judge God, we are really on dangerous ground.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think I agree.

Once we elevate ourselves to judge God, we are really on dangerous ground.

Not judging God. Defending God from the lies of bronze age tribal mythology.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not judging God. Defending God from the lies of bronze age tribal mythology.

I think you're dissembling a bit there Awareness. For you don't stop there. On these pages you "defend" God from Christ, eschatology, and indeed from what you call his "loopiness" in these evil present times and more. Beneath these arguments, it is as if God himself has wounded you. And if that's true, who can heal the wound but God? Forgive me if I've said too much. I would pray for you if I knew how.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're dissembling a bit there Awareness. For you don't stop there. On these pages you "defend" God from Christ, eschatology, and indeed from what you call his "loopiness" in these evil present times and more. Beneath these arguments, it is as if God himself has wounded you. And if that's true, who can heal the wound but God? Forgive me if I've said too much. I would pray for you if I knew how.

If there were a Like button on this forum, I think everyone on both AltV's and the main forum would like this post.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're dissembling a bit there Awareness. For you don't stop there. On these pages you "defend" God from Christ, eschatology, and indeed from what you call his "loopiness" in these evil present times and more. Beneath these arguments, it is as if God himself has wounded you. And if that's true, who can heal the wound but God? Forgive me if I've said too much. I would pray for you if I knew how.

You guys toss the word "God" around like you actually believe he is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc euphoric person in space and time who is acutely aware of everything everyone thinks, says, does, etc as well as performing acts to control environmental conditions, zooming in to save people or terrorizing them whatever the case may be, perform acts of miracles etc. If you are involved in defending God what does this God look like from your perspective? I have a perspective regarding God but he doesn't look like the Biblical God. I can't buy into one who is so intrusive so as to make himself terrorizing every time I use the restroom or blow my nose. He's worse than the NSA snooping into our emails or a video camera watching our every move. They make horror movies out of those scenarios.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

You guys toss the word "God" around like you actually believe he is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc euphoric person in space and time who is acutely aware of everything everyone thinks, says, does, etc as well as performing acts to control environmental conditions, zooming in to save people, perform acts of miracles etc. If you are involved in defending God what does this God look like from your perspective? I have a perspective regarding God but he doesn't look like the Biblical God. I can't buy into that one.

Does your God look like the Jesus of the gospels? You know, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." [John 14:9]

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does your God look like the Jesus of the gospels? You know, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." [John 14:9]

Actually, I was asking the question since you all have been tossing the term, God, around rather profusely...just what God are you referencing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Actually, I was asking the question since you all have been tossing the term, God, around rather profusely...just what God are you referencing.

We were talking about the God of the Bible where the word is used "rather profusely."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

You guys toss the word "God" around like you actually believe he is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc euphoric person in space and time who is acutely aware of everything everyone thinks, says, does, etc as well as performing acts to control environmental conditions, zooming in to save people or terrorizing them whatever the case may be, perform acts of miracles etc. If you are involved in defending God what does this God look like from your perspective?

He kind of looks like this with His arms outstretched ....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He kind of looks like this with His arms outstretched ....

That's what I thought you meant...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

We were talking about the God of the Bible where the word is used "rather profusely."

profusely: 1. excess; extravagant (often followed by in): profuse praise. 2. made or done freely and abundantly... You still have not answered my inquisitive question about how you are defining God in your discussions. How can you talk about something undefined. One person intends one thing and another is thinking in different terms about the same word, God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

profusely: 1. excess; extravagant (often followed by in): profuse praise. 2. made or done freely and abundantly... You still have not answered my inquisitive question about how you are defining God in your discussions. How can you talk about something undefined. One person intends one thing and another is thinking in different terms about the same word, God.

Look up the word supercilious. That's how you're coming off IMO. I answered the question. I said we were talking about the God of the Bible. It seems you don't like that answer. The whole discussion is a process of delineating what we mean by the word.

The Bible does set boundaries on what God can mean although the diversity of Biblical interpretation shows the matter is far from settled. People talk about beauty and justice and truth. The meanings of those words aren't settled and maybe never will be. Likewise God.

The Bible depicts God as a unique person. How do you define a particular person? What's the definition of David P or Ken G? The question itself is nonsense.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Look up the word supercilious. That's how you're coming off IMO. I answered the question. I said we were talking about the God of the Bible. It seems you don't like that answer. The whole discussion is a process of delineating what we mean by the word.

The Bible does set boundaries on what God can mean although the diversity of Biblical interpretation shows the matter is far from settled. People talk about beauty and justice and truth. The meanings of those words aren't settled and maybe never will be. Likewise God.

The Bible depicts God as a unique person. How do you define a particular person? What's the definition of David P or Ken G? The question itself is nonsense.

I don't want to engage in a food fight. I just don't think it is possible to defend or judge the God of the Bible as you are presenting God. The Bible is a matter of faith and so is God of the Bible to Christians. If you take the Bible as a book of historical value or consequence or a book of literature and not a book of faith then you redefine the God of the Bible. God becomes a mythical or historical figure. Are we dealing with God as a mythical figure as he is defined as "God in the Bible" or what?

It is all historical. It is a book compiled of many letters which were written 2000+ years ago. Nothing has been written in 2000 years which adds to the Bible or adds to our definition of God unless you know something I don't. It is only faith/belief that makes God relevant to this moment "as defined in the Bible".

IF you are talking about God in the Bible as meaning you have faith in the Bible as Christians define it as inerrant then you are not talking about the Bible nor are you talking about God but you are talking about faith.

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around your stream of thought. I'm trying to catch up to your thinking but you know me, it takes me some time to catch on, so humor me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't want to engage in a food fight. I just don't think it is possible to defend or judge the God of the Bible as you are presenting God.

Um, which of my statements are you referring to? How am I presenting God?

The Bible is a matter of faith and so is God of the Bible to Christians. If you take the Bible as a book of historical value or consequence or a book of literature and not a book of faith then you redefine the God of the Bible. God becomes a mythical or historical figure. Are we dealing with God as a mythical figure as he is defined as "God in the Bible" or what?

So what are you saying I should pick a mode of analysis be it faith, or historical, or mythological and stick to it? Why not take a multi-dimensional view?

It is all historical. It is a book compiled of many letters which were written 2000+ years ago. Nothing has been written in 2000 years which adds to the Bible or adds to our definition of God unless you know something I don't. It is only faith/belief that makes God relevant to this moment "as defined in the Bible".

Actually a vast philosophical, theological and pastoral interpretive tradition has been added to it which influences how we read it. I agree with your statement about faith but I wonder why you think you need to make that point.

IF you are talking about God in the Bible as meaning you have faith in the Bible as Christians define it as inerrant then you are not talking about the Bible nor are you talking about God but you are talking about faith.

Where did you get the idea that I think the Bible is inerrant? And, wait you're saying that if someone denies the bible as inerrant they can't make valid statements about the Bible or God? Interesting. Why is that?

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around your stream of thought. I'm trying to catch up to your thinking but you know me, it takes me some time to catch on, so humor me.

OK. I'll respond to your expanded version of a previous post maybe that will clarify something for you.

You guys toss the word "God" around like you actually believe he is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc euphoric person in space and time who is acutely aware of everything everyone thinks, says, does, etc as well as performing acts to control environmental conditions, zooming in to save people or terrorizing them whatever the case may be, perform acts of miracles etc.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by euphoric in that context, and such God might also exist beyond the space time continuum, but that description does resemble a standard Christian definition of God in some respects. You seem incredulous that anyone could"actually believe in God so defined, but you must know that many people do. I'm aware of the logical contradictions involved in a definition like that. But, the way I see it, God is beyond human comprehension. So, when God is approached by reason it ends in paradox. This kind of definition just instantiates that proposition.

If you are involved in defending God what does this God look like from your perspective? I have a perspective regarding God but he doesn't look like the Biblical God. I can't buy into one who is so intrusive so as to make himself terrorizing every time I use the restroom or blow my nose. He's worse than the NSA snooping into our emails or a video camera watching our every move. They make horror movies out of those scenarios.

So you want a God who respects your personal space? Where's the sense of God's intrusiveness coming from? The definition of God as "all-seeing"? Since you say you don't buy it, has the sense of God's intrusiveness gone away?

You mention defending God. Awareness said he was "defending God from the lies of bronze age tribal mythology." I assumed he was referring to the god of his faith. If I was wrong, he can tell me.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Feel free to delineate the difference, brother. It's you who have been whining about the lack criticism of the "Mooslims" [sic] on this thread. Explain why the Evangelical Republican candidates on stage with Trump didn't call him out for his misogyny. If there's a difference, between the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic ones, explain how it is more than a matter of degrees on the misogyny continuum.

You mistake politicians with weak links to a religion of patriotism with Christianity and its tenets of love and righteousness. There definitely is a "radical right" that has found a home in a crazy reading of the Christian scripture. But to simply equate Christian fundamentalism with ISIS is to make yourself a fool. You are, like Marx and other instigators of lousy changes, misusing words to create the impression of something that isn't.

And that isn't Christian. It is secular and hateful even though pushed by those who would seek to cloak it in the garb of Christianity. They do not represent Christianity, but themselves. They do not come from within Christianity, but bring in foreign gods and idols disguised as the one true God. They throw their hatred into the fire then fish out this golden calf of fear mongering and capture weak minds to follow them into a so-called Christian battle.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

So what are you saying I should pick a mode of analysis be it faith, or historical, or mythological and stick to it? Why not take a multi-dimensional view?

Yeah, why not a multi-dimensional view? Let's just confuse the heck out of everyone.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

You mistake politicians with weak links to a religion of patriotism with Christianity and its tenets of love and righteousness. There definitely is a "radical right" that has found a home in a crazy reading of the Christian scripture. But to simply equate Christian fundamentalism with ISIS is to make yourself a fool. You are, like Marx and other instigators of lousy changes, misusing words to create the impression of something that isn't.

And that isn't Christian. It is secular and hateful even though pushed by those who would seek to cloak it in the garb of Christianity. They do not represent Christianity, but themselves. They do not come from within Christianity, but bring in foreign gods and idols disguised as the one true God. They throw their hatred into the fire then fish out this golden calf of fear mongering and capture weak minds to follow them into a so-called Christian battle.

I precisely did not "equate" the two. I acknowledged the quantitative difference. ISIS are the greater misogynists.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yeah, why not a multi-dimensional view? Let's just confuse the heck out of everyone.

If you're confused, don't blame me. You know how to look at the Bible from a historically, mythologically, theologically, philosophically or from a standpoint of faith. You've done the same thing on this forum.

[zeek]

Dave--

You know I'm guessing but I think maybe what threw you off was that I was talking to Awareness as if I believed that God were real. You couldn't comprehend how I could do that given whatever your impression of my position is. If that's the case, let me clarify that I still have faith in a God in whom we live and move and have our being---a notion that apparently terroriz[es] you "every time I use the restroom or blow my nose."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave--

You know I'm guessing but I think maybe what threw you off was that I was talking to Awareness as if I believed that God were real. You couldn't comprehend how I could do that given whatever your impression of my position is. If that's the case, let me clarify that I still have faith in a God in whom we live and move and have our being---a notion that apparently terroriz[es] you "every time I use the restroom or blow my nose."

I am glad to hear that you believe in God, so do I, but just not the God defined in the Bible at least from a faith point of view (or shall I say the God defined in the Bible by the Southern Baptists). Speaking of terrorizing me I know that the God of the Bible is all-knowing, all-seeing etc but he is also all-smelling and in fact burning flesh is a "sweet savor unto the Lord" (this phrase is used 23 times in the OT). I find it interesting that Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:15 states that both those who are saved and those who are perishing are a sweet aroma to God.

Don't you think some of this is metaphorical? To me it appears that the people who wrote both the OT and NT each had their own view of God and wrote about God from their own perspective. I know that is not a new concept but that is why when one talks about God of the Bible from any point of view they need to probably quote the specific verse of the God they are describing. The amorphous statement about God just doesn't cut it.

Well I have to agree that when you and Awareness get going on the God thing it can be a thing of beauty or an ugly mess. Then throw in Ohio and no GPS can locate your position. I am just trying to get a read on you guys.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He kind of looks like this with His arms outstretched ....

“For as we lost the sure word of God by means of a tree, by means of a tree again was it made manifest to all, showing the height, the length, the breadth, the depth in itself … through the extension of the hands of a divine person.” — Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.17.3) —

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am glad to hear that you believe in God, so do I, but just not the God defined in the Bible at least from a faith point of view (or shall I say the God defined in the Bible by the Southern Baptists). Speaking of terrorizing me I know that the God of the Bible is all-knowing, all-seeing etc but he is also all-smelling and in fact burning flesh is a "sweet savor unto the Lord" (this phrase is used 23 times in the OT). I find it interesting that Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:15 states that both those who are saved and those who are perishing are a sweet aroma to God.

Don't you think some of this is metaphorical? To me it appears that the people who wrote both the OT and NT each had their own view of God and wrote about God from their own perspective. I know that is not a new concept but that is why when one talks about God of the Bible from any point of view they need to probably quote the specific verse of the God they are describing. The amorphous statement about God just doesn't cut it.

Well I have to agree that when you and Awareness get going on the God thing it can be a thing of beauty or an ugly mess. Then throw in Ohio and no GPS can locate your position. I am just trying to get a read on you guys.

It's amazing how quickly you snapped from confusion to clarity. Coffee? Of course some Bible language is metaphorical and anthropomorphic, of course the authors have different points of view, and of course it gets messy here at times. Is it a shock to your sterile rationalist UU sensibility?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not judging God. Defending God from the lies of bronze age tribal mythology.

Okay, for the sake of bro Ohio, and the hordes of others out here, I should clarify the above statement. (Please forgive the length)

I realize it smacks in the face of fundamentalism's first fundamental: Inerrancy of the Bible.

But.

Since the early days of Christianity, as I read it, believers have had trouble aligning the angry Old Testament God with the loving God of Jesus ... given that it sticks out like a sore thumb. Let's face it, the Old Testament doesn't present a Christ-like God.

Take this story of the slaughter of the Midianites, and collection of 32,000 virgins. This clearly is not Christ like.

Zeek brought up John 10:10: The "thief" & "destroyer" comes.

In 2Sa 24:1 we have: Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

In 1Ch 21:1 we have: Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

Well as I see it, if anything Satan told Moses to slaughter the Midianites. Cuz surely genocide is something of the devil, and certainly not of God.

This is a case of the victors writing the history. The author(s) of Numbers, or some later Priestly editor, couldn't tell the story that it was Satan that ordered such genocide. Then they would have to admit that the genocide of the Midianites, and collection of 32,000 virgins, was nothing but evil. As it clearly was. What writings of the victors ever admits that? And if it is admitted, it's admitted long after the guilty ones are dead and gone?

The mistake we make is failing to see that all books of the Bible were written by men ... 'fallen men.' So even if they were inspired of God, as is claimed by the fundamentalists, men of free will, fallen men with free will, produced it. And it's coming thru their clearly biased filters.

This was a mistake some of the early Gnostics made, when trying to explain the drastic difference between the God of the Hebrews, and the God of Jesus.

They couldn't add it up. So, taking "You are of your father the devil," John 8:44), they explained it by saying that the Old Testament God was just a demiurge god, or in short the devil.

Well that doesn't add up to me (or many others, as the Gnostics were branded heretics).

I can only add it up -- this huge difference between God in the OT, and God in the NT -- by looking at the OT as riddled with the mythologies of the nomadic tribe of the Hebrews ; or written by free-willed fallen men writing the victorious Hebrews as good.

In the end, tho, even the Hebrews, in their own stories, have to admit that the Hebrews were far from good (they were made to wander the wilderness for forty years, for example).

"You are of your father the devil."

How can we trust stories coming from such fallen and biased people?

[Dave]

It's amazing how quickly you snapped from confusion to clarity. Coffee? Of course some Bible language is metaphorical and anthropomorphic, of course the authors have different points of view, and of course it gets messy here at times. Is it a shock to your sterile rationalist UU sensibility?

zeek, I’m far from being a rationalist UU. The quest for faith is unending. I never said I was confused. I only said that it appeared you were confused. I was only confused in my attempts at making sense of how you were defining God. My questions and statements were only an effort on my part to help you. I'm still waiting for an answer to my statements:
1. Faith
2. Historical
3. Metaphorical
4. Etc..
Define your God...throw in some verses while you are at it.

BTW---I don't know what is going on with this forum but editing anything is problematic and this has been going on for over a week. Annoying...but then again maybe I am easily annoyed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You know I'm guessing but I think maybe what threw you off was that I was talking to Awareness as if I believed that God were real.

And I'm guilty, of what Dave was pointing out. After all, how can I defend God unless I consider God real? Which I do, as surprising as it may sound.

It's true, I know not what I defend. God is beyond my comprehension. I guess what I know about God is more of, what God is not.

And much presented about God in the OT, to me, is not, and could not be, God.

And if it is, or turns out to be how God actually is then, I can't love that God, let alone worship 'Him' ; even if I'm perchance headed to hell. Cuz a God as depicted in the OT is not attractive or desirable.

But the loving God of Jesus is.

Will the real God please stand up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Will the real God please stand up.

It wasn't His best pic, and He had trouble standing on His own, but this is how many of His loved ones remembered Him ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

My questions and statements were only an effort on my part to help you.

Dave, Dave...Such an air of condescension. You're "waiting..." Strikes me like the words of a petulant parent. I don't find it conducive to dialogue when someone talks down to me like you're doing.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave, Dave...Such an air of condescension. You're "waiting..." Strikes me like the words of a petulant parent. I don't find it conducive to dialogue when someone talks down to me like you're doing.

zeek, for one thing I would never talk down to you. You are much smarter than I so that is an impossibility. I am trying to get you to present your ideas at my level so I can understand them. I gave you my basic thoughts which I consider reasonable responses and ideas. Just asking for a reasonable response. Can we strike a dialog?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It wasn't His best pic, and He had trouble standing on His own, but this is how many of His loved ones remembered Him ...

Is that the best you can do? It almost looks like it is from a horror movie. Most of these shots should have a lower view with blood coming out of his side wound. Can you give us a better shot? Not sure if the head would be raised up like that or the mouth would be wide open. Reduce some of the blood on the upper body and add more to the lower wound. What's with all of the blood above his head...maybe reduce that blood... he looks like his hands are tied to the cross. NO, we need nails through his hands otherwise he won't be able to show them after his resurrection....

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

zeek, for one thing I would never talk down to you. You are much smarter than I so that is an impossibility. I am trying to get you to present your ideas at my level so I can understand them. I gave you my basic thoughts which I consider reasonable responses and ideas. Just asking for a reasonable response. Can we strike a dialog?

Sure, all the known definitions of God either logically fail outright or are paradoxical. I choose a paradoxical one--that God is Ultimate Reality, which we arrive at as the antithesis of the phenomenon of experience which is temporal. From the standpoint of ontology God is Being Itself. Augustine and Aquinas understood this among others. But the conclusions that God is ultimate reality and Being Itself imply that all possible knowledge is conditioned by the temporarily of becoming. Thus, these definitions are paradoxical from the standpoint of epistemology. That is, the proposition "God is Being Itself" posits an x that cannot be positively known! Thus, the necessity of revelation and faith. The Paradox is central to the New Testament and the early church fathers were well aware of this. But, the church as an institution came to depend upon erecting an earthly power structure contrary to the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus that results from the Paradox. Today's fundamentalists are quasi-objectivists who resist the Paradox and the Kingdom of God that follows from it because it would upset the power structure of their institutions, e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Is that the best you can do? It almost looks like it is from a horror movie. Most of these shots should have a lower view with blood coming out of his side wound. Can you give us a better shot? Not sure if the head would be raised up like that or the mouth would be wide open. Reduce some of the blood on the upper body and add more to the lower wound. What's with all of the blood above his head...maybe reduce that blood... he looks like his hands are tied to the cross. NO, we need nails through his hands otherwise he won't be able to show them after his resurrection....

Great make-up job with the blood and cuts and all. Anybody know the actor's name? Is that a shot from the Mel Gibson Passion movie?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Is that the best you can do? It almost looks like it is from a horror movie. Most of these shots should have a lower view with blood coming out of his side wound. Can you give us a better shot? Not sure if the head would be raised up like that or the mouth would be wide open. Reduce some of the blood on the upper body and add more to the lower wound. What's with all of the blood above his head...maybe reduce that blood... he looks like his hands are tied to the cross. NO, we need nails through his hands otherwise he won't be able to show them after his resurrection....

Like zeek said, Such an air of condescension.

Like Peter said, In the last days there will be mockers.

Like Jesus said, Forgive him for he talks nonsense.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Like zeek said, Such an air of condescension.

Like Peter said, In the last days there will be mockers.

Like Jesus said, Forgive him for he talks nonsense.

Obviously you can't take constructive criticism. zeek has been a friend of mine for over forty years and can get away with this kind of comment, but in your case, you like to take every opportunity to be critical just because you don't like my liberal point of view as a Unitarian Christian. Please try to restrain yourself and I'm sorry if that seems condescending. Maybe it is but your picture needs some work no matter how you cut it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sure, all the known definitions of God either logically fail outright or are paradoxical. I choose a paradoxical one--that God is Ultimate Reality, which we arrive at as the antithesis of the phenomenon of experience which is temporal. From the standpoint of ontology God is Being Itself. Augustine and Aquinas understood this among others. But the conclusions that God is ultimate reality and Being Itself imply that all possible knowledge is conditioned by the temporarily of becoming. Thus, these definitions are paradoxical from the standpoint of epistemology. That is, the proposition "God is Being Itself" posits an x that cannot be positively known! Thus, the necessity of revelation and faith. The Paradox is central to the New Testament and the early church fathers were well aware of this. But, the church as an institution came to depend upon erecting an earthly power structure contrary to the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus that results from the Paradox. Today's fundamentalists are quasi-objectivists who resist the Paradox and the Kingdom of God that follows from it because it would upset the power structure of their institutions, e.g. the Southern Baptist Church.

Thanks for your efforts at bringing it down to my level but it does take some time to unpack it? Actually you have done a very good job of explaining the underpinnings of the SBC. I would have never thought of that sequence of consequences of analysis or is it sequence of analysis of consequences? I hope you don't mind if I borrow your analysis and share it with my SBC cousin? Maybe it would help him think beyond the limits provided by the SBC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Obviously you can't take constructive criticism. zeek has been a friend of mine for over forty years and can get away with this kind of comment, but in your case, you like to take every opportunity to be critical just because you don't like my liberal point of view as a Unitarian Christian. Please try to restrain yourself and I'm sorry if that seems condescending. Maybe it is but your picture needs some work no matter how you cut it.

This goes two ways friend.

Obviously you don't like constructive criticism either, and naturally, i never felt any of your "criticism" was constructive, rather condescending. I'm not the only one who has pointed that out.

And you are right that I don't like either your liberal or your Universalist views. But that's OK, since this is a public forum. Perhaps you are not used to anyone standing up for the Lord or for the Bible? Perhaps you have spent so much time with your liberal UU companions, that you believe that junk is true.

I posted that pic because you asked what my God "looked" like. You obviously don't like my response or the sight of a bleeding Savior. I see no reason to "restrain" myself since the problem is not on my end. It is not me who has forsaken the faith of the gospel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Is that the best you can do? It almost looks like it is from a horror movie. Most of these shots should have a lower view with blood coming out of his side wound. Can you give us a better shot? Not sure if the head would be raised up like that or the mouth would be wide open. Reduce some of the blood on the upper body and add more to the lower wound. What's with all of the blood above his head...maybe reduce that blood... he looks like his hands are tied to the cross. NO, we need nails through his hands otherwise he won't be able to show them after his resurrection....

I prefer this one:



And this one:

[zeek]

I changed 'Church' to 'Convention' in post# 1166 as that is what I meant.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I changed 'Church' to 'Convention' in post# 1166 as that is what I meant.

While you're at it change this line too:

"From the standpoint of ontology God is Being Itself" to: From the standpoint of ontology God is, Being Itself.

Otherwise it sounds like God is an it that is being itself. Then again, maybe that's what you meant.

The difference is important. Please clarify.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Thanks for your efforts at bringing it down to my level but it does take some time to unpack it? Actually you have done a very good job of explaining the underpinnings of the SBC. I would have never thought of that sequence of consequences of analysis or is it sequence of analysis of consequences? I hope you don't mind if I borrow your analysis and share it with my SBC cousin? Maybe it would help him think beyond the limits provided by the SBC.

I didn't do any leveling just condensing. And having done that I'm sure I'm guilty of making the situation look simpler than it is. One possible consequence of my little thesis which I think you are already aware of is the hypothesis that Kingdom of God ethics are unsustainable by any real-world institution having been initially intended only for the interim until the eschatological hope is fully realized. Whatever the historical probability of that proposition, it would be a cop out for anyone who is serious about following Jesus to accept it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

While you're at it change this line too:

"From the standpoint of ontology God is Being Itself" to: From the standpoint of ontology God is, Being Itself.

Otherwise it sounds like God is an it that is being itself. Then again, maybe that's what you meant.

The difference is important. Please clarify.

Thanks for the comment, A. I meant what I said. However, God is not literally an it because an it is an entity and God is not an entity but rather the ground or source of all entities.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

"God is Being Itself"

It sure is. Haha ...

But fundamentalists, the staunch ones, would never make such a claim. "God is Being Itself" is not a term in their inerrant Bible. They would likely say something like, "God is, "I am that I am"," not admitting that it has the same meaning as your philosophical New Age term (for shame).

Bro zeek, clearly you are not a fundamentalist. You use way too many big words to be one. Is great intellect antithetical to fundamentalism? Is that why we were told to get out of our minds in the LC?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't do any leveling just condensing. And having done that I'm sure I'm guilty of making the situation look simpler than it is. One possible consequence of my little thesis which I think you are already aware of is the hypothesis that Kingdom of God ethics are unsustainable by any real-world institution having been initially intended only for the interim until the eschatological hope is fully realized. Whatever the historical probability of that proposition, it would be a cop out for anyone who is serious about following Jesus to accept it.

Not sure what you are saying here. I might agree and I might not. Or both in part. Depends.

Are you saying that institutions cannot achieve Kingdom of God ethics? I agree.

Are you saying that we simply shouldn't try to achieve them (or at least work in that direction)? Not sure about that one. I think this is the task we are called to. It is to come to know what is right and righteous and to seek to do it. We will fail at complete obedience to it no matter how hard we try and for how long. But not trying is not really an option.

And I guess I could not tell what it was you were talking about that a serious follower would not accept.

And from an earlier post, I think that the idea that Fundamentalist and/or evangelical groups are trying too hard to make certain the things that should be mystical and even possibly paradoxical is a very real indictment of where things like systematic theology too often take us.

The evangelical mind wants a Christianity that requires strong adherence to propositions yet excuses our lack of willingness to be righteous by simply applying God's grace over and over. Yet the scripture seems to require little knowledge coupled with a lot of faith and obedience.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Great make-up job with the blood and cuts and all. Anybody know the actor's name? Is that a shot from the Mel Gibson Passion movie?

That image hurts my soul. And makes me angry at God.

Gibson's movie was a favorite of Slasher-Movie fans, for all the special effects of splattering blood ; think Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It sure is. Haha ...

But fundamentalists, the staunch ones, would never make such a claim. "God is Being Itself" is not a term in their inerrant Bible. They would likely say something like, "God is, "I am that I am"," not admitting that it has the same meaning as your philosophical New Age term (for shame).

Bro zeek, clearly you are not a fundamentalist. You use way too many big words to be one. Is great intellect antithetical to fundamentalism? Is that why we were told to get out of our minds in the LC?

Although the Bible is not a systematic treatise, it can be read for its ontological content. "I am that I am" is a declaration of self-existing Being which is the source of every being. As self-existing, God is dependent on nothing. Every being, in turn, is dependent on Being Itself for it's existence. As I'm sure Dave knows, Schleiermacher thought that a sense of dependence on God is the basis of religion. That sense has its basis in ontological fact.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure what you are saying here. I might agree and I might not. Or both in part. Depends. Are you saying that institutions cannot achieve Kingdom of God ethics? I agree.

I'm not dogmatic about it but that's how it looks to me up to this point.

Are you saying that we simply shouldn't try to achieve them (or at least work in that direction)? Not sure about that one. I think this is the task we are called to.

I agree.

It is to come to know what is right and righteous and to seek to do it. We will fail at complete obedience to it no matter how hard we try and for how long. But not trying is not really an option.

We are called to nothing less than self-sacrificing love.

And I guess I could not tell what it was you were talking about that a serious follower would not accept.

...the hypothesis that Kingdom of God ethics were intended only for the contemporaries of Jesus because the eschatological hope was expected to be realized in that generation. We cannot prove that is not the case historically, but it is the death knell to existential Christianity--which is what I call Christianity in which we participate in the spirit of Jesus.

And from an earlier post, I think that the idea that Fundamentalist and/or evangelical groups are trying too hard to make certain the things that should be mystical and even possibly paradoxical is a very real indictment of where things like systematic theology too often take us.

Too often true... yes. It isn't impossible that a systematic theology could take us to the heart of Jesus so to speak though, i don't think.

The evangelical mind wants a Christianity that requires strong adherence to propositions yet excuses our lack of willingness to be righteous by simply applying God's grace over and over. Yet the scripture seems to require little knowledge coupled with a lot of faith and obedience.

I know I have done that in the past and worse things and probably done it again today. I seldom think about grace any more like I used to though. i don't know why that is. I guess if I think about what I'm doing too much in real time my left hand might figure out what my right hand is doing and I'll get whatever it is bollixed up. You're a guitar player, you know what I'm talking about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Although the Bible is not a systematic treatise, it can be read for its ontological content. "I am that I am" is a declaration of self-existing Being which is the source of every being. As self-existing, God is dependent on nothing. Every being, in turn, is dependent on Being Itself for it's existence. As I'm sure Dave knows, Schleiermacher thought that a sense of dependence on God is the basis of religion. That sense has its basis in ontological fact.

Amen and amen smart guy. I'm all for ontology ... and Ultimate Beingness. My concern is, is it friend, foe, or indifferent?

[Dave]

Ohio,
I would like to clarify something. It is childish to use words such as condescending (aside from the fact that it is just a distraction from ongoing discussion) on this forum under any conditions let alone in the context that it was used by zeek. I let it slide but you have now referenced it twice already so I have to respond. The statement, which apparently prompted his unfortunate response, was a reference to the fact that I had provided 3-4 broad references to defining God: 1. Faith; 2: Mythological: 3. Theoretical… I did that in order to provide a frame of reference as to how I viewed various ways God could be defined. I didn’t mean it in any condescending way whatsoever, however he interpreted it. He was simply wrong and his use of the word was totally inappropriate as is your continued reference to it. In addition, zeek is not the moderator here and if he is then I would like to know.

When we get to the point that we start attacking people with derogatory terms which you continue to do then we have simply gone too far no matter what you may think of a person or of their post. As I stated at the beginning of this paragraph using these words on this forum is childish. Am I supposed to call you arrogant, haughty, flippant, narcisstic, self-absorbing, immature, disrespectful etc no matter what I think of your posts in response to your comments? No, it is childish and immature to do this and it should cease.

You have shown that you just want to disagree with me but your continued use of derogatory terms is irresponsible and I will not respond to any of your posts and please don’t respond to any of mine. I don’t have the time or the desire to respond to this kind of nonsense. If it continues I would encourage the moderator to stop it at once.
__________________

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think this is the task we are called to. It is to come to know what is right and righteous and to seek to do it.

And that might mean doing nothing is seeking to follow God's Kingdom laws. Can you imagine if Hitler did nothing, for example, among many? And wouldn't we and so many others be better off if Nee and Lee did nothing? Hard to tell.

But I guess we can't help but do something.

As I see it, nature, and the whole cosmos, are driven by Kingdom laws. Biology, our biology, is driven by Kingdom laws. Our very breath is driven by Kingdom laws. The awareness reading these words right now, at bottom and in substance, are driven by Kingdom laws.

If only there weren't the problem of disconnection from Kingdom laws in what we do.

Jesus brought us at-one-ment, in the eyes of his Father. That's taken care of. Can we live at-one-ment?

Considering there's always a serpent in this Paradise of God's Kingdom laws, that's within us and surrounding us, maintaining at-one-ment is our problem.

I find receiving and spending grace helps. I'm a hopeless cause without it. If I'm honest I think I'm hopeless much of the time ... sad to say. Lord have mercy on me, I'm a sinner.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that might mean doing nothing is seeking to follow God's Kingdom laws. Can you imagine if Hitler did nothing, for example, among many? And wouldn't we and so many others be better off if Nee and Lee did nothing? Hard to tell.

I think you are missing the point. If you are coming to realize what is righteous, then doing nothing is not an option. You gave examples of the unrighteous actions of some of the more heinous in secular and religious history as if they were trying to do the righteous thing. (Well, Nee and Lee might have actually thought they were. But it was not based on learning from the bible (exegesis) but on reading their pet culture into the bible (eisegesis).) Surely there is nothing in the Bible that actually would drive someone to do what Hitler did. Surely it would be better for him to have done nothing. But doing nothing was not in place of being righteous, but of being unrighteous.

Same goes for Nee and Lee in the end.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Ohio,
I would like to clarify something. It is childish to use words such as condescending (aside from the fact that it is just a distraction from ongoing discussion) on this forum under any conditions let alone in the context that it was used by zeek. I let it slide but you have now referenced it twice already so I have to respond.

You have not exactly been a model of maturity, friend. I used that word because of the way you treat other posters, including zeek. It is merely a candid word that addresses your attitude.

Originally Posted by Dave

When we get to the point that we start attacking people with derogatory terms which you continue to do then we have simply gone too far no matter what you may think of a person or of their post. As I stated at the beginning of this paragraph using these words on this forum is childish. Am I supposed to call you arrogant, haughty, flippant, narcisstic, self-absorbing, immature, disrespectful etc no matter what I think of your posts in response to your comments? No, it is childish and immature to do this and it should cease.

You have shown that you just want to disagree with me but your continued use of derogatory terms is irresponsible.

To point out a condescending attitude as both zeek (your friend of 40 years!) and I have done is light years from you calling me arrogant, haughty, flippant, narcisstic, self-absorbing, immature, disrespectful, etc.

Where are these "derogatory" terms which I have used against you? I have only confronted your ideas in your posts, not ever belittling you. Isn't this a forum of public ideas? Are you so sensitive that you cannot take a little disagreement? Perhaps you have been a preacher on the bully pulpit too long. Step down to our level and speak from the heart please.

[Dave]

From my perspective James Luther Adams (20^th Century Unitarian theologian at Harvard and University of Chicago) approximates the definition of God which I find acceptable. His statement outlines why it is important that when you use the word God you define what you mean despite the problems defining God creates. He states in part,
“To be sure, the word “God” is so heavily laden with unacceptable connotations that it is for many people scarcely usable without confusion. It is therefore well for us to indicate briefly what the word signifies… God (or that in which we may have faith) is the inescapable, commanding reality that sustains and transforms all meaningful existence. It is inescapable, for no one can live without somehow coming to terms with it. It is commanding, for it provides the structure or the process which existence is maintained and by which any meaningful achievement is realized. Indeed, every meaning in life is related to this commanding meaning, which no one can manipulate and which stands beyond every merely personal preference or whim. It is transforming, for it breaks through any given achievement, it invades my mind or heart open to it, luring it on to richer or more relevant achievement; it is a self-surpassing reality. God is the reality that works upon us and through us and in accord with which we can discern truth, beauty or goodness. It is that reality which works in nature, history, and thought and under certain conditions creates human good in human community.”
The Bible does not provide a clear definition of God but it has been culled by Christians over the centuries and essentially Christians from various denominations pull out of the Bible those verses which support their own definition of God. They ignore those verses which conflict with their definition. I guess one could say that I am doing the same but here is the catch, I don’t believe the Bible is infallible or inerrant. This means that I don’t have to contrive a definition of God to fit an infallible or inerrant Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

From my perspective James Luther Adams (20^th Century Unitarian theologian at Harvard and University of Chicago) approximates the definition of God which I find acceptable. His statement outlines why it is important that when you use the word God you define what you mean despite the problems defining God creates. He states in part,
“To be sure, the word “God” is so heavily laden with unacceptable connotations that it is for many people scarcely usable without confusion. It is therefore well for us to indicate briefly what the word signifies… God (or that in which we may have faith) is the inescapable, commanding reality that sustains and transforms all meaningful existence. It is inescapable, for no one can live without somehow coming to terms with it. It is commanding, for it provides the structure or the process which existence is maintained and by which any meaningful achievement is realized. Indeed, every meaning in life is related to this commanding meaning, which no one can manipulate and which stands beyond every merely personal preference or whim. It is transforming, for it breaks through any given achievement, it invades my mind or heart open to it, luring it on to richer or more relevant achievement; it is a self-surpassing reality. God is the reality that works upon us and through us and in accord with which we can discern truth, beauty or goodness. It is that reality which works in nature, history, and thought and under certain conditions creates human good in human community.”
The Bible does not provide a clear definition of God but it has been culled by Christians over the centuries and essentially Christians from various denominations pull out of the Bible those verses which support their own definition of God. They ignore those verses which conflict with their definition. I guess one could say that I am doing the same but here is the catch, I don’t believe the Bible is infallible or inerrant. This means that I don’t have to contrive a definition of God to fit an infallible or inerrant Bible.

I like this post, and the Adam's quote. Right on. Thanks ...

Now you and bro Ohio kiss and make up.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

I like this post, and the Adam's quote. Right on. Thanks ...

Now you and bro Ohio kiss and make up.

Time and distance are the healers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Time and distance are the healers.

Time wounds all heels ... as they say.

[zeek]

This post has been temporarily deleted.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Time wounds all heels ... as they say.

Thanks for a good laugh.

As my aging feet eek out a weak "amen."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

This post has been temporarily deleted.

I got his post on my Ipad, and want to respond to it. zeek has failed miserably in his attempt to read my mind.

I'll hold off until this is re-posted.

[zeek]

Dave

God (or that in which we may have faith) is the inescapable, commanding reality that sustains and transforms all meaningful existence. It is inescapable, for no one can live without somehow coming to terms with it. It is commanding, for it provides the structure or the process which existence is maintained and by which any meaningful achievement is realized. Indeed, every meaning in life is related to this commanding meaning, which no one can manipulate and which stands beyond every merely personal preference or whim. It is transforming, for it breaks through any given achievement, it invades my mind or heart open to it, luring it on to richer or more relevant achievement; it is a self-surpassing reality. God is the reality that works upon us and through us and in accord with which we can discern truth, beauty or goodness. It is that reality which works in nature, history, and thought and under certain conditions creates human good in human community.”

I accept that definition. It has a kind of built in escape clause...the "self-surpassing" character. Would you say that based on this definition, unless you discover God subjectively, you will not see God moving in history?

The Bible does not provide a clear definition of God but it has been culled by Christians over the centuries and essentially Christians from various denominations pull out of the Bible those verses which support their own definition of God. They ignore those verses which conflict with their definition. I guess one could say that I am doing the same but here is the catch, I don’t believe the Bible is infallible or inerrant. This means that I don’t have to contrive a definition of God to fit an infallible or inerrant Bible.

OK, but, wouldn't you acknowledge that the authors of the Bible have in common that they seem to be grappling with the reality that Adams describes in his defintion of God?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I got his post on my Ipad, and want to respond to it. zeek has failed miserably in his attempt to read my mind.

I'll hold off until this is re-posted.

I deleted the post when I saw that I had missed your post responding directly to Dave below.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave

I accept that definition. It has a kind of built in escape clause...the "self-surpassing" character. Would you say that based on this definition, unless you discover God subjectively, you will not see God moving in history?

In regards to Adams, he states that “revelation is continuous” which can be difficult to comprehend but is critical to defining or realizing “God” in nature and history so I do think that we see “God” moving in history. Adams states, “Religious liberalism depends first on the principle that ‘revelation’ is continuous. Meaning has not been finally captured. Nothing is complete, and thus nothing is exempt from criticism. Liberalism itself, as an actuality, is patient of this limitation. At best, our symbols of communication are only referents and do not capsule reality. Events of word, deed and nature are not sealed. They point always beyond themselves.”

If we consider unwrapping an absolute God we can still see a God who is absolute but is not fully revealed which is noted in the Bible---“we see in part”. It gets back to the elephant illustration where 5 blind people can only touch part of the elephant and so each describes the elephant differently. Of course, once individuals have God all wrapped up and packaged in their “belief statements” there is no continuous revelation because their fixed ideas limit their ability to see beyond what their absolute images of God portray. From what Adams has stated “…nothing is exempt from criticism” I would conclude that “God” is not exempt from criticism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

[FONT=&quot] In regards to Adams, he states that “revelation is continuous” which can be difficult to comprehend but is critical to defining or realizing “God” in nature and history so I do think that we see “God” moving in history.

Right but only faith sees God moving in history. Only faith sees God period.

If we consider unwrapping an absolute God we can still see a God who is absolute but is not fully revealed which is noted in the Bible---“we see in part”.

According to Christianity, God is most fully revealed in Jesus as the Christ. But, I don't see how God is FULLY revealed anywhere since we exist in time. I John says that Christ IS eternal life. Thus, eternity incarnated in time. But, that is a paradox appreciated by faith not something that can be logically thought.

It gets back to the elephant illustration where 5 blind people can only touch part of the elephant and so each describes the elephant differently.

...an analogy illustrating our limited perspectives in time and space.

Of course, once individuals have God all wrapped up and packaged in their “belief statements” there is no continuous revelation because their fixed ideas limit their ability to see beyond what their absolute images of God portray. From what Adams has stated “…nothing is exempt from criticism” I would conclude that “God” is not exempt from criticism.

Right and that "belief statement" problem is a problem that all of us seem to have some of the time and some of us seem to have all of the time. By my definition of God as Ultimate Reality I mean to imply that God is intuited but not something that can be encompassed by anyone's finite POV. That includes the Bible. God as a symbol is like a finger pointing at the moon which should not be mistaken for the moon itself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But it was not based on learning from the bible (exegesis) but on reading their pet culture into the bible (eisegesis).)

The shrinks that study why people believe in the first place call this: Confirmation Bias (right up zeek's alley).

Confirmation bias is a key psychological mechanism to keep us faithful to what we believe, and trapped in groups like the local church.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek or interpret evidence favorable to already existing beliefs, and to ignore or reinterpret evidence unfavorable to already existing beliefs (eisegesising). I think we've all experience confirmation bias at one time or another, and some of us more than others.

Confirmation bias kicks in when we adhere to creeds, like the Five Fundamentals, or something like God's Economy. If we embrace such beliefs, then we have to seek evidence favorable to that position, and seek also to avoid evidence that's unfavorable to it. (Sort of like brother Ohio's position that, it's a matter of from where and whom we gather our information).

It was Confirmation bias that kept me trapped in the LC, until I couldn't avoid the evidence that Lee was hypocritical to his own teachings, or that his orthopraxy didn't match his orthodoxy, to use big words (again right up zeek's alley ... haha).

And confirmation bias had become such a habit in me that it was hard to kick it once I left the LC. It caused me great cognitive dissonance upon walking away ; when upon facing that my confirmation bias no longer held, that it was BS, things went haywire in my head for awhile. And it hurt like hell, to admit, and see that all my work at confirming LC beliefs, crash and burn before my very eyes. What a huge disappointment! I never got over it! Zeek says a speak like wounded by God. And he's right. I've been wounded by God twice ; and I mean fist waving angry at God twice so far. Once, really angry, when my son died. And once, similar angry but not as intense, when God's eternal purpose, as it was pictured in the LC, turned out to be false. What losses! Two very big whammies, I'd say.

Our brother Lisbon comes to mind. After 4 decades in the LC his confirmation bias had to be well dug into his psyche. What a job it must be for him to rewire around all the confirmation biases that held him in the LC for so long.

Amen to such brothers. They are a great encouragement to those leaving the local church today, who need to work out the disappointment of all their confirmation-biasing.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right but only faith sees God moving in history. Only faith sees God period.

Interesting concept but when I see a flower blossom do I need faith. Can't I see faith or God or whatever you want to call it in nature. Regarding history it is the same but in this case human intervention or sometimes mother nature becomes the impetus for change (bad or good) which is the point Adams is making. He notes, "How long the order of nature will continue to support human life is beyond the ken of science. Possibly our earth and our sun will one day cool off and freeze, or they may dissipate or explode. Moreover, everyone is condemned to what we call death....Whatever the destiny of the planet or of the individual life, a sustaining meaning is discernible and commanding in the here and now. Anyone who denies this denies that there is anything worth taking seriously or even worth talking about. Every blade of grass, every work of art, every scientific endeavor, every striving for righteousness bears witness to this meaning."

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Christianity, God is most fully revealed in Jesus as the Christ. But, I don't see how God is FULLY revealed anywhere since we exist in time. I John says that Christ IS eternal life. Thus, eternity incarnated in time. But, that is a paradox appreciated by faith not something that can be logically thought.

I nor Adams would suggest that we can get beyond faith (this doesn't change what I noted regarding nature or history). As i stated earlier which was problematic for you was that neither God nor the Bible can be apprehended outside of faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Interesting concept but when I see a flower blossom do I need faith.

My cats can see a flower blossom. But, if they think its blossoming speaks of some larger purpose beyond itself, I would say they have faith.

Can't I see faith or God or whatever you want to call it in nature. Regarding history it is the same but in this case human intervention or sometimes mother nature becomes the impetus for change (bad or good) which is the point Adams is making. He notes, "How long the order of nature will continue to support human life is beyond the ken of science. Possibly our earth and our sun will one day cool off and freeze, or they may dissipate or explode. Moreover, everyone is condemned to what we call death....Whatever the destiny of the planet or of the individual life, a sustaining meaning is discernible and commanding in the here and now. Anyone who denies this denies that there is anything worth taking seriously or even worth talking about. Every blade of grass, every work of art, every scientific endeavor, every striving for righteousness bears witness to this meaning."

That's faith talking.

I nor Adams would suggest that we can get beyond faith (this doesn't change what I noted regarding nature or history). As i stated earlier which was problematic for you was that neither God nor the Bible can be apprehended outside of faith.

Maybe we were talking past each other. The Bible can be analyzed for historic content without faith as Ehrman does or as mythology without faith as Campbell does. And those are just two examples of the myriad ways and methods of reading it that don't require religious faith. But, it does seem true, without faith God is a hypothesis and the Bible is dead in the sense of relevance to one's life and time. And, it's interesting, even though I live in the bible belt where a large percentage of people attend church etc. , for most of them these are settled matters that it isn't polite or socially acceptable to discuss deeply or at length the way we do here. They would think it weird. So, I would say, that the Bible is at least as dead for many evangelicals as it is for many unbelievers today.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, I would say, that the Bible is at least as dead for many evangelicals as it is for many unbelievers today.

The Bible is dead? Did Nietzsche say that too?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe we were talking past each other. The Bible can be analyzed for historic content without faith as Ehrman does or as mythology without faith as Campbell does. And those are just two examples of the myriad ways and methods of reading it that don't require religious faith. But, it does seem true, without faith God is a hypothesis and the Bible is dead in the sense of relevance to one's life and time. And, it's interesting, even though I live in the bible belt where a large percentage of people attend church etc. , for most of them these are settled matters that it isn't polite or socially acceptable to discuss deeply or at length the way we do here. They would think it weird. So, I would say, that the Bible is at least as dead for many evangelicals as it is for many unbelievers today.

I would agree that Ehrman, using the historical-critical method of analysis, and Campbell with his iconoclastic mythological approach have provided unique perspectives regarding the Bible. However, having read both extensively I don’t think either would disagree with my premise that someone can only apprehend the Bible by faith as I have described it. In other words, one has to conflate various texts in the Bible to come up with the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ, the virgin birth scene etc. It requires faith and cannot be explained otherwise. In fact there are so many contradictions in the Bible that as a whole it doesn’t make sense without conflation and after everything is conflated you have a mess. Christians tend to ignore errors, justify contradictions and misapply variances. But the answer is faith which solves all the problems. Just have faith and it all works out. BTW—see below of about 20 contradictions.


In regards to Adams he applies faith in a responsible way which was encouraging to me since the UU can be so detached from aspects of Christian faith that I welcomed his approach. Faith works when there are substantiated facts to support one to exercise faith. This includes not ignoring facts and scientific evidence. I haven’t found a conflict in this regard although anyone can disagree with anyone on anything for that matter.

1. Mark 16:5 compared to

Luke 24:4

2. John 19:17 compared to
Matthew 27:32

3. Mark 6:8 compared to
Matthew 10:10

4. Mark 11:13-22 compared to
Matthew 21:19-20

5. Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1 compared to
Luke 23:55-56 and 24:1,10
John 20:1

6. Matthew 8:28 compared to
Mark 5:2

7. Matthew 21:7 compared to
Mark 11:7

8. Acts 1:18 compared to
Matthew 27:5

9. Acts 1:3 compared to
Luke chapter 24

10. John 13:27 compared to
Luke 22:3


11. Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55 and Luke 23:49 compared to
John 19:25

12. Luke 23:39-42 compared to
Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44

13. Luke 3:23 compared to
Matthew 1:16

14. Luke 24:25, Galatians 3:1, 1st Corinthians 15:36 compared to
Matthew 5:22

15. Matthew 20:30 compared to
Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35

16. Mark 15:23 compared to
Matthew 27:34

17. John 1:35,43 and 2:1 compared to
Mark 1:12-13

18. John 8:14 compared to
John 5:31

19. Mark 16:8 compared to
Matthew 28:8

20. Acts 1:18 compared to
Matthew 27:6

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

However, having read both extensively I don’t think either would disagree with my premise that someone can only apprehend the Bible by faith as I have described it.

Well you gave Adams' definition of God and another quotation from him, but I don't really see where you described faith. Give me the number of the post that's on, please.

In other words, one has to conflate various texts in the Bible to come up with the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ, the virgin birth scene etc. It requires faith and cannot be explained otherwise. In fact there are so many contradictions in the Bible that as a whole it doesn’t make sense without conflation and after everything is conflated you have a mess.

The historic church has produced a body of biblical interpretation and theology. So, are you claiming that is all just so much "conflation"?

In regards to Adams he applies faith in a responsible way which was encouraging to me since the UU can be so detached from aspects of Christian faith that I welcomed his approach. Faith works when there are substantiated facts to support one to exercise faith. This includes not ignoring facts and scientific evidence. I haven’t found a conflict in this regard although anyone can disagree with anyone on anything for that matter.

Does non-conflative faith start with Adams or is there a tradition of that kind of faith?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well you gave Adams' definition of God and another quotation from him, but I don't really see where you described faith. Give me the number of the post that's on, please.

There are a number of posts stated or implied to include #1149 but I suggest you do a search "faith" and you will probably find them all.

Originally Posted by zeek

The historic church has produced a body of biblical interpretation and theology. So, are you claiming that is all just so much "conflation"?

It depends on specifics.

Originally Posted by zeek

Does non-conflative faith start with Adams or is there a tradition of that kind of faith?

The word "conflation" is a term used by Ehrman in describing the attempts Christians use to pull scripture's together to state doctrines or explain dissimilar stories of the Bible cohesively so maybe Ehrman is the source of it. One example Ehrman gives is the birth of Christ noted in Matthew and Luke. They are very different descriptions but Christians conflate the two so that at Christmas you have a story with both wise men and shepherds etc. Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted pages 29-30, "And the story that is told every December is in fact a conflation of the accounts of these two Gospels, a combination of the details of one with the details of the other, in order to create one large, harmonious account." That is just one example where he uses that term but it is not original to me. In any case, I hope that helps your understanding of my usage of the word "conflation".

[OBW]

BTW—see below of about 20 contradictions.

BTW—see below of about 20 contradictions.

The "Quote" function was not working properly so I just did it myself.

I did not look at the entirety of the list, but of what I did, almost without expeption there is no evidence that any of the particular accounts are claimed to cover the entirety of what they describe or quote, therefore it cannot be determined that they actually contradict. I can understand them as completely compatible if you have certain additional information (which we do not actually have) that would reconcile them.

The point is not that they are clearly OK, but that they do not clearly contradict. They may or may not tell all facts. And if the truth is that they do not, then there will be differences if the facts presented are not the same ones.

If you are going to simply say they are contradictions, then make sure that they truly are. Otherwise, you look sloppy and/or out to prove a point that you do not actually have evidence to make.

You could be right. Or could be wrong. You can't prove it one way or the other. Since the people of the time did not have a problem with all these supposed contradictions, there is some basis for taking it as not actually in contradiction. They do not prove, but provide a basis. It is a least reasonably plausible that they are not in contradiction.

[zeek]

Dave---I first heard Ehrman talk about this kind of conflation in an interview with Terry Gross on NPR 2010 which is available as a podcast. He said that doing that results in missing the differences in the perspectives of the authors and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels. I think he makes a significant and valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that that closes the door on the subsequent developments of Christian theology through which believers seek to integrate the messages of the NT writings into a coherent whole that reflects their faith.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave---I first heard Ehrman talk about this kind of conflation in an interview with Terry Gross on NPR 2010 which is available as a podcast. He said that doing that results in missing the differences in the perspectives of the authors and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels. I think he makes a significant and valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that that closes the door on the subsequent developments of Christian theology through which believers seek to integrate the messages of the NT writings into a coherent whole that reflects their faith.

Your missing the point of what I said and you are introducing interpolation which involves a different set of constructs. Terry Gross is in error because this idea doesn't miss the errors but it overstates the realities of the differences of the perspectives of the authors and not the eras of the authors. He misses the point. I also don't think I ever said it closes the door but I thought my point was that "revelation is continuous" so I don't understand your response. Maybe you can elaborate.

[Dave]

OBW....
I agree that there is a QUOTE problem which should get fixed by someone running this discussion group...it is getting frustrating....

In any case, does Jesus ride in on one donkey or two, in regards to the virgin birth are there wise men or sheperds etc.. the list goes on but the details are all over the map. It is difficult enough to list the specific different verses and list all the contradictions at the same time. I am sure that has been the problem and the reason why no one pays attention to the differences. Usually the "faith" point of view is that it is just a matter of faith/not fact so we end up with conflation where the same account with different individuals involved or different circumstances result in similar outcomes.

[zeek]

Here's some food for thought: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...etail=facebook

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

OBW....
I agree that there is a QUOTE problem which should get fixed by someone running this discussion group...it is getting frustrating....

What part is not working. As you can see I just quoted Dave. No problem.

The generic quote function seems to work just fine. I used it right here.

If it's real super technical, Harold can probably help you more than me, or at least get with me for a solution I can effect.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Your missing the point of what I said and you are introducing interpolation which involves a different set of constructs. Terry Gross is in error because this idea doesn't miss the errors but it overstates the realities of the differences of the perspectives of the authors and not the eras of the authors. He misses the point. I also don't think I ever said it closes the door but I thought my point was that "revelation is continuous" so I don't understand your response. Maybe you can elaborate.

Terry Gross, a female interviewer made no error that I am aware of. Her website summarizes the interview this way:

"...he [Ehrman] discourages readers from "smash[ing] the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think[ing] that [they] get the true understanding.""When Matthew was writing, he didn't intend for somebody ... to interpret his Gospel in light of what some other author said. He had his own message," Ehrman says. To illustrate the differences between the Gospels, Ehrman offers opposing depictions of Jesus talking about himself. In the book of John, Jesus talks about himself and proclaims who he is, saying "I am the bread of life." Whereas in Mark, Jesus teaches principally about the coming kingdom and hardly ever mentions himself directly. These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels, according to Ehrman. "In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is not interested in teaching about himself. But when you read John's Gospel, that's virtually the only thing Jesus talks about is who he is, what his identity is, where he came from," Ehrman says. "This is completely unlike anything that you find in Mark or in Matthew and Luke. And historically it creates all sorts of problems, because if the historical Jesus actually went around saying that he was God, it's very hard to believe that Matthew, Mark and Luke left out that part — you know, as if that part wasn't important to mention. But in fact, they don't mention it. And so this view of the divinity of Jesus on his own lips is found only in our latest Gospel, the Gospel of John."

I don't see an error there. Gross isn't interjecting her own thought into it as far as I can tell.

You said "one has to conflate various texts in the Bible to come up with the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ, the virgin birth scene etc. It requires faith and cannot be explained otherwise. In fact there are so many contradictions in the Bible that as a whole it doesn’t make sense without conflation and after everything is conflated you have a mess." That statement seems to preclude acceptance of the Biblical reading of orthodox Christian theology completely. I don't see that you have presented a positive replacement for the extant Christian theology apart from Adams' definition of God and a sketchy description of Adams' "continuous revelation" notion. You have suggested that Ehrman is compatible with Adams' definition of God and his notion of continuous revelation, but you haven't really shown how. Did Adams comment on the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation? Is Ehrman aware of Adams?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What part is not working. As you can see I just quoted Dave. No problem.



If it's real super technical, Harold can probably help you more than me, or at least get with me for a solution I can effect.

It seems to work okay sporadically. Sometimes when I click on "edit" it gives me a blank box and in order for me to edit I have to copy the original text and paste it into the box. It is hit or miss. For awhile it was not working at all. Seems to be better right now as you can see.

[awareness]

Brother Dave,

If the original revelation - The Canon - is a mess. And the resulting revelation - The Orthodoxy - is a mess. Why do you think any continual revelation won't be a mess too?

And where does this continual revelation come from, or from whom?

Didn't Lee claim to be continuing the revelation of God with The Recovery?

Is one of my brain farts a continuation of revelation?

Please explain exactly what you mean by continual revelation. What is it? Is it completely outside of all previous revelation? Is it something brand new?

Will a new Bible come from it? Or will the old one be changed?

[Dave]

UntoHim
Here is one of the problems I am trying to respond to zeek but I get a blank box and this is happening over and over and I end up copying everything and pasting it into the box. Can someone fix this please Harold where are you?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Dave,

If the original revelation - The Canon - is a mess. And the resulting revelation - The Orthodoxy - is a mess. Why do you think any continual revelation won't be a mess too?

And where does this continual revelation come from, or from whom?

Didn't Lee claim to be continuing the revelation of God with The Recovery?

Is one of my brain farts a continuation of revelation?

Please explain exactly what you mean by continual revelation. What is it? Is it completely outside of all previous revelation? Is it something brand new?

Will a new Bible come from it? Or will the old one be changed?

Okay now here UntoHim it works....in response to Awareness. You are correct on all points!!!! Let me claifiy (please note that "EDIT" is working). Awareness...it seems rather obvious but to help us all along let's just take one simple example...slavery. Okay, it is condoned in both the OT and NT but as society (at least some people or some Christians) became aware of respect for one another Christians abandoned (some Christians) their promotion of slavery. Again, as women gained their rights (e.g. to vote) Christians (some Christians) abandoned their opposition to women becoming pastors and mentors. Have the scriptures changed? Is it any less inerrant? Don't know but some of these inerrant theorists have lessened the importance of certain scriptures. As Christians have become more aware of the horror in the OT of the Lord murdering women and children those have been cordoned off as "history" not as important as other verses in the Bible. Another example is science. As we have learned more about the earth and planets teachers of the Bible no longer are advocating that the earth is the center of the universe etc. Shall I go on....Revelation is continuous...and the Bible is not inerrant and each decade it changes etc etc. Let me just add textual and historical criticism. One of the reasons that Ehrman is hated by Christians is because he is saying things that need to be said and it is not drivel. Could Christians really continue to ignore that we don't have the original texts of the Bible and how the Bible was copied and copied by scribes over and over? Whether or not there was any real changes is immaterial. The point is that this needed to be addressed and before Ehrman, I'm sorry but I really didn't know that we didn't have the original texts and I don't recall in Bible College ever being taught that info. Of course, it was an AOG biblical college and I guess if I went to a Baptist Seminary I would have learned all of that stuff, or maybe not. However, the average Joe Christian is never exposed to that info... Outside of Ehrman ... nada... Christians should be grateful rather than hateful towards Ehrman because they have the opportunity to address these issues to public Joe Christian to make additional points how wonderful the Bible is or not Revelation is continuous.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

UntoHim
Here is one of the problems I am trying to respond to zeek but I get a blank box and this is happening over and over and I end up copying everything and pasting it into the box. Can someone fix this please Harold where are you?

I haven't seen this problem yet. I'm not even sure of the problem you are having.

So for my sake and Untohim's please describe the problem further.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

It seems to work okay sporadically. Sometimes when I click on "edit" it gives me a blank box and in order for me to edit I have to copy the original text and paste it into the box. It is hit or miss. For awhile it was not working at all. Seems to be better right now as you can see.

I think this occurs when posts are copied from Word with embedded control characters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I haven't seen this problem yet. I'm not even sure of the problem you are having.

So for my sake and Untohim's please describe the problem further.

Hit the quote button, and all i get is a blank box.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think this occurs when posts are copied from Word with embedded control characters.

The quote button is working fine for me. Maybe it's your browser ... I don't know.

But Dave is a Microsoft/Bill Gates addict ... can't work nothing but MS Word (Wordpad and Wordperfect would be better). It puts crazy Java code in his posts. But we tolerate it cuz we love him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The quote button is working fine for me. Maybe it's your browser ... I don't know.

But Dave is a Microsoft/Bill Gates addict ... can't work nothing but MS Word (Wordpad and Wordperfect would be better). It puts crazy Java code in his posts. But we tolerate it cuz we love him.

When i come across another blank box I'll let you know.

Perhaps you have special optics to see Java codes.

[Dave]

Quote function not working----and this has nothing to do with MS Word since I just clicked on the Quote button....

anyway, OBW here are the descrepancies:

1. Mark 16:5 states that there was one man dressed in white in the tomb.
Luke 24:4 states that there were two men dressed in shining garments in the tomb.

2. John 19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross to Golgotha.
Matthew 27:32 states that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus' cross to Golgotha.

3. Mark 6:8 states that Jesus commanded his disciples to take only a staff.
Matthew 10:10 states that Jesus commanded his disciples to not take a staff.

4. Mark 11:13-22 states that Jesus cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem from Bethany but only found it withered away the next morning.
Matthew 21:19-20 states that the fig tree withered immediately while the disciples and Jesus watched.

5. Matthew 28:1 states that Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary went while Mark 16:1 claims that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb while Luke 23:55-56 and 24:1,10 depicts more than three women going to the tomb.

John 20:1 states that only Mary Magdalene went to Jesus' tomb early Sunday morning.

6. Matthew 8:28 states that two demon-possessed men came out of the tombs.
Mark 5:2 states that one demon-possessed man came out of the tombs.

7. Matthew 21:7 states that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys.
Mark 11:7 states that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one donkey.

8. Acts 1:18 states that Judas fell on the ground in the field he purchased and his guts spilled out.
Matthew 27:5 states that Judas hung himself out of remorse for betraying Jesus.

9. Acts 1:3 states that Jesus ascended back to heaven forty days after the day of his resurrection.
Luke chapter 24 depicts Jesus as ascending back to heaven on the following day of his resurrection.

10. John 13:27 states that Satan entered Judas during the last supper.
Luke 22:3 states that Satan entered Judas at least a few days before the Passover occurred.

11. Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55 and Luke 23:49 all state that the women were standing far away from the cross, and watching from a great distance.
John 19:25 states that the women were standing near the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them when he told his mother "Woman, behold thy son!".

12. Luke 23:39-42 states that only one of the criminals mocked and reviled Jesus.
Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44 state that both criminals mocked and reviled Jesus.

13. Luke 3:23 states that Heli was Joseph's father.
Matthew 1:16 states that Jacob was Joseph's father.

14. Luke 24:25 depicts Jesus calling two men fools and in Galatians 3:1 Paul calls the Galatian Christians foolish while in 1st Corinthians 15:36 he calls a type of man who questions a fool.
Matthew 5:22 has Jesus saying that it is not okay to call someone a fool and anyone who does is in danger of going to hell.

15. Matthew 20:30 states that there were two blind men.
Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 state that there was only one blind man.
When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?

16. Mark 15:23 states that the soldiers gave Jesus wine and myrhh.
Matthew 27:34 states that the soldiers gave Jesus vinegar and gall.

17. John 1:35,43 and 2:1 state that he called his disciples and attended the wedding at Cana.
Mark 1:12-13 state that he went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil for 40 days.

18. In John 8:14, Jesus said, "Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true."
In John 5:31, Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

19. Mark 16:8 states that they fled the tomb in fear and said nothing to anyone.
Matthew 28:8 states that they ran immediately to tell Jesus' disciples what they had seen and heard.

20. Acts 1:18 states that Judas bought the potter's field.
Matthew 27:6 states that the chief priests bought the potter's field.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Okay now here UntoHim it works....in response to Awareness. You are correct on all points!!!! Let me claifiy (please note that "EDIT" is working). Awareness...it seems rather obvious but to help us all along let's just take one simple example...slavery. Okay, it is condoned in both the OT and NT but as society (at least some people or some Christians) became aware of respect for one another Christians abandoned (some Christians) their promotion of slavery. Again, as women gained their rights (e.g. to vote) Christians (some Christians) abandoned their opposition to women becoming pastors and mentors. Have the scriptures changed? Is it any less inerrant? Don't know but some of these inerrant theorists have lessened the importance of certain scriptures. As Christians have become more aware of the horror in the OT of the Lord murdering women and children those have been cordoned off as "history" not as important as other verses in the Bible. Another example is science. As we have learned more about the earth and planets teachers of the Bible no longer are advocating that the earth is the center of the universe etc. Shall I go on....Revelation is continuous...and the Bible is not inerrant and each decade it changes etc etc. Let me just add textual and historical criticism. One of the reasons that Ehrman is hated by Christians is because he is saying things that need to be said and it is not drivel. Could Christians really continue to ignore that we don't have the original texts of the Bible and how the Bible was copied and copied by scribes over and over? Whether or not there was any real changes is immaterial. The point is that this needed to be addressed and before Ehrman, I'm sorry but I really didn't know that we didn't have the original texts and I don't recall in Bible College ever being taught that info. Of course, it was an AOG biblical college and I guess if I went to a Baptist Seminary I would have learned all of that stuff, or maybe not. However, the average Joe Christian is never exposed to that info... Outside of Ehrman ... nada... Christians should be grateful rather than hateful towards Ehrman because they have the opportunity to address these issues to public Joe Christian to make additional points how wonderful the Bible is or not Revelation is continuous.

I'm not sure your continuous revelation is the same revelation we think of that formed the Bible.

Neither am I certain that abolition, suffrage, advances in human and civil rights, were a result of revelation. The Southern Baptists, holding to the old Bible revelation, was formed in support of holding slaves. Abolition happened in spite of that, but I'm not sure we can say it was because of continual revelation.

Take the issue of marriage equality today. Isn't it happening in opposition to or in spite of the old revelation? Aren't Christians, holding to the old revelation, completely up in arms about it? Is it happening from continual revelation? I don't think revelation, continual or otherwise, has anything to do with it. It may just be a result of the advancement of civilization and social pressures that result from it.

Maybe you mean something else. Maybe you're thinking of something like prophethood, or 'prophets' rising up and speaking out against the old revelation (Old Testament injustices) that advocates abuse of other, different, groups, types, and tribes, of people.

Or, out with the old revelation in with the 'new.' But the new isn't revelation like we see the old was.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the old revelation wasn't like what we think it was. We can't know that. We weren't there.

And ... good points about Ehrman. But I'm a little surprised you didn't know we don't have originals of the books of the Bible. But then again, you've been away from concern about these matters for a long time. Welcome back. Out with the old, in with the new.

And I was just teasing you about MS Word.

Since Untohim has been playing around with the forum software, evidenced by posts getting moved around, the problem might be rectified when he's done playing. I'm just guessing tho.

[zeek]

What the Hard Right Christians really want is a president who is nothing like Jesus. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...half-full.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What the Hard Right Christians really want is a president who is nothing like Jesus. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...half-full.html

And I have been called narrow-minded, snarky, mean-spirited, bigoted, narcissistic, and worse for speaking up on behalf of Jesus and the Bible.

Did the poster here ever think about how he sounds?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And I have been called narrow-minded, snarky, mean-spirited, bigoted, narcissistic, and worse for speaking up on behalf of Jesus and the Bible.

Did the poster here ever think about how he sounds?

Did you read the sign? It said "Thank you Lord Jesus for President Trump."

And that's as funny as all get out, given that recently Trump said, "I don't bother God."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

OBW....
I agree that there is a QUOTE problem which should get fixed by someone running this discussion group...it is getting frustrating....

In any case, does Jesus ride in on one donkey or two, in regards to the virgin birth are there wise men or shepherds etc.. the list goes on but the details are all over the map. It is difficult enough to list the specific different verses and list all the contradictions at the same time. I am sure that has been the problem and the reason why no one pays attention to the differences. Usually the "faith" point of view is that it is just a matter of faith/not fact so we end up with conflation where the same account with different individuals involved or different circumstances result in similar outcomes.

You can only ride one donkey at a time. The record of only the colt would seem to indicate that this was the one actually ridden. It does not necessarily refute the presence of another.

The passage in Matthew concerning taking a staff is about not acquiring more stuff for the journey. It did not say not to take a staff or to not wear sandals. Rather it was part of a passage stating to refrain from what we would call over packing.

These really get old. The problems too often relate to the reading of verses rather than passages. Those little fortune cookies just are not complete statements relative to what is actually being said. Every one that I look at is easily dismissed as a matter of emphasis of one set of details v another compatible set, or the omission of context, etc.

Could the little that is presented in scripture actually be contradictory? Sure. But not so sure that anyone can say it is simply true. But we have no basis to say that is simply the answer, therefore simply contradictory.

I have no desire to go look at every other one you listed when it seems to me that you just regurgitated someone else's list, then even provided more data, only to ignore actually looking at it yourself and doing anything but accepting the premise that it is simply contradictory. I think I have sufficiently poked a hole in the only two I looked at. What kind of expectation should I have on the remainder?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

What the Hard Right Christians really want is a president who is nothing like Jesus.

There is probably some truth in that.

And some will declare that it is still just like Jesus.

But at the same time, when I look at most of the candidates, I find few that are simply like Jesus. Or simply not like Jesus. (Might have a few exceptions on both sides).

What I want is someone who will govern the country well without presuming that everyone should either turn all their income over for redistribution, or should want to nuke the #@$%* out of ISIS or whoever is the current boogeyman and feel free to hate anyone not exactly like them.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

You can only ride one donkey at a time. The record of only the colt would seem to indicate that this was the one actually ridden. It does not necessarily refute the presence of another.

The passage in Matthew concerning taking a staff is about not acquiring more stuff for the journey. It did not say not to take a staff or to not wear sandals. Rather it was part of a passage stating to refrain from what we would call over packing.

These really get old. The problems too often relate to the reading of verses rather than passages. Those little fortune cookies just are not complete statements relative to what is actually being said. Every one that I look at is easily dismissed as a matter of emphasis of one set of details v another compatible set, or the omission of context, etc.

Could the little that is presented in scripture actually be contradictory? Sure. But not so sure that anyone can say it is simply true. But we have no basis to say that is simply the answer, therefore simply contradictory.

I have no desire to go look at every other one you listed when it seems to me that you just regurgitated someone else's list, then even provided more data, only to ignore actually looking at it yourself and doing anything but accepting the premise that it is simply contradictory. I think I have sufficiently poked a hole in the only two I looked at. What kind of expectation should I have on the remainder?

Okay, you only addressed a couple of them in a very limited way. I went through the entire list and I wouldn't have listed them if there wasn't clear problems with them all. I know that someone cannot ride in on two donkeys but it says two which contradicts the other scripture so is it an error or?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not sure your continuous revelation is the same revelation we think of that formed the Bible.

Neither am I certain that abolition, suffrage, advances in human and civil rights, were a result of revelation. The Southern Baptists, holding to the old Bible revelation, was formed in support of holding slaves. Abolition happened in spite of that, but I'm not sure we can say it was because of continual revelation.

Take the issue of marriage equality today. Isn't it happening in opposition to or in spite of the old revelation? Aren't Christians, holding to the old revelation, completely up in arms about it? Is it happening from continual revelation? I don't think revelation, continual or otherwise, has anything to do with it. It may just be a result of the advancement of civilization and social pressures that result from it.

Maybe you mean something else. Maybe you're thinking of something like prophethood, or 'prophets' rising up and speaking out against the old revelation (Old Testament injustices) that advocates abuse of other, different, groups, types, and tribes, of people.

Or, out with the old revelation in with the 'new.' But the new isn't revelation like we see the old was.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the old revelation wasn't like what we think it was. We can't know that. We weren't there.

And ... good points about Ehrman. But I'm a little surprised you didn't know we don't have originals of the books of the Bible. But then again, you've been away from concern about these matters for a long time. Welcome back. Out with the old, in with the new.

And I was just teasing you about MS Word.

Since Untohim has been playing around with the forum software, evidenced by posts getting moved around, the problem might be rectified when he's done playing. I'm just guessing tho.

Quote is working!!! Hurray!!!

In regards to having the originals of the Bible---never brought to my attention so I never thought about it---glad you were more inquisitive---we don't have the originals---why didn't God preserve them if that is His word? Don't know...no answer because there is nothing in the Bible about preserving the copies of the copies of the copies. God-breathed written scripture---I would assume that would mean original writings. Copies of Copies of Copies---are they God-breathed as well? which would mean that every scribe copying these God-breathed copies would be monitored by God---of course, he is monitoring each and every word we are thinking or saying so why wouldn't he be monitoring every scribe copying the copies of the copies...the copies have to be God-breathed or they are not inerrant...anything less wouldn't work.

Revelation is continuous...not sure where you are making up this stuff in response...I thought it was rather clear...obviously not to you...I'll write more later...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And I have been called narrow-minded, snarky, mean-spirited, bigoted, narcissistic, and worse for speaking up on behalf of Jesus and the Bible.

Did the poster here ever think about how he sounds?

Feel free to refute my proposition, bro.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

What the Hard Right Christians really want is a president who is nothing like Jesus. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...half-full.html

Well, he is making the presidential race fun. He is hilarious. Yesterday he called Megyn Kelley "a bimbo"...you gotta love this stuff...it's amazing how he gets away with this... But as far as his ideas, well, he prefers a pure white Caucasian male society. Oh, wait a minute, doesn't that sound like a former leader in the history annals of WWII. I hope Christians start speaking out about this because in Germany they didn't until it was too late cf Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Niemoller's famous statement, "....then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Or do you think I am overstating his positions?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Well, he is making the presidential race fun. He is hilarious. Yesterday he called Megyn Kelley "a bimbo"...you gotta love this stuff...it's amazing how he gets away with this... But as far as his ideas, well, he prefers a pure white Caucasian male society. Oh, wait a minute, doesn't that sound like a former leader in the history annals of WWII. I hope Christians start speaking out about this because in Germany they didn't until it was too late cf Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Niemoller's famous statement, "....then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Or do you think I am overstating his positions?

You are probably overstating his positions. But there is plenty to work with without overstating them. And the warning, though unlikely necessary, is not without merit.

I watched a 55 minute comedy routine on the constitution last night. There was one point toward the end where he was getting up to current events and he made the humorous observation that those who have their sensibilities offended think they have it as bad as those who have been under siege by ISIS or some other group and who have been killed in the process. And as I think of DT a the White Male Dictator (that would be a WMD), I realize that today you don't even have to be sent to the gas chambers for the right to claim that you are being treated like the Jews in Nazi Germany. Just hear someone say a bad word about you and you need the power of the government to protect your ears.

I know. We should all love our fellow man. But it is very annoying how some of them are quick to hate everyone that even looks at them funny. Even if it is just their imagination.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are probably overstating his positions. But there is plenty to work with without overstating them. And the warning, though unlikely necessary, is not without merit.

I watched a 55 minute comedy routine on the constitution last night. There was one point toward the end where he was getting up to current events and he made the humorous observation that those who have their sensibilities offended think they have it as bad as those who have been under siege by ISIS or some other group and who have been killed in the process. And as I think of DT a the White Male Dictator (that would be a WMD), I realize that today you don't even have to be sent to the gas chambers for the right to claim that you are being treated like the Jews in Nazi Germany. Just hear someone say a bad word about you and you need the power of the government to protect your ears.

I know. We should all love our fellow man. But it is very annoying how some of them are quick to hate everyone that even looks at them funny. Even if it is just their imagination.

Am I overstating his position?? Here is what he said today quoted in USA Today,'Trump told reporters he's leading in every poll, including in Iowa. He said he's the front-runner among evangelicals, whom he described as "incredible people. They're really smart. I was very honored to lead with evangelicals. I love evangelicals," he said.'

Do you really think he is leading with African evangelicals or Hispanic evangelicals? Doubt it. I wish I was wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Do you really think he is leading with African evangelicals or Hispanic evangelicals? Doubt it. I wish I was wrong.

Keep watching friend. I've seen African evangelicals or Hispanic evangelicals that support Trump. It all depends on where you get your news.

I can always spot a liberal. They see race and bigotry in every event.

I watched one reporter at a Trump rally in Alabama get asked, "look around, do you see any blacks?"

So then another news outlet asked a reporter at the Bernie Sanders rally, "look around, do you see any blacks?"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

'I love evangelicals," he said.'

They taste like chicken.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

They taste like chicken.

Insiteful comment!!

[awareness]

As an ex-fundamentalist just to nettle them I'd say they taste like lobster. That's cuz in their Bible God hates lobster.

Not that that concerns the inerrantists, they dismiss those verses, as well as those against pigs. They just like the verses against men with men, then their inerrantist proclivities really kick right in. Fundamentalist are selective inerrantists. To them all the Bible is inerrant but some verses are more inerrant than others.

They even weekly break one of the Ten Commandments, mentioned clearly in two books of their inerrant Bible. They don't honor the Sabbath.

The fundamentalists are funny believers. Not funny funny, but funny in that they say the Bible is inerrant but don't admit, or teach, that they don't and can't live it ... except selectively.

As Dave pointed out in post #1221 as inerrant as they think the Bible is they have no choice but to select which verses are more inerrant .. to them.

In truth, it's impossible to be a real full believing fundamentalist ... except in proclamations ... that are very selective.

[UntoHim]

Harold, Harold, Harold. You're a funny man! You are one of the most "selective" readers of the Bible I have ever seen...and believe you me, I've seen a LOT. You are especially selective when it comes to the most FUNDAMENTAL claims of Jesus Christ. He CLEARLY stated that he was THE Son of God. He CLEARLY stated that his Father was the God of the Old Testament (which he quoted from incessantly) - Jehovah, Yahweh, Adonai, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, (I am that I am). Jesus clearly, strongly, unambiguously declared that THIS GOD, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob - The God of the Old Testament Scriptures - was HIS FATHER. And Jesus clearly, strongly, unambiguously declared THAT HE WAS THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER. He strongly, clearly and unambiguously declared that ALL OTHERS BEFORE HIM AND COMING AFTER HIM WERE/ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS. He was the one and only true Sheppard - all before him and all after him were to be considered "hirelings". Jesus Christ is coming again and will judge ALL MEN, and the ultimate standard of this final judgment will be determined ON WHAT YOU BELIEVED ABOUT JESUS CHRIST.

Lobsters, pigs and even the 10 Commandments will NOT be the standard of judgment. One could be perfectly kosher and the keeper of every law and it will be of NO DEFENSE on The Day. This is to say nothing of the fact that neither Jesus Christ nor the scripture writing apostles placed the burden of any of the Old Testament laws on the gentiles. Did you miss this part in your selective reading of the Bible?

The ONLY true fundamental thing is What do you believe about Jesus Christ. Nothing, not one verse, not one word, contradicts or disputes the fundamental claims and declaration of Jesus Christ that I have stated above. I have fear for anyone who thinks that they are going to the Judgment Seat of Christ, having his excuse for rejecting the Person and work of Christ as "well the bible gives two versions of how Judas Iscariot committed suicide so I didn't believe you were who you said you were".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can always spot a liberal. They see race and bigotry in every event.

They're the ones inciting racism by making race an issue. George Zimmerman might be onto something.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

They're the ones inciting racism by making race an issue. George Zimmerman might be onto something.

There's plenty of conservatives in my neck of the woods that are racists, even those of the Christian fundamentalism ilk. I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "I don't want no nigger as my president."

I think racism is a human condition problem, and political parties has little to do with it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think racism is a human condition problem, and political parties has little to do with it.

Good point! And it also has little to do with the topic of Fundamental beliefs in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Of course you already knew that but, hey, this is what Alternative Views is all about....alternative to the plain truth. But it's entertaining, enticing and most of all anti-Christian...so if the plain, objective facts have to be disregarded, oh well!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Am I overstating his position?? Here is what he said today quoted in USA Today,'Trump told reporters he's leading in every poll, including in Iowa. He said he's the front-runner among evangelicals, whom he described as "incredible people. They're really smart. I was very honored to lead with evangelicals. I love evangelicals," he said.'

Do you really think he is leading with African evangelicals or Hispanic evangelicals? Doubt it. I wish I was wrong.

Republican-leaning voters who are white evangelicals really do appear to favor Trump right now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/a...-donald-trump/.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good point! And it also has little to do with the topic of Fundamental beliefs in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Of course you already knew that but, hey, this is what Alternative Views is all about....alternative to the plain truth. But it's entertaining, enticing and most of all anti-Christian...so if the plain, objective facts have to be disregarded, oh well!

That's right bro Untohim ... keep us on topic. And out of the mud of poly-ticks.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's right bro Untohim ... keep us on topic. And out of the mud of poly-ticks.

Maybe Alt views needs a theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdB-8eLEW8g

I don't say that sarcastically... It's a good song. If only the BB's (and LCers) would listen to it...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But it's entertaining, enticing and most of all anti-Christian..

Anti-Christian? Wasn't Witness Lee an anti-Christian Christian? Isn't the whore of Babylon Christian? Couldn't we say Martin Luther was an anti-Christian Christian?

What made the idea of The Recovery so compelling was that it was obvious that Christianity needed recovering. Given that it bucked the status quo, The Recovery was anti-Christian ... yet we were still Christians ... anti-Christian Christians.

So anti-Christian Christians leave The Recovery and go back to that Christianity we were anti of ; that, by the way, still needs recovering. Were we wrong? Was Christianity just fine and we were just mistaken ; no recovery needed?

Is that what you are saying bro Untohim? That Nee and Lee were wrong? That Christianity was just fine after all? That the Roman Catholic church was right? That the Southern Baptists were right to form around holding slaves? That Christianity divided into more than 33,000 sects is just fine ... and a wonderful testimony of Christ? That fundamentalism as it has become is a wonderful testimony of Christ?

And saying that we are anti-Christian for disagreeing with all that mess?

Or are you saying that finally you have the true Christianity?

Maybe you are the new MOTA. I know that sounds funny, and will prolly even make you laugh, but you have to admit, since you are honest, that Christianity is a mess, and that you, as a heavyweight, are standing up for that mess ; putting out powerful presentations, making it seem right.

But you are not alone. Fundamentalism has failed too. It's part of the mess. Like you, it may be keeping to The Book but, it's not keeping to the Spirit of Christ.

And prolly neither will we fix the mess. It took me over 25 years to convince just one brother, that got the boot from the LC 5 yrs after me, that Witness Lee wasn't it, and that the local church wasn't the one and only true church. It was love that kept me at it. He was depressed and drinking from the disappointment of no longer being in it. I loved him, and his wife. I was friends with them before the LC. Love has a problem of letting go. When he finally let go, and broke thru, and it was like he was born again again (another story).

I could go on ... and prolly will. But it's love that keeps us at it. Love has a problem of letting go.

And we are all at different stages of letting go of the love of the local church, and what we thought we had there. Some of us have let go in different ways, or are further down the road.

I admit I'm not happy with Christianity. But I've loved it all my life. And can't let go. It's why I read and study this stuff all the time. It's why I'm here.

So we come together here on LCD and AltVs. And like the brother I worked on for so many years we get worked up, and angry.

It's part of the process. But love, after attached, has such a problem of letting go.

So thanks for your love bro Untohim. And by the way, for the compliment of AltVs, that it's "entertaining, enticing."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think racism is a human condition problem, and political parties has little to do with it.

Agreed racism is a human condition of which politicians manipulate to serve their agendas.

On another note in Matthew 18:2-3

And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

we should be like children in regard to racism. As children race was never a factor when forming friendships.

Back to the thread at hand, it is the issues of Christian fundamentals (or a lack of in the local churches), that made community churches appealing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

It took me over 25 years to convince just one brother, that got the boot from the LC 5 yrs after me, that Witness Lee wasn't it, and that the local church wasn't the one and only true church.

If one is open to logic and reason, it should be fairly easy to see the local church isn't the one an only true church. Sadly, loved ones are so subjectively grounded in the ground of locality doctrine, logic and reason is deemed irrelevant. As a result it is as one preaching to the cows.

[OBW]

Harold,

Overall, I think you have some challenging comments in your post. But I do want to comment back on these three:

Originally Posted by awareness

Anti-Christian? Wasn't Witness Lee an anti-Christian Christian?

Yes, in a way. He stood in contrast to what was considered normal within Christianity, yet was part of the whole that is Christianity.

Originally Posted by awareness

So anti-Christian Christians leave The Recovery and go back to that Christianity we were anti of ; that, by the way, still needs recovering. Were we wrong? Was Christianity just fine and we were just mistaken ; no recovery needed?

Yes and no. We all need recovering in the truest sense of the word. We all need to transforming work of Christ to recover us to what we were created to be. And since we never actually reach that 100% in this age, there is always recovery.

What Lee did was pick on certain things about our lack of being one and say those were the important ones and that the others were behind on those. But that is a skewed view of the state of any group of Christians. We are all flawed and in process. But the recovering we need is not back to Ground under the teaching of a MOTA.

So in the terms of "recovery" as spoken by Lee, Christianity does not need recovery. They, like everyone else, are on the path, being recovered. But if your goal is to become what Lee taught, that is to be recovered to something that is not what we were created to be. So Christianity will hopefully never be recovered in that sense.

Originally Posted by awareness

That Christianity divided into more than 33,000 sects is just fine ...

This little factoid is very misleading. While there are clearly divisions, the true number is much less. There are many groups, like the Methodists (UMC) that every assembly is not counted on the 501(c)(3) list, while others, like Bible churches, are truly independent. But there are many Bible churches, yet we do not all sign-up under the same 501(c)(3) organization. For that matter, neither did the LCM.

Now there are a lot of truly independent groups, but are they really as divided as Lee makes it out to be? Are they really separate sects as those who keep trotting this statistic out are trying to say? Are they really in opposition to all the others, therefore a truly separate sect? Weed through all of that and you find a reduced list of what we would call separate sects, probably by a significant division of the numbers, not just a subtraction of numbers.

[zeek]

I can sum up the crux of the fundamentalist problem including the LCM in one sentence: When people no longer trust themselves they turn to authority.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

When people no longer trust themselves they turn to authority.

Quite true.

Of course, the Bible is full of authority. It applies to me. It really is not for me to apply to you or anyone else. Only to me.

It is not a magical talisman of incantations. It is not so much a society except to the extent that the society helps me to become what I see the Bible as requiring of me (and I never truly arrive).

In a funny sort of way, it sounds almost postmodern.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I can sum up the crux of the fundamentalist problem including the LCM in one sentence: When people no longer trust themselves they turn to authority.

Good point. When I look back I see in myself, perhaps a motivating factor, the need for a strong father figure. I wonder how many of us can relate to a need for a authoritarian figure, back when we decided to throw all in to follow Lee??

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Quite true. Of course, the Bible is full of authority. It applies to me. It really is not for me to apply to you or anyone else. Only to me.

Spoken like a saint.

It is not a magical talisman of incantations. It is not so much a society except to the extent that the society helps me to become what I see the Bible as requiring of me (and I never truly arrive).

The Kingdom of God? Too much?

In a funny sort of way, it sounds almost postmodern.

Only if we take from your proposition that " It applies to me. It really is not for me to apply to you or anyone else. Only to me. " the inference of perspectivalism. Relativism was already present in late 20th century modernism and even has antecedents in 19th century Romanticism. Anyway, I think I know what you mean.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point. When I look back I see in myself, perhaps a motivating factor, the need for a strong father figure. I wonder how many of us can relate to a need for a authoritarian figure, back when we decided to throw all in to follow Lee??

I don't know, but when you don't trust yourself you become vulnerable to deception by those that claim to have ultimate answers. Now the fundamentalist claims that the Bible is the highest authority. But, it is the Bible of his interpretation. And he denies that it is an interpretation like Witness Lee did. Thus, he puts himself in the place of God. Humility is to recognize that you don't have the final word on anything. [And you may be mistaken about even that!] Every interpretation is provisional, every hypothesis is tentative. The evidence is always incomplete--more or less. People don't want to accept this.The uncertainty of our epistemological situation causes cognitive dissonance. People want answers where there are none.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know, but when you don't trust yourself you become vulnerable to deception by those that claim to have ultimate answers. Now the fundamentalist claims that the Bible is the highest authority. But, it is the Bible of his interpretation. And he denies that it is an interpretation like Witness Lee did. Thus, he puts himself in the place of God. Humility is to recognize that you don't have the final word on anything. [And you may be mistaken about even that!] Every interpretation is provisional, every hypothesis is tentative. The evidence is always incomplete--more or less. People don't want to accept this.The uncertainty of our epistemological situation causes cognitive dissonance. People want answers where there are none.

That's why the first fundamental principle is that the Bible is inerrant.

I remember growing up, when I knew nothing about the Bible, at least I was taught that it had all the answers I could ever need. So when I held it, I held all the answers.

Back then, being young, I didn't trust myself, and was vulnerable to deception by those that claim to have ultimate answers.

So I was fed the Southern Baptist interpretation of the Bible, as the ultimate interpretation.

It was just assumed that the Bible was inspired of God, and their interpretation of it was inspired of God too.

Cognitive dissonance solved.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why the first fundamental principle is that the Bible is inerrant.

I remember growing up, when I knew nothing about the Bible, at least I was taught that it had all the answers I could ever need. So when I held it, I held all the answers.

Back then, being young, I didn't trust myself, and was vulnerable to deception by those that claim to have ultimate answers.

So I was fed the Southern Baptist interpretation of the Bible, as the ultimate interpretation.

It was just assumed that the Bible was inspired of God, and their interpretation of it was inspired of God too.

Cognitive dissonance solved.

But, is it? The Bible is far more effective at generating questions than it is at answering them. For instance, the Bible says Jesus is resurrected. Then where is he? In heaven. Where's that? I'm already in over my head.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, is it? The Bible is far more effective at generating questions than it is at answering them. For instance, the Bible says Jesus is resurrected. Then where is he? In heaven. Where's that? I'm already in over my head.

That's because you are not looking at those questions thru the eyes of a devotee and with sacred devotion.

The principles of fundamentalism, and all the rest that comes along with it, are meant to just be accepted and believed; like a child. Not questioned.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's because you are not looking at those questions thru the eyes of a devotee and with sacred devotion.

The principles of fundamentalism, and all the rest that comes along with it, are meant to just be accepted and believed; like a child. Not questioned.

On the contrary, I asked questions that a child would ask. "Where is Jesus?" "Where is heaven?" The typical answer given by the fundamentalists here is that it is wrong to ask. That's the same answer Witness Lee gave. And then they cluck "Tsk, tsk" you've lost your faith. What a shame." So the answer is the commandment, "Don't ask!" Is this what the tradition of Christianity has come to? If so, its day has passed. It is the way of intellectual suicide.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

On the contrary, I asked questions that a child would ask. "Where is Jesus?" "Where is heaven?" The typical answer given by the fundamentalists here is that it is wrong to ask. That's the same answer Witness Lee gave. And then they cluck "Tsk, tsk" you've lost your faith. What a shame." So the answer is the commandment, "Don't ask!" Is this what the tradition of Christianity has come to? If so, its day has passed. It is the way of intellectual suicide.

I remember when my conservative Baptist cousin was so completely thrilled that his 11 yr old daughter received Jesus as her savior.

A few yrs later she came home from school and asked "Daddy where's heaven." He said, "I don't know but probably outside the universe." She said, "Daddy, heaven is very far away. How did Jesus ascended to it?"

He was floored. He said he would have never thought of such a question when he was her age (he still hadn't thought of it). He didn't like that she was learning such stuff in school. Thought the public school system was to blame.

I think at that moment he would have loved to have shot her intellect right in the back of the head ... if he could have. But he couldn't. And she eventually gave up her religion altogether.

There you have it. That darn intellect is such a problem. The fundamentalists, and the local church, would have us believe that God hates and destains our intellect.

I'm so stupid today because of it. For decades now I've been trying to make up for lost time, working and working to get caught up. But I'm still so very far behind (further prolly than where heaven is). Think I'll die before I ever get there.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I remember when my conservative Baptist cousin was so completely thrilled that his 11 yr old daughter received Jesus as her savior.

A few yrs later she came home from school and asked "Daddy where's heaven." He said, "I don't know but probably outside the universe." She said, "Daddy, heaven is very far away. How did Jesus ascended to it?"

He was floored. He said he would have never thought of such a question when he was her age (he still hadn't thought of it). He didn't like that she was learning such stuff in school. Thought the public school system was to blame.

I think at that moment he would have loved to have shot her intellect right in the back of the head ... if he could have. But he couldn't. And she eventually gave up her religion altogether.

There you have it. That darn intellect is such a problem. The fundamentalists, and the local church, would have us believe that God hates and destains our intellect.

I'm so stupid today because of it. For decades now I've been trying to make up for lost time, working and working to get caught up. But I'm still so very far behind (further prolly than where heaven is). Think I'll die before I ever get there.

God "disdain[ing] our intellect" has its source in the fact that our ordinary categories of thought don't work in the spiritual realm. As I have stated before, fundamentalists make a category error. Your cousin's daughter took the ascension literally and your cousin couldn't help her because so did he! There is no way to access the ascension literally except the visual imagination where it appears as a cartoon as you like to say. As such , it is a symbol. What does it stand for? To me, it means that Jesus represents the ultimate, the highest or universal value. And what does Jesus represent? ...self sacrificial love. The Johanine gospel and epistles make that point in the NT. Now, I am in no way denying the historical roots of the NT. But, that is a matter of historical probability not something that I can access by simply reading the canonical books. What is important for the believer is what it means to him/her subjectively. OBW made that point below.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

God "disdain[ing] our intellect" has its source in the fact that our ordinary categories of thought don't work in the spiritual realm.

So it comes from the natural realization, and we, or I, project/ed it on God? How much about God is our projection? How much in the gospels are projections of the authors?

Originally Posted by Z

As I have stated before, fundamentalists make a category error. Your cousin's daughter took the ascension literally and your cousin couldn't help her because so did he!

Of course they took it literal. Their operating premise is that the Bible is God's very own words. And it says they watched him rise up to the clouds, and that two men in white robes said he was taken up to heaven.

Originally Posted by Z

There is no way to access the ascension literally except the visual imagination where it appears as a cartoon as you like to say. As such , it is a symbol.

Well either the story is literal or it's cartoons to dramatize what they were imagining about what was going on to them.

Originally Posted by Z

What does it stand for? To me, it means that Jesus represents the ultimate, the highest or universal value.

So that's what the ascension story is all about; symbolizing that Jesus went up to the ultimate, heaven, and is therefore a symbol of the ultimate meaning and value that we should strive for?

Originally Posted by Z

And what does Jesus represent? ...self sacrificial love.

That we should go to the cross for others? That we should die for others? Or that's what life and death is all about? Is that what Jesus represents to you?

Originally Posted by Z

The Johanine gospel and epistles make that point in the NT. Now, I am in no way denying the historical roots of the NT. But, that is a matter of historical probability not something that I can access by simply reading the canonical books. What is important for the believer what it means to him/her subjectively. OBW made that point below.

It is true that my subjective experience of God requires no intellect. I actually give my intellect a rest. But now I realize that that doesn't mean I abandon my intellect altogether? I'm am, therefore I think.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So it comes from the natural realization, and we, or I, project/ed it on God? How much about God is our projection? How much in the gospels are projections of the authors?


Of course they took it literal. Their operating premise is that the Bible is God's very own words. And it says they watched him rise up to the clouds, and that two men in white robes said he was taken up to heaven.


Well either the story is literal or it's cartoons to dramatize what they were imagining about what was going on to them.


So that's what the ascension story is all about; symbolizing that Jesus went up to the ultimate, heaven, and is therefore a symbol of the ultimate meaning and value that we should strive for?


That we should go to the cross for others? That we should die for others? Or that's what life and death is all about? Is that what Jesus represents to you?


It is true that my subjective experience of God requires no intellect. I actually give my intellect a rest. But now I realize that that doesn't mean I abandon my intellect altogether? I'm am, therefore I think.

That's how I read it. That's how it speaks to me. And, since I recognize and acknowledge that this is my subjective read of it, I don't have to make claims about what actually happened. We will never know the origin of the gospel stories with certainty in this life. What I do know with certainty is what they mean to me at this moment and I told you that.

Did the disciples actually see Jesus ascend into heaven? There's no way to know; but, regardless, the symbol entails the claim that he achieved and is worthy to receive the highest... the ultimate valuation. And who achieved this? The Lamb of God who was crucified. And what did he teach us? That to save your life is to lose it and to lose it is to save it...in other words : self- sacrificial love.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Of course they took it literal. Their operating premise is that the Bible is God's very own words.

I think this is the error. While inspired, it is not necessarily "God's words" but the words of man writing about God. Inspired writing, but still with the shortcomings of the writer. Peter did not write Pauline prose. Neither did John.

And they wrote from within their own framework of knowledge. That is the reason that we are unable to definitively deal with the "big fish" that swallowed Jonah. Or have such difficulty with genealogies that (at least the early ones) tended to give a specific number of generations from significant person to significant person even if there were more. A may have begat D, but there may have been two generations in between wherein A directly begat B who begat C who begat D. Or something like that. Not enough generations for the Children of Israel to become the number that left Egypt.

And so on.

But when it speaks of the nature of God, and of the dealings of God with man, it is informative and meaningful.

Inspired. Not magic words worthy of detailed analysis at the verse, phrase, or even single word level.

This approach makes "inerrant" quite meaningless. Unless you reign-in the scope of what it is that the Bible talks about that is actually "inerrant."

And I suspect that the account of creation in terms of a detailed description is only one of the not-so-inerrant topics for those who want word-for-word inerrancy. I'm not sure I care how perfect the original autographs are — not that we have any of them.

[OBW]

Adding on to my previous post, I note that "all scripture" is inspired by God. I realize that the transliteralized term is "God-breathed" but that means inspired, not literally breathed out. It sounded good, but if that is really what it was, what followed was a serious under-sell.

It is stated to be profitable for teaching. Not the absolute source for everything we need to know.

It is a basis for reproof. It is the standard by which we rightly determine our living.

It is good for instruction in righteousness. It doesn't answer every question, but it provides a framework in which we can live righteously.

And Christ is not the answer to every question. That is not much different than something from Poor Richard's Almanac. What's 2+2? Christ. He's the only real answer. Yeah. That and about $4 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

[Jesus4Me]

Sometimes, I wonder if we should label ourselves at all since as time goes by, it could mean something else entirely, and thus not truly representing all "fundamentalists".

But as far as connecting fundamentalism with terrorism or execution of hereticks; wouldn't the idea of fundamentals demand a Biblical N.T. backing? Then if there is no support for such a thing, then there has to be a reproof for it, right?

John 16:1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. ² They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. ³ And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

So if any one thinks they are doing God's service for killing someone, they do not know the Father nor Jesus.

There is such a thing as excommunication. 1 Corinthians 5th chapter talks about that for maintaining proper fellowship. If one reads it with His insight, you may see that is how and why God will judge His House first at the pre trib rapture event when gathering elects abiding in Him to attend the Marriage Supper and why some saved believers will be "denied" and left behind to be gathered later on after the great tribulation as the vessels unto dishonours in His House ( 2 Tmothy 2:19-21 ).

I mean look at 2 Thessalonians 3rd chapter about the falling away from the faith. Paul cited that this iniquity was already at work in how some will go after signs and wonders that God will permit them to suffer a strong delusion for believing a lie; that they may be "damned". Paul goes on to remind believers on how they had received the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth and that was by hearing the gospel.

That's a put down for all of those in these movements of the "Spirit" that thinks they are receiving the Holy Spirit "again" after a sign in the flesh, even tongues that comes with no interpretation.

Getting back to my point, as much as these believers falling away from the faith are going to be damned, Paul addresses these wicked and unreasonable men as not having faith; as not following after the traditions taught of us and are disorderly as many are in these movements of the "Spirit", and yet Paul STILL CALLS THEM BROTHERS !!! In verses 14 & 15 of that 3rd chapter, he cites them as to withdraw from them, but treat them not as the enemy, but admonish them as brothers. And yet in the previous chapter, he had cited that they will be damned.

The only way to understand that contrariness is that one has to consider that not being received as a vessel unto honour in His House is a damnation since they can never be received as such when left behind as castaways from attending the Marriage Supper. This is where the vessels unto dishonours come froms and why no believer cannot lose their salvation, but yet not every believer will be ready as found abiding in Him as His disciple.

So those astray can still repent by His grace & by His help as God may be peradventuring to recover some from these snares of the devil, to return to their first love seeking the face of the Bridegroom in being ready and not be "out to the market" seeking to be filled "again". Indeed, shunning vain & profane babblings by praying normally so that believers may know what they had prayed for to give the Father thanks in Jesus's name for answered prayers is the will of God for all believers to do.

Titus 3:¹⁰ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; ¹¹ Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

I do wonder if believers that overlooked reject and focussed on condemned as something they were to do by execution, but that's stretching it in light of everything else that is written in regards to excommunication and withdrawing from those disorderly that refuse to repent in regards to this falling away from the faith.

In Titus 1:16, those that do iniquity are doing works that deny Him and 2 Timothy 2:11-12 cites that those that deny Him, even by their works, they will be denied by Him from which many can see new meaning in Matthew 7:21-23 as Jesus is denying access to saved believers professing Him for not looking to Him as their Good Shepherd in discerning & departing from iniquity, BUT YET in 2 Timothy 2:13, even if they should err from the truth and have their faith overthrown ( 2 Timothy 2:18 as an example ) He still abides in those that will be denied for not departing from iniquity as that foundation remains while their works that deny Him will be burned up when they are left behind ( John 15:1-7 & Luke 12:40-49 & 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 ) unless they repent by His grace & by His help in trusting Him as their Good Shepherd in getting them ready in time to go ( 1 John 3:3,8 & Philippians 1:6-11 & 2 Timothy 4:18 & Jude 1:24-25 ).

Since it is a false witness to speak of ourselves ( John 5:31 ) and since fundamentalism can be misrepresented and therefore misrepresent us, maybe we should just be His disciples testifying of Him in seeking His glory and our faith in Him rather than of ourselves.

By His grace & by His help, it is better to let others know about Jesus than it is to get others to know about us or our church. Maybe that is the only way to avoid the errors that are creeping into fundamenalism as well as avoid the sin of being a false witness by not talking about ourselves but rather our hope & faith in Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think this is the error. While inspired, it is not necessarily "God's words" but the words of man writing about God.

OBW you have a very realistic approach to the Bible, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by OBW

Inspired writing, but still with the shortcomings of the writer. Peter did not write Pauline prose. Neither did John.

It's the belief that the Bible is inspired that I have a problem with. I don't even know what it means.

I know people say things like, "I was inspired to write that book," or that thesis, or some other form of art or craft. It could be said, I'm even inspired right now, to write this.

Is that what is meant when it is said that the Bible is inspired? Then I can relate. But it doesn't rise to 'inspired' beyond that.

But that's not the meaning of inspired I grew up with. Then, and in the LC, inspiration of the books of the Bible rose to the level of magical inspiration; like God was controlling the authors hand, to write each jot and tittle.

It took me a long time to discover how the books that are considered inspired were selected to be the authoritative and final books of the canon.

So in the end, all the books considered to be inspired turned out to be was books selected by uninspired men to be so. But I guess we can say they were inspired to do it; inspired perhaps by an obsessive compulsive disorder, to make something we can consider 'factual & true.' In other words, to make something we can rely on as, the magical divine books of God.

Originally Posted by OBW

And they wrote from within their own framework of knowledge.

The only framework they had to work with. But back then they didn't even know where the sun went at night. They thought the sun went round and round the flat earth ("the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22) they lived on.

Originally Posted by OBW

That is the reason that we are unable to definitively deal with the "big fish" that swallowed Jonah. Or have such difficulty with genealogies that (at least the early ones) tended to give a specific number of generations from significant person to significant person even if there were more.

I just watched the movie "Exodus: Gods and Kings." They played fancy free with interpretation of the OT story of the liberation of the Hebrews ; turning the plagues and the parting of the 'Red' sea into natural causes.

Why? Because they had to adapt the story to make it believable to the modern viewers ; because we no longer think in the symbolic and mythic imagery they thought in back then ; that's a little too far fetched to our modern minds.

However, given that I obviously ain't very obsessive concerning the Bible, it might surprise you, that, I was offended that they didn't stick strictly to the Biblical account. I can't get fundamentalism out of me any more than I can get rid of my attraction to women.

Originally Posted by OBW

But when it speaks of the nature of God, and of the dealings of God with man, it is informative and meaningful.

And it opens up our imagination to usher us into an 'experience' of God.

Amen. Job done.

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by awareness

OBW you have a very realistic approach to the Bible, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's the belief that the Bible is inspired that I have a problem with. I don't even know what it means.

I know people say things like, "I was inspired to write that book," or that thesis, or some other form of art or craft. It could be said, I'm even inspired right now, to write this.

Is that what is meant when it is said that the Bible is inspired? Then I can relate. But it doesn't rise to 'inspired' beyond that.

But that's not the meaning of inspired I grew up with. Then, and in the LC, inspiration of the books of the Bible rose to the level of magical inspiration; like God was controlling the authors hand, to write each jot and tittle.

He may help you understand this in the scripture as confirmed by scripture.

2 Peter 1:¹⁹ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. ²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus confirmed the scripture as containing God's truths that no one can alter it because they do not like what the scripture says.

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

At this link below; is a list of Bible scripture testifying to the fulfillment of scripture as well as how believers looked to the scripture for confirmation.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...qs_version=KJV

So when it comes to teachings from any one, we are to trust Jesus Christ as our Good Shepherd for proving all things by Him for discernment.

2 Timothy 3:¹³ But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. ¹⁴ But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; ¹⁵ And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ¹⁷ That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It took me a long time to discover how the books that are considered inspired were selected to be the authoritative and final books of the canon.

So in the end, all the books considered to be inspired turned out to be was books selected by uninspired men to be so.

Why were some of the books left out? Because some ran contrary to scripture. By including those books left out, it would be making the accepted scripture questionable in finding God's truths on a matter.

1 John 2:²⁰ But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. ²¹ I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

There cannot be a lie in the Bible wherein it can mislead others away from following Him.

Take the Book of Enoch. In it, it testified to a section in Heaven where elements of creation were being punished because they did not come about when God told them to. That goes contrary to this verse below.

Isaiah 55:11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

So the Book of Enoch is saying God is a liar in Isaiah; so the Book of Enoch, supposedly written by Enoch before the world wide flood, really?.. is a fraud.

Another lie is testifying how fallen angels mingeled with mankind to produce giants which happened to be spirits.

Jesus testified to what God says a marriage is; between a man & a woman as it is God that is joining the two to become one flesh.

Mark 10:⁶ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ⁷ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; ⁸ And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So no matter how many same sex marriages are "legalized" in the USA, they are not "married" in God's eye; and the same can be said for "fallen angels" as if they are the "sons of God".

Plus:

John 3:⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So then... those giants are not spirits nor were they conceive by fallen angels, because God would never join them for women to be called "wives" to them in His words. See how Jesus's own words can reprove and confirm this edification by the scripture.

Matthew 22:²⁹ Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. ³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

If God will not join angels in marriage, then neither will He join fallen angels in marriage to be called "wives" to them in His words, and the offsprings are noted to be just men, even though giants were born to them in those days, but aso men of renown and so it was just men as God ordained by His words for living things to reproduce after their own kind.

Genesis 6:1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, ² That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ³ And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. ⁴ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. ⁵ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

So the misreading of the "sons of God" being fallen angels is to be corrected as it is of the line of Seth since the whole point of referencing the sons of God is for Israel's family tree; their roots in the O.T.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Wherein now; in the N.T., the sons of God are the believers in Jesus Christ.

John 1:¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: ¹³ Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Granted, scripture will profit no one anything at all if they are not leaning on their Good Shepherd for understanding His words as well as using His words as meat for discerning good & evil by them.

1 Thessalonians 5:²¹ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. ²² Abstain from all appearance of evil. ²³ And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁴ Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. ²⁵ Brethren, pray for us.

James 1:⁵ If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Hebrews 4:¹² For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. ¹³ Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. ¹⁴ Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. ¹⁵ For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

But as far as connecting fundamentalism with terrorism or execution of hereticks; wouldn't the idea of fundamentals demand a Biblical N.T. backing? Then if there is no support for such a thing, then there has to be a reproof for it, right?
John 16:1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

So if any one thinks they are doing God's service for killing someone, they do not know the Father nor Jesus.

Good point. So then Christians are off-base whenever they advocate killing people? So no army, no capital punishment, no defending yourself with a weapon?

[awareness]

First of all:

Welcome Jesus4Me!

Second, I'm super impressed with your sermonizing ... and with your grasp of scripture. Also, with your point about fundamentalists extremists going stray from scripture. Kudos on that one.

I have to point out tho, that you present way too much to respond to without writing a dissertation. Which isn't conducive on a forum. So, hopefully you'll hang around long enough for us to address all your points as we go along.

But your attempt to answer my problem with the inspiration of scripture falls flat. You can't answer the question of inspiration by quoting from scripture as if it's inspired. That's loop logic. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not conclusive proof, without not having a problem with inspiration.

Just a couple of points:

You use 2nd Tim. 3:16 to prove all scripture is inspired. But what is "all" scripture when that was written? There was no New Testament at that time, so it couldn't have meant any of what we know today as scripture.

Plus, I doubt Paul thought at the time that he was writing scripture. He was writing a letter. Also 2 Tim is one of the disputed books by Paul, and prolly wasn't even written by Paul. So how inspired could that have been?

One of your strongest Bible references is:

2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't solve my problem of just how the books of the Bible were inspired.

It's an answer by proclamation, and presumption that the proclamation is inspired ... once again circular logic.

And there's been times when I've felt moved by the Spirit, but I didn't think for a moment that I was writing or speaking the very words of God, for all generations to follow, like it came straight from God; like we depict the 'inspired' books of the Bible were/are.

But maybe you've had a different experience of being moved by the Spirit. Have you been moved to express God's words for all to follow from that point on; which leaves the canon open to further revelations? If so, would you please share it with us?

And by the way, your exegesis of Gen. 6, and the "Sons of God" is a very Jewish take on Gen. ; who teach that the sons of god were just humans of exulted social status, or pagan kings that were thought to be divine.

But if we reference the conception of the human Jesus we know that spirits can conceive prodigy. And what produced the Nephilim? Who were they?

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by zeek

Good point. So then Christians are off-base whenever they advocate killing people?

If they think God is justifying it as if that is one of the services that are to be rendered unto Him, yeah; they are off base.

So no army, no capital punishment,...

That's different. We are to be subjects to the government's authority;

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. ² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: ⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. ⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. ⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Unless of course, the mark of the beast's systems comes into play. By then, they would be warring on the saints any way while the saints are to just take it if they cannot escape.

Revelation 13:10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

But as far as nowadays are concern, unless you are using the army to kill people in serving God, then that's wrong. If you are using capital punishment as a means to get rid of hereticks in serving God; that is wrong too. The government ordained by God is just to use the sword to deter evil and be a revenger.

no defending yourself with a weapon?

Jesus is Lord, and so best leave that to the individual and whatever the situation they are in. Granted, the whole family being christians may be willing to give up their lives for Christ; but if there was one member of the family that was not a believer, I will not hold it against the family for fighting for that non-believing family member in the hopes that one day, he or she may believe in Him to be saved, but again, it is up to the individual, and even if they "decide" to give up their lives for Christ, they will need to trust Him to help them do it... even if it is to fight just to escape but not kill any one; looking to Him to provide that escape.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

That's different. We are to be subjects to the government's authority;

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

So God ordained Hitler, and the people who opposed him were wrong?

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by awareness

First of all:

Welcome Jesus4Me!

Thank you for the welcome.

Second, I'm super impressed with your sermonizing ... and with your grasp of scripture. Also, with your point about fundamentalists extremists going stray from scripture. Kudos on that one.

The scripture is the only way to reprove the "extremists" even if they claim that scripture validates what they are doing. One has to pull the rug out from underneathe them by the scripture, but even then, God has to open their eyes to see the truth in His words.

I have to point out tho, that you present way too much to respond to without writing a dissertation. Which isn't conducive on a forum. So, hopefully you'll hang around long enough for us to address all your points as we go along.

If the Lord is willing, mayhap we shall.

But your attempt to answer my problem with the inspiration of scripture falls flat. You can't answer the question of inspiration by quoting from scripture as if it's inspired. That's loop logic. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not conclusive proof, without not having a problem with inspiration.

Well, in response to your earlier quote:

It took me a long time to discover how the books that are considered inspired were selected to be the authoritative and final books of the canon.

So in the end, all the books considered to be inspired turned out to be was books selected by uninspired men to be so.

I had thought it was best to show how those books were selected and how those that were not; because they run contrary to the truth in the other "books".

Now as far as convincing you of it; I can't do that. Only Jesus can show you that those are His words that He wants you to have in being His disciples... which He led me to rely on the King James Bible only for the meat of His words to discern good & evil in these latter days. And yes, only Jesus can show that to you as well.

One point before going on: your statement "So in the end, all the books considered to be inspired turned out to be was books selected by uninspired men to be so" is found just as wanting. Can you prove that those men were uninspired? No. But as for my point; only Jesus can help you see the words that He wants you to have.

Just a couple of points:

You use 2nd Tim. 3:16 to prove all scripture is inspired. But what is "all" scripture when that was written? There was no New Testament at that time, so it couldn't have meant any of what we know today as scripture.

Peter testified that Paul's epistles were equal to the rest of scripture.

2 Peter 3:¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Plus, I doubt Paul thought at the time that he was writing scripture. He was writing a letter. Also 2 Tim is one of the disputed books by Paul, and prolly wasn't even written by Paul. So how inspired could that have been?

Well... I'll let you read this portion of scripture where Paul cites when he is writing for the Lord and when he is the one that is writing.

1 Corinthians 7:⁶ But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. ⁷ For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. ⁸ I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. ⁹ But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. ¹⁰ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: ¹¹ But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. ¹² But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. ¹³ And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ¹⁵ But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

So even Paul is careful to point out in his epistles when he is speaking on his own accord which infers that all epistles were led by Him for Paul to write.

One of your strongest Bible references is:

2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't solve my problem of just how the books of the Bible were inspired.

It's an answer by proclamation, and presumption that the proclamation is inspired ... once again circular logic.

It stops circulating when you have confirmation from Him.

And there's been times when I've felt moved by the Spirit, but I didn't think for a moment that I was writing or speaking the very words of God, for all generations to follow, like it came straight from God; like we depict the 'inspired' books of the Bible were/are.

I do not know what you mean exactly about being "moved" by the Spirit. If you are referring to some supernatural sensation in the flesh that one feels when the "Spirit" moves unto them or thru them, then that is not the Spirit. If believers always have to look for some outward sign felt by the flesh to feel the moving of the Holy Spirit to know what is true, then that is hardly living by faith in Jesus Christ. FYI Hebrews 11:1 & 6

But maybe you've had a different experience of being moved by the Spirit. Have you been moved to express God's words for all to follow from that point on; which leaves the canon open to further revelations? If so, would you please share it with us?

The Spirit of Truth will teach you what is scripture and what is not scripture since no lie can be of the truth.

And by the way, your exegesis of Gen. 6, and the "Sons of God" is a very Jewish take on Gen. ; who teach that the sons of god were just humans of exulted social status, or pagan kings that were thought to be divine.

Let's put it this way: Abel gave a right sacrifice to God over Cain. Think Cain and his descendents are still doing that after that epic failure? No. And yet showing the birth of Seth as a replacement for godly Abel; was for the point of Israel knowing their family roots. Seth continued the practise of godly Abel. It was his line that were considered the sons of God, being where Israel's was related to as Israel were the sons of God by blood.

So most of the descendents of Seth married outside their family line and that was where we get the giants and men of renown from; all except for Noah and his family; a descendent of Seth that maintained the family line and godly practises of Abel; in presenting themselves to the Lord.

So the line of Seth was not some exalted social status or pagan kings that were thought to be divine; this was the godly line that Israel had descended from.

Note the parallel. What the sons of God did in marrying outside their family line served as a lesson for that family line when they had become a nation as Israel for they too, were forbidden to marry outside their family line of Judaism.

But if we reference the conception of the human Jesus we know that spirits can conceive prodigy. And what produced the Nephilim? Who were they?

I believe the Nephilium were the equalivant of Samaritans of Israel's days. I suspect that Goliath was a product of a Jewish/Philistine relations, but I cannot prove that to you or to myself as of yet since obviously, not every taboo relations resulted in giants or men of renown in Israel's days.

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by zeek

So God ordained Hitler, and the people who opposed him were wrong?

Evil kings can come to power and the psalms recognize this;

Hitler had thought he was god & wanted people to worship him. Hitler even denied the deity of Christ & imprisoned hundreds of Christians.

More at this link:

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/.../godandhitler/

So Hitler was hardly one that bear the sword to deter evil when he was using the sword to do evil.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

The scripture is the only way to reprove the "extremists" even if they claim that scripture validates what they are doing. One has to pull the rug out from underneathe them by the scripture, but even then, God has to open their eyes to see the truth in His words.

Some matters are hard to clear up with scripture. Slavery for example. The Southern Baptists were formed around holding slaves, and they used scripture to support it. But it does appear that God 'opened our eyes,' using the Enlightenment. Amen Lord.

Originally Posted by J4M

I had thought it was best to show how those books were selected and how those that were not; because they run contrary to the truth in the other "books".

The development of the canon is not that simple. And it was not completely solidified until the printing press.

Originally Posted by J4M

Now as far as convincing you of it; I can't do that. Only Jesus can show you that those are His words that He wants you to have in being His disciples...

Goodness Jesus4Me, you are triggering my PTCS (Post Traumatic Church Syndrome). I feel like I'm back in Lee's local church, or Vacation Bible School. If Jesus can show me what's scripture why would I need scripture? I'd have the actual living words of God ... or the eternal logos ... that existed before the invention of writing.

Originally Posted by J4M

which He led me to rely on the King James Bible only for the meat of His words to discern good & evil in these latter days. And yes, only Jesus can show that to you as well.

I've always preferred the KJV. But only because I'm use to it. But it's based upon the Textus Receptus, which comes from late manuscripts, while the Critical Text references much earlier manuscripts. Of the 5500 or so manuscripts we have, none of them agree with each other. Dispelling the fundamentalist position the the Bible is inerrant.

Again, if Jesus is showing me what need do I have of the dead letter?

Originally Posted by J4M

One point before going on: your statement "So in the end, all the books considered to be inspired turned out to be was books selected by uninspired men to be so" is found just as wanting. Can you prove that those men were uninspired? No. But as for my point; only Jesus can help you see the words that He wants you to have.

It's pretty obvious that those that selected the books of the canon were not inspired. Take for example the first attempt that we know of, to form a canon of scripture: Marcion of Sinope. He was denounced by the proto-orthodox church, but he was the catalyst for forming a corpus of accepted books of the NT. Was he inspired? And I hardly think the early orthodox from Constantine on could be considered inspired. Consider the fruit.

Originally Posted by J4M

Peter testified that Paul's epistles were equal to the rest of scripture.

2 Peter 3:¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Yes 2 Peter was the first New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture. But it was disputed before the canon was finalized, and is considered today by Bible scholars to be pseudepigraphical. But maybe you are right; Jesus shows me what is and is not scripture. Why do I need others to do that for me. I could say, that, Jesus led me to the Gospel of Thomas. It's a pretty interesting book.

Originally Posted by J4M

Well... I'll let you read this portion of scripture where Paul cites when he is writing for the Lord and when he is the one that is writing.

I've always found that interesting. That Paul would acknowledge he speaks from himself at times, and speaks from the Lord at times. So Paul didn't have just a revelation of Christ on the road to Damascus, apparently his revelation was ongoing. And so far you keep claiming that that type of revelation is ongoing today.

As you claim: "It stops circulating when you have confirmation from Him."

And:

Originally Posted by J4M

The Spirit of Truth will teach you what is scripture and what is not scripture since no lie can be of the truth.

Of course no lie can be truth ... circular again. But why would the Spirit have to show what is scripture? If the Spirit is in the showing mode then scripture would be superfluous.

Originally Posted by J4M

Let's put it this way: Abel gave a right sacrifice to God over Cain. Think Cain and his descendents are still doing that after that epic failure? No. And yet showing the birth of Seth as a replacement for godly Abel; was for the point of Israel knowing their family roots. Seth continued the practise of godly Abel. It was his line that were considered the sons of God, being where Israel's was related to as Israel were the sons of God by blood.

Where do you cook up all this? You have no scriptural foundation for it. You seem to just be spitballing. There was no Israel at the time of Seth.

Originally Posted by J4M

So most of the descendents of Seth married outside their family line and that was where we get the giants and men of renown from; all except for Noah and his family; a descendent of Seth that maintained the family line and godly practises of Abel; in presenting themselves to the Lord.

How do you know this?

Originally Posted by J4M

So the line of Seth was not some exalted social status

Who says the author of Genesis was thinking of Seth. He may just as well have been thinking that the sons of god were men of exulted status, or kings considered god ... as was the common custom back then.

Originally Posted by J4M

Note the parallel. What the sons of God did in marrying outside their family line served as a lesson for that family line when they had become a nation as Israel for they too, were forbidden to marry outside their family line of Judaism.

A point made by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Today the Jews are so mingled with other races that the Palestinians have more blood ties to Abraham.

Originally Posted by J4M

I believe the Nephilium were the equalivant of Samaritans of Israel's days.

Well that's a cute belief.

Originally Posted by J4M

I suspect that Goliath was a product of a Jewish/Philistine relations, but I cannot prove that to you or to myself as of yet since obviously, not every taboo relations resulted in giants or men of renown in Israel's days.

The giants Caleb found in the promised land were also called Nephilum in Numbers 13:33.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

Evil kings can come to power and the psalms recognize this;

Hitler had thought he was god & wanted people to worship him. Hitler even denied the deity of Christ & imprisoned hundreds of Christians.

More at this link:

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/.../godandhitler/

So Hitler was hardly one that bear the sword to deter evil when he was using the sword to do evil.

You said:

We are to be subjects to the government's authority;
Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

That proposition makes no exception for tyrants like Hitler. So if that is the principle we go by, it's wrong to resist any governmental power including Hitler and those like him. Therefore those who dissented against Nazism were wrong. And how do you reconcile that principle with Peter's declaration in Acts 5: “We must obey God rather than any human authority."?

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by awareness

Some matters are hard to clear up with scripture. Slavery for example. The Southern Baptists were formed around holding slaves, and they used scripture to support it. But it does appear that God 'opened our eyes,' using the Enlightenment. Amen Lord.

Probably best to study what kind of slavery there was back in those days. Granted, a conquered people can get sold into slavery, but I believe one can sell themselves into slavery for a time to provide for a starving family in dire times.

The development of the canon is not that simple. And it was not completely solidified until the printing press.

I am sure you are correct, however, I believe God is able to have His followers keep His words for those that love Him. If you consider the end of 1 Corinthians 13th chapter, one could see the possibility that Paul was referring to a time when the written word of God would be available for all out of everybody's prophesying in part & knowing in part. Granted, that point is debateable, but I do wonder if that was not what Paul was prophesying about.

Goodness Jesus4Me, you are triggering my PTCS (Post Traumatic Church Syndrome). I feel like I'm back in Lee's local church, or Vacation Bible School. If Jesus can show me what's scripture why would I need scripture? I'd have the actual living words of God ... or the eternal logos ... that existed before the invention of writing.

Because we do not always hear Him as we ought to and so when reading the written word, He can let us know what are His words; the truths we need to know for following Him, than those that can lead one astray.

I do not know much about Lee, but I think I read somewhere where he or that other guy was claiming to be the last apostle or something? In any event, any one that says, trust Jesus to help you understand His words and yet turn around as and says that he has the final word on the matter is not really pointing you to Jesus in being your Good Shepherd, but to Himself.

1 John 2:²⁶ These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. ²⁷ But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. ²⁸ And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Getting back to why we need scripture; Jesus prophesied that there will be necessity for discernment, even when it comes to kinowing what is scripture from what is not. John 14:23-24 & John 15:20 both says that discernment will be needed for not only His words, but for His disciples' sayings as well.

I've always preferred the KJV. But only because I'm use to it. But it's based upon the Textus Receptus, which comes from late manuscripts, while the Critical Text references much earlier manuscripts.

John 14:23-24 prophesied that those that loved Him, will keep His words. Now if you love Him & His words, what is the most common sense end of those documents? They would be used, worn out, and needing copies to such a point that there would be no older manuscripts collecting dusts on a shelf.

Then you have origin issue. The Textus Receptus origin is of Antioch where the disciples studied for a year: Acts 11:26 The other source origin is Alexandria where poetic licensing & gnosticism were known to exists. Gnosticism teaches secret knowledge; one has to wonder that the common practises of monks is prayer, fasting, & good works is how those older documents, their Codex, were left collecting dusts on a shelf.

So I am going to go with the source documents out of Antioch as those that loved Him would love His words to keep them. There would be no older documents than the ones in Alexandria.

Of the 5500 or so manuscripts we have, none of them agree with each other. Dispelling the fundamentalist position the the Bible is inerrant.

I am not sure how far one can take the meaning of inerrant. If one says that there can be no mistakes in the Bible, I am not sure with all of that copying, let alone, publisher's printing errors, but can you get the truths that God wants you to have in following Him as His disciples? Yes.

Now some will find questionable accounts among the four gospels. On those, I look upon them as one would look upon a police's accident report at a busy intersection. Some will report some parts they have seen; some will have seen more; & out of them, some will recollect some; just as some will recollect more. Then you have some giving reports that were heard from someone else; second hand & so forth reports, that may alter the perception of what really had happened at that incident, but one can find out the truth of what the police need to know just as we can find the truth about what God wants us to know.

In any event, I believe 1 Corinthians 13th chapter about saying that prophesying and tongues will be done away with; I believe it was about when the KJV aka the written scripture have come. I would not say it is a perfect translation; but as far as keeping the sayings that Jesus wants us to have in following Him as His disciples, it is perfect, because the meat is in there for discernbing good & evil with His help, of course.

Again, if Jesus is showing me what need do I have of the dead letter?

Well, are there not many false teachings out there? Granted, some wrest the scriptures to their own destruction, but what about self proclaimed prophets whom are claiming extra revelations from which the likes of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few others have come from? How do you, as a fellow believer, reprove such false teachings? By having His actual words; using them as meat to discern good & evil by.

Hebrews 5:¹¹ Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. ¹² For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. ¹³ For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. ¹⁴ But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Ephesians 4:¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: ¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: ¹⁴ That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; ¹⁵ But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

It's pretty obvious that those that selected the books of the canon were not inspired. Take for example the first attempt that we know of, to form a canon of scripture: Marcion of Sinope. He was denounced by the proto-orthodox church, but he was the catalyst for forming a corpus of accepted books of the NT. Was he inspired? And I hardly think the early orthodox from Constantine on could be considered inspired. Consider the fruit.

If you are looking for a man without sin or not always having need of the Lord, as proof of being inspired, I do wonder how you ever going to know God's words if you rely on that test standard. Did not Paul had to get in Peter's face for withdrawing from sitting with the Gentiles and thus causing other believers from Jewish background to follow suit?

Ask yourself; does God wants a personal reconciled relationship with you thru Jesus Christ or not? Then why call Him our Good Shepherd unless He plans on guiding us through the Holy Spirit in us in discerning His actual words and using the meat of His words for discerning good & evil? That way, we wind up being His disciples, in seeking His glory, and not being a disciple of another; or a church, or a movement in seeking the glory thereof.

Antichrist, in how it is used in the Bible, means "instead of Christ"; not "against Christ". That means anything that takes your eyes off of the Bridegroom in relating to God the Father by, is the antichrist. So any teaching, no matter if the yahoo says some things that is scripture; it is when he is not speaking scripture that takes people eyes off of the Son is when he is preaching "instead of Christ" but something else in His name.

Yes 2 Peter was the first New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture. But it was disputed before the canon was finalized, and is considered today by Bible scholars to be pseudepigraphical. But maybe you are right; Jesus shows me what is and is not scripture. Why do I need others to do that for me. I could say, that, Jesus led me to the Gospel of Thomas. It's a pretty interesting book.

Have you found any Gnostics overtones & heretical nature when reading the book?

I've always found that interesting. That Paul would acknowledge he speaks from himself at times, and speaks from the Lord at times. So Paul didn't have just a revelation of Christ on the road to Damascus, apparently his revelation was ongoing. And so far you keep claiming that that type of revelation is ongoing today.

I discern that you have all the meat you need in the KJV. Granted, the Lord can speak to you at times, but it wil never go ctraray to the written word; in which case, that was not Him speaking then if it does.

As you claim: "It stops circulating when you have confirmation from Him."

And:

Of course no lie can be truth ... circular again. But why would the Spirit have to show what is scripture? If the Spirit is in the showing mode then scripture would be superfluous.

If the KJV says that Jesus is the Saviour & that you are saved simply by believing in Him and the "spirit" says you are not saved yet; then that is not the Spirit of Truth; and so hardly circular logic when one or the other is lying, right?

So if another version of the Bible says you are not saved yet, but in the process of being saved, but the KJV says you are, ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 as example ) then what would the Spirit of Truth in you tell you which Bible is telling you the truth in His words?

Where do you cook up all this? You have no scriptural foundation for it. You seem to just be spitballing. There was no Israel at the time of Seth.

Well, here comes another epic fail in trying to keep this post short.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Now if Adam was the son of God, then that leads to after Seth as being of the sons of God and since it is a family line which goes beyond Noah to the nation of Israel, then the Jewish nation were of the sons of God for which the Book of Genesis was pointing to their family roots back to the beginning.

How do you know this?

Book of Job.

Who says the author of Genesis was thinking of Seth. He may just as well have been thinking that the sons of god were men of exulted status, or kings considered god ... as was the common custom back then.

What point would it be to speak of another family roots unless the Book of Genesis pertains to the nation of Israel?

A point made by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Today the Jews are so mingled with other races that the Palestinians have more blood ties to Abraham.

Your claim regarding Palestinians having more blood ties to Abraham than the Jews is unfounded.

Regardless, John 1:12-13 has John citing whom the sons of God were now; the believers in Jesus Christ: not born of blood or Judaism ( the will of man ).

Well that's a cute belief.

Jews were to separate themselves from Samaritans as they were considered as pagan half Jews. The disciples were taken aback when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, but they let it slide in trying to understand why Jesus was not withdrawing from her at the well.

More on the Samaritans at this link:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible...samaritans.htm

The Samaritans were a pagan sect that grew out of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim after their deportation in 723 BC into Assyria by Shalmaneser.

So those deviating from marrying within the line of Seth before the Flood, were bringing about the Nephilium.

The giants Caleb found in the promised land were also called Nephilum in Numbers 13:33.

Okay. I stand corrected, but not in the way you think.

The KJV just has giants. They did not use the word Nephilim or Nephilium at all. That is a modern Bible mistranslation for the word giant in the KJV.

So whatever you want to call the offsprings of this union, best you stick with the actual Hebrew text.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvst...EB53.htm#S5303

nphiyl =
or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 'naphal' (5307); properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

Giant is best.

I reckon I can stop using the word nephilim from now on, but essentailly, they were a people borne out of the godly line of Seth mixing with the daughters of men; outside Seth's godly family line of descedents.

[Jesus4Me]

zeek

It seems no matter how many times I go back & push that button on your reply, I cannot quote you. So I am going to have to open another window and copy & paste your reply.

You said below:

That proposition makes no exception for tyrants like Hitler. So if that is the principle we go by, it's wrong to resist any governmental power including Hitler and those like him. Therefore those who dissented against Nazism were wrong. And how do you reconcile that principle with Peter's declaration in Acts 5: “We must obey God rather than any human authority."?

Try to read on to see the rest of that topic, zeek, on why we are to be subject unto the higher powers & that is why it is not contrary to Peter's declaration in Acts 5.

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. ² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: ⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. ⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. ⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

The moment a government does evil as contrary to what God says, then we need not subject ourselves to the human authority to do that evil.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

zeek

It seems no matter how many times I go back & push that button on your reply, I cannot quote you. So I am going to have to open another window and copy & paste your reply.



Try to read on to see the rest of that topic, zeek, on why we are to be subject unto the higher powers & that is why it is not contrary to Peter's declaration in Acts 5.

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. ² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: ⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. ⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. ⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

The moment a government does evil as contrary to what God says, then we need not subject ourselves to the human authority to do that evil.

I don't see that Paul is stipulating what you are. But, I have no problem with your interpretation. According to your reading, we are subject to the government when it commands good and not when it commands evil. That strikes me as ethical common sense.

[zeek]

During an interview with Chuck Todd, Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson was asked about his views on whether a person's faith should be considered by voters during an election. Carson stated, "I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." When asked by Todd whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't -- I do not." He further stated, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." However, Article VI of US Constitution states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Therefore, in this case, Carson's principle is "absolutely" inconsistent with the Constitution!

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by zeek

During an interview with Chuck Todd, Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson was asked about his views on whether a person's faith should be considered by voters during an election. Carson stated, "I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." When asked by Todd whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't -- I do not." He further stated, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." However, Article VI of US Constitution states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Therefore, in this case, Carson's principle is "absolutely" inconsistent with the Constitution!

Well, to be fair: he wasn't saying that the Consititution forbids a muslim from becoming President; he just said that he would not advocate for it.

But he is right about Islam; it is not consistent with the Constitution. If Sharia Law became effective over all of USA, then it overrides whatever the Consititution says in the eyes of all muslims.

That means disobedient women, little girls going to school, infidels, Jews, atheists, homosexuals, & atheists are fair game whever any one muslim extremist feels like applying Sharia Law. What muslim will say he is wrong?

[UntoHim]

Sorry guys. WRONG FORUM. At least start a new thread. Maybe then I'll allow all this political stuff...maybe not.

----

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see that Paul is stipulating what you are. But, I have no problem with your interpretation. According to your reading, we are subject to the government when it commands good and not when it commands evil. That strikes me as ethical common sense.

Right. Perhaps the reason we require pegging everything to the Bible, and Bible verses (Think Cargo Cults) is because we lack ethical common sense. The Bible then being perchance an artificial external ethical system -- a paper system -- that is much more difficult to apply -- since we have to stop and look it up before deciding what is right ethical responses. Methinks it's possible that Jesus didn't pen a book because he knew we'd be turning to it rather than to The Father (or 'The Source' of our ethical common sense) ... the Bible being, in the end, in Jesus4Me's words, an antichrist ... or Christ replacement ... due to -- again thinking of Jesus4Me -- 'inspiration' coming thru flawed men .. and received at best 2nd hand, and artificially, and not from the real 'living' thing ... like Jesus knew was the right way of ethics.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry guys. WRONG FORUM. At least start a new thread. Maybe then I'll allow all this political stuff...maybe not.

----

Righto bro UntoHim. Thanks, but I think we can police it without help. I really don't think we want politics on our forum ... but can't help it slipping in from time to time ... just as you recently did on the main forum.

[awareness]

Bro Jesus4Me,

It's been real fun bantering with you. Hope we can continue having fun. For your info, the book of Enoch is referenced in Jude, like it's authoritative, and it was almost rejected in the canon because of it (which wouldn't have been much of a loss).

I bring it up only because of your putting Bible puzzle pieces together to paint Seth as the "sons of god." And Enoch paints a picture that it was angels that produced the Nephilim. And by the way, I use a Textus Receptus interlinear and by searching the Hebrew word for Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 it shows that it's used 11 times in the OT. Look it up yourself.

But for the sake of brevity, let me see if I can summarize why you've joined us on this fundamentalist thread.

You've come to clear up the matter of classifying fundamentalists as extremists. And your point is that if they've become undesirable fundamentalists it's because they've gone astray of scripture.

And that's your main point. That we should always live by the Bible, and the best Bible translation is the KJV. For your info, in the past we've had a member that was KJV only, and who considered translations based upon the Critical Text as the coming apostate spoken about in the NT. But in the end we can't know which is most accurate because we don't have any autographs to compare them to. So we can't know which is most accurate.

But regardless, as you point out, it doesn't prevent us from concluding the main theme(s) of the Bible.

However, it also doesn't prevent us from drawing all kinds of themes, by putting the Bible together as puzzle pieces, which you seem very gifted at ... and that can get pretty wild from reality.

My question is, is that how Jesus wanted us to live; by a book, like Jews living it as the law?

I think that is what has produced fundamentalist extremists. Extremists are book obsessed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

Well, to be fair: he wasn't saying that the Consititution forbids a muslim from becoming President; he just said that he would not advocate for it.

But he is right about Islam; it is not consistent with the Constitution. If Sharia Law became effective over all of USA, then it overrides whatever the Consititution says in the eyes of all muslims.

That means disobedient women, little girls going to school, infidels, Jews, atheists, homosexuals, & atheists are fair game whever any one muslim extremist feels like applying Sharia Law. What muslim will say he is wrong?

What the Constitution says is wrong is making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion and requiring a religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. So a law "respecting" Islam, impeding the practice of Islam, or requiring a test precluding Muslims from holding public office is illegal constitutionally. Thus, Carson's opinion runs counter to the Constitution. Carson stipulated: "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter." His own opinion is inconsistent with the constitution and therefore, disqualified by his own criterion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Righto bro UntoHim. Thanks, but I think we can police it without help. I really don't think we want politics on our forum ... but can't help it slipping in from time to time ... just as you recently did on the main forum.

I started this thread to discuss Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism has had many political implications since the movement began in the early 20th century. Censuring consideration of the political ramifications of fundamentalism would truncate, distort and misrepresent the subject as I and others here understand it. Fundamentalists have entered into politics and political activism. I see no valid reason to prohibit the polite discussion about the politics of fundamentalism that is ensuing here. Please reconsider or explain your scruples about open discussion of fundamentalism and politics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What the Constitution says is wrong is making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion and requiring a religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. So a law "respecting" Islam, impeding the practice of Islam, or requiring a test precluding Muslims from holding public office is illegal constitutionally. Thus, Carson's opinion runs counter to the Constitution. Carson stipulated: "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter." His own opinion is inconsistent with the constitution and therefore, disqualified by his own criterion.

I agree with zeek.

I think he should find a nice Mooslim country to practice his ideas.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with zeek.

I think he should find a nice Mooslim country to practice his ideas.

He should find a nice Funnymentalist country because the only religion a Fundamentalist can accept is his own.

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by awareness

Right. Perhaps the reason we require pegging everything to the Bible, and Bible verses (Think Cargo Cults) is because we lack ethical common sense. The Bible then being perchance an artificial external ethical system -- a paper system -- that is much more difficult to apply -- since we have to stop and look it up before deciding what is right ethical responses. Methinks it's possible that Jesus didn't pen a book because he knew we'd be turning to it rather than to The Father (or 'The Source' of our ethical common sense) ...

Jesus quoted the scripture when reproving or correcting His accusers, so obviously, common sense is something that is not a confirmation of anything.

John 10:³³ The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.³⁴ Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ³⁵ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; ³⁶ Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

the Bible being, in the end, in Jesus4Me's words, an antichrist ... or Christ replacement ... .

No.. no. Since there are many versions of the Bible and they are not all saying the same thing, you need Him to confirm which are His words from that which is not His saying at all.

You really have to look at the end result of what you are leading towards. In fact, many believers in one of these "movements of the Spirit", "the Toronto Blessings", were saying that we do not need the word any more; all we need is the Spirit."

So if you are in agreement with that saying at the Toronto's Blessings, then you are advocating to listening to spirits and believing every spirit that comes over you as being of God, or at the very least, in regards to common sense, to believe every thought coming into your head is of God.

No check nor balances for you to test the common sense, the spirits, or the prophets.

The KJV is not an antichrist if the words within, leads you to the Son of God in relating to God the Father by.

The antichrist is known when its words leads you away from seeking the face of the Son of God of seeking His glory; to some other banner in seeking the glory thereof, be it a teacher, or a church, or a movement.

You cannot have Jesus Christ without His words. If you are having a reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ, it's ging to involve His words for us to be found abiding in Him in fellowship with the Son & the Father.

Are you have a relationship with zeek on the forum? How is that possible unless words are interchanged? If someone came on the forum and said zeek said this or that which you find it hard to believe, because it did not sound like zeek, but yet it used a part of what zeek had said; would you not confirm with zeek? And yet, how would you even become suspicious unless you had become familiar with zeek by zeek's words from earlier?

Granted, zeek is not always around to confirm his word to you, but Jesus Christ is in you always to confirm His words to you, BUT it still begs His words to be written and known for you to ask Him to confirm His words to you.

due to -- again thinking of Jesus4Me -- 'inspiration' coming thru flawed men .. and received at best 2nd hand, and artificially, and not from the real 'living' thing ... like Jesus knew was the right way of ethics

What I mean by second hand report as an example are the two incidents involving the Roman centurion asking Jesus to heal his servant. Matthew's account has him asking Jesus personally whereas Luke's account has the centurion's friends asking for him. I lean towards Luke's account having been changed as time had gone by so that he had gotten a second hard report since he was writing the history of the early church in the Book of Acts which is telltaling as someone that was gathering reports from others.

Now some will make a big deal about it like saying; an error and so the Bible is not inerrant, but the truth of the incident is there.

If a policeman at an intersection would to gather information from those involved in an accident and those at the scene; he would get first hand reports; some will share information, whereas out of them, some will recollect some more information than others; some of the witnesses may have been more observant at the time while some will present their report in such a way that they deem it best; whereas, some witnesses will be relaying what they had gathered from actual witnesses, and they may add or take away from the actual report; thus leading the seeker; the policeman, to discern from what he has gathered to come to a conclusion on what had actually happened at the accident scene.

I do consider the KJV Bible as having no change in the truth of His words so that it would NOT alter how I follow Him in the KJV, but I cannot say the same for all other modern Bibles. It is on this point I consider the KJV inerrant.

I really do not care how others define what inerrant to mean, because their charges against the KJV advocates not reproving the false teachings & false spirits of apostasies that the KJV would exposed by His help & by His grace in their modern Bibles.

That is why Jesus prophesied the necessity to discern whom are keeping His words as proof that they loved Him as opposing those that did not, just by the fruits of their labours; they are serving & glorifying something else in His name "instead of the Son of God" which is what an antichrist is.

So are those in the LC Movement serving Jesus Christ or not when the banner and the glory has its spotlight on the Local Church Movement?

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Jesus4Me,

It's been real fun bantering with you. Hope we can continue having fun. For your info, the book of Enoch is referenced in Jude, like it's authoritative, and it was almost rejected in the canon because of it (which wouldn't have been much of a loss).

Let's be clear about what Jude is actually saying.

Jude 1:¹⁴ And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, ¹⁵ To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Referring to the person, Enoch and what Enoch had prophesied in the past is not the same thing as saying, "It is written.." nor referring to a book.

Adam & Eve were referenced in Genesis just as Enoch was. Abraham was quoted as well in Genesis. Was there a book of Adam & Eve? Was there a Book of Abraham? So why is Jude's reference a testimony that there was a Book of Enoch that survived the global flood when it is not what was written in Jude at all. Michael the archangel was referenced in Jude; do we have a book giving the account of his dispute? No.

So like it or not, when God set the order in creation for kinds to multiply after their own kind; neither angel nor fallen angels can multiply with mankind & produce "giants" that are "spirits" in according to the fake book of Enoch.

Use common sense then. Seen any man & beast hybrids lately? Now why is it that common sense cannot tell you that hybrids of angels, let alone, fallen angels with mankind is not possible... ever?

I bring it up only because of your putting Bible puzzle pieces together to paint Seth as the "sons of god." And Enoch paints a picture that it was angels that produced the Nephilim. And by the way, I use a Textus Receptus interlinear and by searching the Hebrew word for Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 it shows that it's used 11 times in the OT. Look it up yourself.

The Hebrew text "nephiyl" is not Nephilim. That is the problem you seem to be having with that made up word by modern day translaters when it is just supposed to be "giants", not a name for a race of hybrids.

[QUOTE]But for the sake of brevity, let me see if I can summarize why you've joined us on this fundamentalist thread.

You've come to clear up the matter of classifying fundamentalists as extremists.

In reply to Zeek's addressing fundamentalist extremists. I do not consider christian fundamentalists ( I define fundamentalism as Biblically based with no contrariness to His words ) as extremists on par with muslim extremists whereas their extreme teachings can be found as taught in their Quran. Christians that are acting like and have done as muslim fundamentalist extremists, are not actually fundamentalists, becaue Jesus did not teach violence or killing for Him.

And your point is that if they've become undesirable fundamentalists it's because they've gone astray of scripture.

They are not fundamentalist period.

And that's your main point. That we should always live by the Bible, and the best Bible translation is the KJV. For your info, in the past we've had a member that was KJV only, and who considered translations based upon the Critical Text as the coming apostate spoken about in the NT. But in the end we can't know which is most accurate because we don't have any autographs to compare them to. So we can't know which is most accurate.

But regardless, as you point out, it doesn't prevent us from concluding the main theme(s) of the Bible.

However, it also doesn't prevent us from drawing all kinds of themes, by putting the Bible together as puzzle pieces, which you seem very gifted at ... and that can get pretty wild from reality.

My question is, is that how Jesus wanted us to live; by a book, like Jews living it as the law?

I think that is what has produced fundamentalist extremists. Extremists are book obsessed.

His disciples are those that loved Him AND His words that they would keep them for other believers to abide by in being His disciples in following Him since they are doing so by faith in the Son of God in being their personal Good Shepherd in helping them to follow Him as we can only live this reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ & that includes His words.

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by zeek

What the Constitution says is wrong is making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion and requiring a religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. So a law "respecting" Islam, impeding the practice of Islam, or requiring a test precluding Muslims from holding public office is illegal constitutionally.

And so there's the conundrum.

Sharia Law is very much a part of Islam which goes counter to the constitution as it is imposed on others to respect Islam no matter what.

Here is what Sharia Law of Islam will do for USA;

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

And yet the consititution declares that no law can impede Islam, but yet the consititution has to impede Sharia Law if the consititution is to be upheld.

So in the end, the Constitution cannot please everybody. It certainly cannot when it comes to Sharia Law of Islam.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

Jesus quoted the scripture when reproving or correcting His accusers . . .

Of course. He wasn't speaking to Hindu's or Buddhist's. He used their scriptures against them. If he didn't come the house if Israel in the same way he might have used the Vedas against the Hindus. That does not mean what you are claiming. Not in the degree of your claim ; as to the primacy of scripture. So far, as appears in your posts, you're going overboard with the scripture.

Let me ask you. Did God deal with humans before the invention of writing? What scripture did Abraham use? What New Testament did the early Christians have? Wasn't God doing something without books? Did the Logos exist before the advent of writing?

Originally Posted by J4M

. . . , so obviously, common sense is something that is not a confirmation of anything.

No.. no. Since there are many versions of the Bible and they are not all saying the same thing, you need Him to confirm which are His words from that which is not His saying at all.

You really have to look at the end result of what you are leading towards. In fact, many believers in one of these "movements of the Spirit", "the Toronto Blessings", were saying that we do not need the word any more; all we need is the Spirit."

I've come across the laughing church before, but haven't heard of The Toronto Blessing until now. I am one that holds to the view that laughter is a secret of the cosmos ... for whatever that's worth. Looking into them, they do seem to be pretty wild, and out there.

But it's happened before, way back in the 2nd century, with Montanus, of the New Prophecy Movement. That movement spread far and wide. Montanus, and his two prophetesses claimed that the Paraclete spoke thru them. It caught on like wildfire. The proto-orthodox received it with mixed responses at first., but eventually labelled it a heresy. They weren't able to stamp it out tho. It lasted way up into the 5th c. Some claim that Pentecostalism came out of it. The Pentecostals, of course, claim they come right from the moving of the Holy Spirit.

So I think I understand your concern about the Christian life being determined by the Holy Spirit. That would likely deal a death blow to any semblance of certitude, that the Bible provides. It is those that require such certitude that cling to the Bible, and eschew the incertitude of the excited states of ecstasy and hysterics of following of the Holy Spirit exclusively.

So you deny such following of the Spirit but claim that Jesus is required to discern what are his words in the scripture. But if we can't be certain of the Spirit how can we be certain that Jesus reveals the right words?

The answer, of course, is to just settle on the certitude the scripture brings, and even settle on which particular translation -- the KJV -- represents the true words. Then we no longer have to be concerned for such matters, and can focus our attention on the scripture ; a never ending -- loaded with more questions than can be answered -- lifetime venture.

But methinks I, we've, gotten distracted from my problem, as announced earlier ; the problem of understanding just how the books of the Bible were inspired. So far no satisfactory answer, to my satisfaction at least, has been offered.

So far, seems, the only answer is, you have to take it by faith. Is that your answer bro Jesus4Me?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Jesus4Me,
My question is, is that how Jesus wanted us to live; by a book, like Jews living it as the law?

I think that is what has produced fundamentalist extremists. Extremists are book obsessed.

awareness, In two sentences you have summarized fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Islam etc. Jesus never wanted us to live by a book however good it might be. He knew that it would not work. He saw how the Pharisees had parsed the OT to fit their religion. Same with the Sadducees. He could have written his own book which we could have followed. He didn't because there is nothing about him which reflects, "follow a book". It is the complete opposite.

Only men who followed him believed that a book was needed. The NT gospels are mangled versions of what really happened. Paul, well, he had his own agenda. "The Fathers" put together pieces of what was written and then sanctioned it which has changed over the years. Various Councils and Theologians have sanctioned what is the "book" which in part is what we have today. It's a mess but as long as you can get a segment of a Christian population to sanction it --- then it is the "word of God" and everyone else is wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

And so there's the conundrum.

Sharia Law is very much a part of Islam which goes counter to the constitution as it is imposed on others to respect Islam no matter what.

Here is what Sharia Law of Islam will do for USA;

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

And yet the consititution declares that no law can impede Islam, but yet the consititution has to impede Sharia Law if the consititution is to be upheld.

So in the end, the Constitution cannot please everybody. It certainly cannot when it comes to Sharia Law of Islam.

It seems that liberal progressives today only embrace the constitution when receiving Mooslims, but when it comes to Christians, their only maxim is "separation of church and state," found no where in the constitution.

Jesus4me2

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course. He wasn't speaking to Hindu's or Buddhist's. He used their scriptures against them. If he didn't come the house if Israel in the same way he might have used the Vedas against the Hindus. That does not mean what you are claiming. Not in the degree of your claim; as to the primacy of scripture. So far, as appears in your posts, you're going overboard with the scripture.

So was Jesus also going overboard as well?

I had quoted you scripture where Jesus said that the scripture cannot be broken when the Jews were seeking to stone Him for making a claim that He is God. To me, that is Jesus validating scripture as one with God's authority as the final say on any matter, and yet would you be one of those that would accuse Jesus of going overboard in using scripture to defend that He is God?

Let me ask you. Did God deal with humans before the invention of writing? What scripture did Abraham use? What New Testament did the early Christians have? Wasn't God doing something without books? Did the Logos exist before the advent of writing?

Did God choose a nation to represent Him to the world before the scripture?

I've come across the laughing church before, but haven't heard of The Toronto Blessing until now. I am one that holds to the view that laughter is a secret of the cosmos ... for whatever that's worth. Looking into them, they do seem to be pretty wild, and out there.

Here's a reproof that exposes the movment as drinking from a different fountain.

Proverbs 25:²⁶ A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring. ²⁷ It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory. ²⁸ He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.

psst... verse 27 also applies to Watchman Nee & Lee.

1 Corinthians 14:³² And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. ³³ For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

The fact that they testify to what they believe was the Holy Spirit falling on them to make this happen is reproved here as not of Him at all.

2 Corinthians 11:1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. ² For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. ³ But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. ⁴ For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2 Corinthians 13:⁵ Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

1 Timothy 4:1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ² Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

It is hypocrisey for believers to say that the Holy Spirit is in them & with them always by faith in Jesus Christ and yet they are receiving Him again and again and again by a sensational sign in the flesh.

Now if you had not these scripture, you would have continued to not discern that as not of God, but just considered it as wild and out there.

Believers will even feel a presence come over them and get a sense of peace or love or whatever and yet again, they believe every spirit and fail to see that as a work of seducing spirits, taking their eyes off of seeking the face of the Son of God to chasing after them for a sign in the flesh.

But it's happened before, way back in the 2nd century, with Montanus, of the New Prophecy Movement. That movement spread far and wide. Montanus, and his two prophetesses claimed that the Paraclete spoke thru them. It caught on like wildfire. The proto-orthodox received it with mixed responses at first., but eventually labelled it a heresy. They weren't able to stamp it out tho. It lasted way up into the 5th c. Some claim that Pentecostalism came out of it. The Pentecostals, of course, claim they come right from the moving of the Holy Spirit.

Since the role of the Holy Spirit is to keep the spotlight on the Son of God to testify of Him ( John 15:26 ) so as to glorify Him ( John 16:13-14 ) as those that led by the Spirit of Truth will also ( John 15:27 ) then the role of the seducing spirits is to take that spotlight off of Jesus Christ to seduce believers into chasing after them in the worship place. ( Instead of Christ" is how the spirits of the antichrists works, and so looking for the moving of the Holy Spirit in a sensational way is not how the real indwelling Holy Spirit works. Nope. No way.

So I think I understand your concern about the Christian life being determined by the Holy Spirit. That would likely deal a death blow to any semblance of certitude, that the Bible provides. It is those that require such certitude that cling to the Bible, and eschew the incertitude of the excited states of ecstasy and hysterics of following of the Holy Spirit exclusively.

John 8:¹⁷ It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

The Word of God & the confirmation by the Son of God, the Good Shepherd through the Holy Spirit as the Spirit also is confirming His words shows why one cannot work without the other.

So you deny such following of the Spirit but claim that Jesus is required to discern what are his words in the scripture. But if we can't be certain of the Spirit how can we be certain that Jesus reveals the right words?

Trusting Jesus as your Good Shepherd since all relationships are based on trust. That also includes Him correcting us when we had thought we had it right from Him the first time. That is how much confidence I have in Him.

The answer, of course, is to just settle on the certitude the scripture brings, and even settle on which particular translation -- the KJV -- represents the true words. Then we no longer have to be concerned for such matters, and can focus our attention on the scripture ; a never ending -- loaded with more questions than can be answered -- lifetime venture.

False teachers as well as cults will use the KJV out of context for their errors as I have found, but when I use the KJV in context and confirmed by other scripture in the KJV, false teachers usually go to another Bible versions to side step it, even though they claim they only use the KJV.

But methinks I, we've, gotten distracted from my problem, as announced earlier ; the problem of understanding just how the books of the Bible were inspired. So far no satisfactory answer, to my satisfaction at least, has been offered.

So far, seems, the only answer is, you have to take it by faith. Is that your answer bro Jesus4Me?

Our faith is supposed to be in Jesus Christ aka the Word of God. What better way to cinfirm His word other than by going to the actual source?

Hebrews 4:¹² For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. ¹³ Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. ¹⁴ Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. ¹⁵ For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Is there scripture that you are having a problem with as to why you prefer to be dismissing them as His words for guiding you? If so; check with the KJV, if it is from another version. If it still persists, do share, if you wish.

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by Dave

awareness, In two sentences you have summarized fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Islam etc. Jesus never wanted us to live by a book however good it might be. He knew that it would not work. He saw how the Pharisees had parsed the OT to fit their religion. Same with the Sadducees. He could have written his own book which we could have followed. He didn't because there is nothing about him which reflects, "follow a book". It is the complete opposite.

Wrong;

John 14:²³ Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. ²⁴ He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Jesus even validated the sayings of those that are His disciples.

John 15:²⁰ Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

The consequences are dire if a believer is found not abiding in Him as His disciples and that is being left behind at the pre trib rapture event as a castaway to be received later on as vessels unto dishonour in His House.

John 15:⁴ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. ⁵ I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.⁶ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. ⁷ If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. ⁸ Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Only men who followed him believed that a book was needed.

And for good reasons too since they were commanded to teach believers all that He has taught them so that they too may abide in Him as His disciples to be received by the Bridegroom for the Marriage Supper.

The NT gospels are mangled versions of what really happened.

And yet the truth about the incidents that we need to carry away with in being His disciples, remains.

Paul, well, he had his own agenda.

Paul's preachings was not any different than what Jesus had taught. I have come across many believers that fail to see that. Paul said the same thing as Jesus said in how we are saved; by believing in Him.

"The Fathers" put together pieces of what was written and then sanctioned it which has changed over the years. Various Councils and Theologians have sanctioned what is the "book" which in part is what we have today. It's a mess but as long as you can get a segment of a Christian population to sanction it --- then it is the "word of God" and everyone else is wrong.

And since scripture cannot go against scripture as no lie can be of the truth, then trusting Jesus Christ as your personal Good Shepherd in confirming His words to you is the only way you can know the truth.

John 8:³⁰ As he spake these words, many believed on him. ³¹ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; ³² And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.....³⁶ If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

[awareness]

From its inception monotheism was never very tolerant, to say the least. It didn't help that it became of The Book.

I think Jesus attempted to change that. He didn't say I will send a book but a comforter to teach you all things.

Maybe the problems of the world is because we're all still living by The Book ... and different books at that.

And as UntoHim pointed out, we don't want politics on the forum.

Let's instead work on Jesus' separation of church and hate.

[Cal]

The basic questions are: is there Truth and can it be known. and if it can how does one know it?

I believe it is, it can, and it is known through the principles of General Revelation and Special Revelation. GR includes things like, there is a God and he expects us to love one another. SR includes things like Jesus is God. GR is given through observation of the world around us and general insight. SR is given through various means including, ahem, the Book.

Everyone is given GR. SR comes at specific times for each person. The Truth that these convey is by definition something to itself. By that I mean that though the Bible conveys the Truth, it in itself is not the Truth. It's a conveyor of the Message, but strictly speaking not the reality of the Message.

What our friends disparagingly call "Fundamentalists" are people who confuse the text or any expression of truth and their understanding of it with the Truth itself. The Bible is digital. The Truth is analog. The Truth fills cracks the Bible and our understanding of it in themselves cannot reach. Every attempt to define Truth, even in the Bible, at best comes up a little short. That is why even Jesus said the searching the scriptures can be a vain pursuit. Truth stands by itself. It is "holy" so to speak. We can see it, appreciate it and even experience it. But when we try to express it and communicate it, even when the Bible does, it is not quite the same thing. It is an imperfect reflection of it. Not only so, any recipient's interpretation of our imperfect reflection of it is also imperfect. This is a function of God's holiness and perfection. He stands apart from our expression of him, even the Bible's expression of him.

This does not mean that the Bible is not special nor that it does not stand apart from other Books. It is and does. But it is important to understand that Truth is different and separate from our expression and understanding of it.

The only one with perfect understanding of Truth is God. And his understanding of Truth is his understanding of himself, that is, his self-image. That self-image is the Son. If our understanding of the Truth was perfect, like God's, then there would be two sources of the Son. That obviously cannot be.

Since perfect knowledge is not possible, God expects us to have a certain amount of tolerance of differences.

Fundamentalists don't get this. That is why they are dogmatic, because they think their expression and understanding is equal to the Truth, and it can never be.

The other extreme is the Anti-fundamentalists. These are the people who use the uncertainty of knowing Truth as a kind of hedge. They seem to think it implies we cannot really know anything, and so cannot really say anything is wrong, which is unfortunately a self-contradicting position.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The basic questions are: is there Truth and can it be known. and if it can how does one know it?

I believe it is, it can, and it is known through the principles of General Revelation and Special Revelation. GR includes things like, there is a God and he expects us to love one another. SR includes things like Jesus is God. GR is given through observation of the world around us and general insight. SR is given through various means including, ahem, the Book.

Everyone is given GR. SR comes at specific times for each person. The Truth that these convey is by definition something to itself. By that I mean that though the Bible conveys the Truth, it in itself is not the Truth. It's a conveyor of the Message, but strictly speaking not the reality of the Message.

What our friends disparagingly call "Fundamentalists" are people who confuse the text or any expression of truth and their understanding of it with the Truth itself. The Bible is digital. The Truth is analog. The Truth fills cracks the Bible and our understanding of it in themselves cannot reach. Every attempt to define Truth, even in the Bible, at best comes up a little short. That is why even Jesus said the searching the scriptures can be a vain pursuit. Truth stands by itself. It is "holy" so to speak. We can see it, appreciate it and even experience it. But when we try to express it and communicate it, even when the Bible does, it is not quite the same thing. It is an imperfect reflection of it. Not only so, any recipient's interpretation of our imperfect reflection of it is also imperfect. This is a function of God's holiness and perfection. He stands apart from our expression of him, even the Bible's expression of him.

This does not mean that the Bible is not special nor that it does not stand apart from other Books. It is and does. But it is important to understand that Truth is different and separate from our expression and understanding of it.

The only one with perfect understanding of Truth is God. And his understanding of Truth is his understanding of himself, that is, his self-image. That self-image is the Son. If our understanding of the Truth was perfect, like God's, then there would be two sources of the Son. That obviously cannot be.

Since perfect knowledge is not possible, God expects us to have a certain amount of tolerance of differences.

Fundamentalists don't get this. That is why they are dogmatic, because they think their expression and understanding is equal to the Truth, and it can never be.

The other extreme is the Anti-fundamentalists. These are the people who use the uncertainty of knowing Truth as a kind of hedge. They seem to think it implies we cannot really know anything, and so cannot really say anything is wrong, which is unfortunately a self-contradicting position.

I agree with your thesis for the most part. But, it raises questions. What's your definition of Truth? Since you state that only God knows the truth perfectly, how do you differ from those you characterize as "Anti-fundamentalists"? Who is saying that we can't know anything? I agree with you that we can't know anything perfectly like God does. Is that where faith comes in?

Since to you the Son is the image of God, what do you do with those biblical passages where God seems to do things that are inconsistent with the Jesus of the Gospels? For example, Jesus taught "Love your enemies" whereas in the OT God speaking through Samuel commands Saul to commit genocide against his enemies. To me, the Jesus of the Gospels represents a higher revelation of God. Do you agree?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree with your thesis for the most part. But, it raises questions. What's your definition of Truth? Since you state that only God knows the truth perfectly, how do you differ from those you characterize as "Anti-fundamentalists"? Who is saying that we can't know anything? I agree with you that we can't know anything perfectly like God does. Is that where faith comes in?

Since to you the Son is the image of God, what do you do with those biblical passages where God seems to do things that are inconsistent with the Jesus of the Gospels? For example, Jesus taught "Love your enemies" whereas in the OT God speaking through Samuel commands Saul to commit genocide against his enemies. To me, the Jesus of the Gospels represents a higher revelation of God. Do you agree?

Truth is that which was before everything else. There has to be something that just IS, on which all else depends. Some starting point. There could never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing. There had to be something. That's truth. We call it God.

By Anti-fundamentalist I mean a chronic relativist. Someone who won't take a stand for anything, except for taking a stand for nothing. I'm not saying that description fits anyone here, including me.

Yes, I think faith fills the gap in our incomplete knowing. We don't know, but we believe in the One who does know.

There is a saying I like: "Every rule has an exception, including this one." There is a fundamental incompleteness with our knowledge. I know, but I don't know. Or said another way, I know, but my knowledge is not the thing. God himself is. So I can share clues, but if I try to define things for others I can't do it. Even when I try to define it for myself I can't. Not perfectly. That's why in any debate the other guy can always say "Yeah, but..."

C.S. Lewis said something interesting. He said God has no opposite. So when you get to him, there's no "Yeah, but..." That's truth. But when we discuss our ideas about him, there's always an opposite side.

This post is imperfect. It expresses my ideas and may point to truth in some shadowy fashion. But it's not Truth. Not ultimate Truth.

I think one definition of a Fundamentalist is someone who doesn't get that.


If you really get into the OT, you see the same personality as Jesus expressed there. You see a God who was constantly trying to woo Israel into obedience. And you see a God who welcomed outsiders into his family graciously. The only difference is that Jesus didn't apply God's judgment in the immediate manner that God did in the OT. His mission was different. God in the OT was trying to establish a nation with himself at the center, and sin threatened that and had to be dealt with immediately. Jesus came to be a sacrifice for sin. Obviously being a sacrifice means not fighting back. So I don't believe God did not love Israel's enemies. He sent many prophets to warn not only Israel but the nations as well. But God has the right to exercise judgment and you cannot call that unloving. The Bible says Jesus will ultimately come to judge the world, the same Jesus that lived here.

But I agree that what God is doing now is higher in a way. But I don't agree that the OT God was different in nature, or that he is more advanced now. He is the same, it's just the mission that's different.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Truth is that which was before everything else. There has to be something that just IS, on which all else depends. Some starting point. There could never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing. There had to be something. That's truth. We call it God.

Here, it seems you are using the word "Truth" metaphorically which is fine, but I think that needs to be made explicit. Literally, truth refers to a fact about something. So, to be true a statement must correspond to what is. The idea that there must be something "which was before everything else" follows from the proposition that something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must always have been a being of some kind. This every existing something is traditionally referred to as "necessary being". But, it doesn't necessarily have to be "God" since, the material universe itself in some form may have always existed. I think the use of the term God at this point already involves faith.

By Anti-fundamentalist I mean a chronic relativist. Someone who won't take a stand for anything, except for taking a stand for nothing. I'm not saying that description fits anyone here, including me.

There probably isn't anyone who entirely fits that description anywhere. There is no absolute relativist because "absolute relativist" is an oxymoron and therefore a self-refuting notion.

Yes, I think faith fills the gap in our incomplete knowing. We don't know, but we believe in the One who does know.

I seems to me that faith precedes knowing rather than filling a gap in knowledge. It involves a leap, although, sometimes one is unaware that one has made the leap until one finds oneself in faith or worse when one loses it. The idea that there is "one who knows" implies that "that which was before everything else" is a knowing subject. Without that proposition, "God" would fall short of the Judeo-Christian" concept.

There is a saying I like: "Every rule has an exception, including this one." There is a fundamental incompleteness with our knowledge. I know, but I don't know. Or said another way, I know, but my knowledge is not the thing. God himself is. So I can share clues, but if I try to define things for others I can't do it. Even when I try to define it for myself I can't. Not perfectly. That's why in any debate the other guy can always say "Yeah, but..."

There is a certain ambiguity is this propostion that I find intriguing. You could be saying that God is synonymous with what Kant called the "ding an sich" the thing in itself. Or you could be describing a special sphere of knowledge, call it theological knowledge. God could be "the really real" the substance that underlies everything, Being Itself, the ground of being.

C.S. Lewis said something interesting. He said God has no opposite. So when you get to him, there's no "Yeah, but..." That's truth. But when we discuss our ideas about him, there's always an opposite side.

That is interesting. God is all-encompassing.

This post is imperfect. It expresses my ideas and may point to truth in some shadowy fashion. But it's not Truth. Not ultimate Truth.

The ultimate truth is ineffable.

I think one definition of a Fundamentalist is someone who doesn't get that.

I agree.

If you really get into the OT, you see the same personality as Jesus expressed there. You see a God who was constantly trying to woo Israel into obedience. And you see a God who welcomed outsiders into his family graciously. The only difference is that Jesus didn't apply God's judgment in the immediate manner that God did in the OT. His mission was different. God in the OT was trying to establish a nation with himself at the center, and sin threatened that and had to be dealt with immediately. Jesus came to be a sacrifice for sin. Obviously being a sacrifice means not fighting back. So I don't believe God did not love Israel's enemies. He sent many prophets to warn not only Israel but the nations as well. But God has the right to exercise judgment and you cannot call that unloving. The Bible says Jesus will ultimately come to judge the world, the same Jesus that lived here.

I think what was different was the perspectives of the authors. Sometimes the perspective is henotheistic where the author believes in and worship of the national god YHWH while accepting the existence other national deities that he deems inferior. But, I can't accept the ethical standards of the OT Hebrews and neither could Jesus. That's why he said over and over again, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times...But I say to you..."replacing the OT standard with a higher standard...the law of love.

But I agree that what God is doing now is higher in a way. But I don't agree that the OT God was different in nature, or that he is more advanced now. He is the same, it's just the mission that's different.

I don't think God changed what he is doing or his "mission". I think the way the human race sees it changed with the NT and continues to change. To appropriate the words of Richard Tarnas true Christianity is "an already existent spiritual revolution that was now progressively transforming and liberating both the individual soul and the world in the dawning light of God’s revealed love."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Originally Posted by Igzy
Here, it seems you are using the word "Truth" metaphorically which is fine, but I think that needs to be made explicit. Literally, truth refers to a fact about something. So, to be true a statement must correspond to what is. The idea that there must be something "which was before everything else" follows from the proposition that something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must always have been a being of some kind. This every existing something is traditionally referred to as "necessary being". But, it doesn't necessarily have to be "God" since, the material universe itself in some form may have always existed. I think the use of the term God at this point already involves faith.

Truth in the way I'm using it is that upon which all else depends. Obviously it is fact. But it is the Fact by which all other facts are evaluated. For example, if someone is murdered that is a fact. But it is not Truth. Truth is the thing by which the fact is cast in its ultimate context and meaning. It is the Fact by which all other facts are judged.

Also, the material universe cannot have always existed. The physical universe is by definition subject to and limited by the laws of time and space. Time cannot regress infinitely into the past, because that would mean there would have been an infinite number of moments before now; which means we never could have reached now. But we have. So the moments in the past must have been finite. Therefore time and hence the physical universe had a beginning. Since the natural cannot cause itself, something supernatural must have caused it. We call that God.

I don't think God changed what he is doing or his "mission". I think the way the human race sees it changed with the NT and continues to change. To appropriate the words of Richard Tarnas true Christianity is "an already existent spiritual revolution that was now progressively transforming and liberating both the individual soul and the world in the dawning light of God’s revealed love."

God's overall mission didn't change. But clearly he had a different immediate goal with Israel than Jesus. Which is one reason he handled things differently. Further, Israel did not have the spiritual tools to rise to the level of the NT standard. God had his hands full just keeping them from making sex a part of their worship practice, as the pagans influenced them to do.

[awareness]

Great post bro Igzy. Just some comments and maybe some problems and questions.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Truth is that which was before everything else. There has to be something that just IS, on which all else depends. Some starting point. There could never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing. There had to be something. That's truth. We call it God.

We're reaching into the unknowable here. Of course there was never a time when there was nothing. As time would be something. Nothing would mean no time too.

But I can't deny that there is something that just IS ; that I and we have no say or control of.

And yes some believe that that is God, or call it that. And some believe we can have a personal relationship with that God ; like something so far beyond our understanding can and does relate with us. In this context that's pretty far fetched.

But is it? That God that just IS is within us ; we are part and parcel of that just IS.

It may be like Jesus is said to have said in the Gospel of Thomas:

"When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Originally Posted by Igzy

By Anti-fundamentalist I mean a chronic relativist. Someone who won't take a stand for anything, except for taking a stand for nothing.

But I doubt that it's chronic to realize we have nothing to stand on. That's why there is faith. And sometimes even faith can become chronic fantasy... and nothing to stand on too, but in our mind.

And that's when and where The Book comes in. Then we have something to stand on ... even if we don't understand it ... it's something that just IS to us ... and something we can stand on, even when failing to understand it.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying that description fits anyone here, including me.

And appearances can be deceiving and, misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, I think faith fills the gap in our incomplete knowing. We don't know, but we believe in the One who does know.

I really like this one. Especially that we believe in "who does know." I fall back on that one a lot. But unfortunately, I've found, that I can place my faith in the wrongs things or places. The reason that I bring up for example the worship of the Holy Foreskin of Jesus, to UntoHim's dismay, is to display how misleading faith can be, if it's misplace on the wrong thing. That absurd kind of faith should cause us pause about faith. In the end, as you have, indirectly perhaps, pointed out, our faith should only be in God. I think that's a main theme in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is a saying I like: "Every rule has an exception, including this one." There is a fundamental incompleteness with our knowledge. I know, but I don't know. Or said another way, I know, but my knowledge is not the thing. God himself is. So I can share clues, but if I try to define things for others I can't do it. Even when I try to define it for myself I can't. Not perfectly. That's why in any debate the other guy can always say "Yeah, but..."

Yeah, but maybe not ...

Originally Posted by Igzy

C.S. Lewis said something interesting. He said God has no opposite.

Did he forget the devil?

Originally Posted by Igzy

This post is imperfect. It expresses my ideas and may point to truth in some shadowy fashion. But it's not Truth. Not ultimate Truth.

I think one definition of a Fundamentalist is someone who doesn't get that.

Been there. Done that. Back when I thought I knew everything. And the ultimate Truth is so far beyond us that we can't know it. Isn't that why Jesus said "I am the Truth?"

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you really get into the OT, you see the same personality as Jesus expressed there. You see a God who was constantly trying to woo Israel into obedience. And you see a God who welcomed outsiders into his family graciously. The only difference is that Jesus didn't apply God's judgment in the immediate manner that God did in the OT. His mission was different. God in the OT was trying to establish a nation with himself at the center, and sin threatened that and had to be dealt with immediately. Jesus came to be a sacrifice for sin. Obviously being a sacrifice means not fighting back. So I don't believe God did not love Israel's enemies. He sent many prophets to warn not only Israel but the nations as well. But God has the right to exercise judgment and you cannot call that unloving. The Bible says Jesus will ultimately come to judge the world, the same Jesus that lived here.

Of course you likely know that I disagree with God as depicted in the OT. You say "God has the right to exercise judgment and you cannot call that unloving." Maybe not unloving -- ??? --- but to me not lovable. And that's my problem. I just can't love such a God as the OT God. Yet I love God. Just not that one.

I agree with you Igzy, that, we just can't accurately define God. So I consider that the writers of the books of the OT had the same problem.

You can't write, or speak, of the supernatural realm -- Gods' realm -- and make it make sense unless, you use what your human audience can relate to and understand. So the God depicted by the OT writers had to be explained in human terms. And it's obvious that humans can be evil and mean. So God was depicted that way.

That's how I personally deal with what appears to be the two different God's between the OT and NT.

And I deal with the two different Jesuses, between the gospels and Revelation, in a similar manner. There's a great deal of cognitive dissonance between the forgive-490-times-and-love-your-enemy-Jesus, in the gospels, and the poring-out-the-bowls-of-God's-wrath-Jesus in Revelation.

So I believe Revelation is symbology understood by other Christians of its day. And is not telling what's literally going to happen in the future.

Lee went off the rails in his interpretations of Revelation, by trying to make it literal. But so have many, many, more down thru the millennia, and today. It should have never been allowed in the canon ... and hasn't always been in it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Truth in the way I'm using it is that upon which all else depends. Obviously it is fact. But it is the Fact by which all other facts are evaluated. For example, if someone is murdered that is a fact. But it is not Truth. Truth is the thing by which the fact is cast in its ultimate context and meaning. It is the Fact by which all other facts are judged.

Like I said, you appear to be using "Truth" metaphorically. Ordinarily truth refers to a proposition that corresponds to reality But, the way you're using it, it stands for reality itself. There is nothing obvious about it, except to you and others who hold your theological presuppositions. If someone is murdered in fact, than the proposition that the person was murdered is true. If not, it's false. You have placed "Truth" in the place of being itself as a presupposition so in your system everything follows from it. But, you can't prove that's how things really work. Your conclusion was presupposed as an implicit premise at the beginning. That's the way it works in the theological circle. I'm not denying it, just pointing out how it works.

Also, the material universe cannot have always existed.The physical universe is by definition subject to and limited by the laws of time and space.

The word "always" in your first statement implies time. Time and space are measured in terms of the material universe. So, without the material universe, time has no meaning.

Time cannot regress infinitely into the past, because that would mean there would have been an infinite number of moments before now; which means we never could have reached now.

If that's true, it is just as true for an infinite God as for an infinite material universe. So, the God hypothesis doesn't solve the problem.

So the moments in the past must have been finite. Therefore time and hence the physical universe had a beginning.

If time had a beginning, then it is absurd to speak of what happened "before" time since "before" implies time.

Since the natural cannot cause itself, something supernatural must have caused it. We call that God.

A cause is assumed for every natural phenomenon. But, the cause of every phenomenon isn't known. To jump to the "supernatural" for an unexplained phenomenon is a leap which explains nothing. If you call that God, then "God" is merely a synonym for the unexplained.

God's overall mission didn't change. But clearly he had a different immediate goal with Israel than Jesus. Which is one reason he handled things differently. Further, Israel did not have the spiritual tools to rise to the level of the NT standard. God had his hands full just keeping them from making sex a part of their worship practice, as the pagans influenced them to do.

"Clearly"? What seems clear to me is that you are reading the OT with the assumption that it is God literally and directly speaking. Whereas, I read it as the product of human authors and editors through whom, over time, the concept of God developed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Like I said, you appear to be using "Truth" metaphorically. Ordinarily truth refers to a proposition that corresponds to reality But, the way you're using it, it stands for reality itself. There is nothing obvious about it, except to you and others who hold your theological presuppositions. If someone is murdered in fact, than the proposition that the person was murdered is true. If not, it's false. You have placed "Truth" in the place of being itself as a presupposition so in your system everything follows from it. But, you can't prove that's how things really work. Your conclusion was presupposed as an implicit premise at the beginning. That's the way it works in the theological circle. I'm not denying it, just pointing out how it works.

The fact is you cannot state anything is true without presupposing something that you cannot prove. You are doing it yourself above. All proof is based on first principles that are presupposed and cannot be proved. So the question is: what is the first Presupposition that ever other idea either springs from or is a perversion of? Everyone has one (or more) and none of them can be proved, including God. Just some make more sense that others.

So if all our systems of thought are based on ideas that cannot be proved, then it follows that the universe itself is based on something that cannot be proved. We cannot even come up with a theory of reality that is based on a provable first principle. Try. It cannot be done. Because, to say the least, the idea that your reasoning ability actually accurately corresponds to reality is a presupposition. So right from the get-go you are depending on presuppositions.

So the question is, which presuppositions are you going to embrace? Because everyone chooses some. No one lives by only what can be proved.

The word "always" in your first statement implies time. Time and space are measured in terms of the material universe. So, without the material universe, time has no meaning.

If that's true, it is just as true for an infinite God as for an infinite material universe. So, the God hypothesis doesn't solve the problem.

If time had a beginning, then it is absurd to speak of what happened "before" time since "before" implies time.

A cause is assumed for every natural phenomenon. But, the cause of every phenomenon isn't known. To jump to the "supernatural" for an unexplained phenomenon is a leap which explains nothing. If you call that God, then "God" is merely a synonym for the unexplained.

We can make statements about the material universe that we cannot make about something outside of it, because we live in the universe and can observe its laws. The laws of something beyond our universe are not naturally observable to us. So we cannot say that it is limited by the laws of time as we know them. All we can say is there is evidence of its existence because the physical universe can neither have caused itself nor have been here forever.

But we can make more confident statements about the material universe. And one thing we can say is that logic and the nature of the universe tell us that time cannot regress infinitely into the past. So time had to have a beginning. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning.

Here are the basic choices:

The material universe has always been here -- Not possible because time cannot regress infinitely into the past.

The material universe appeared without cause -- Not possible because everything physical has a cause.

Something above and apart (i.e. "supernatural") from the physical universe caused it -- Possible, if not entirely understandable.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact is you cannot state anything is true without presupposing something that you cannot prove. You are doing it yourself above. All proof is based on first principles that are presupposed and cannot be proved. So the question is: what is the first Presupposition that ever other idea either springs from or is a perversion of? Everyone has one (or more) and none of them can be proved, including God. Just some make more sense that others.

So if all our systems of thought are based on ideas that cannot be proved, then it follows that the universe itself is based on something that cannot be proved. We cannot even come up with a theory of reality that is based on a provable first principle. Try. It cannot be done. Because, to say the least, the idea that your reasoning ability actually accurately corresponds to reality is a presupposition. So right from the get-go you are depending on presuppositions.

So the question is, which presuppositions are you going to embrace? Because everyone chooses some. No one lives by only what can be proved.



We can make statements about the material universe that we cannot make about something outside of it, because we live in the universe and can observe its laws. The laws of something beyond our universe are not naturally observable to us. So we cannot say that it is limited by the laws of time as we know them. All we can say is there is evidence of its existence because the physical universe can neither have caused itself nor have been here forever.

But we can make more confident statements about the material universe. And one thing we can say is that logic and the nature of the universe tell us that time cannot regress infinitely into the past. So time had to have a beginning. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning.

Here are the basic choices:

The material universe has always been here -- Not possible because time cannot regress infinitely into the past.

The material universe appeared without cause -- Not possible because everything physical has a cause.

Something above and apart (i.e. "supernatural") from the physical universe caused it -- Possible, if not entirely understandable.

There are no absolutes!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

There are no absolutes!

That statement is self-contradicting, because it's an absolute statement.


BTW, this thread is getting off topic. Why don't we return to the subject of fundamentalism?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

BTW, this thread is getting off topic. Why don't we return to the subject of fundamentalism?

Finally. A voice of reason and good sense.

Here's something very central to fundamentalism. But only the ardent of interest in the subject will be able to read it all. I was captivated by it and read it all:

The Modernistic Attack on the Bible In These Last Days

• Modernism weakened people’s faith in the Bible and set the stage for the success of the theory of evolution.
  
• Modernism paved the way for the vicious attack of the Bible in the popular press.
  
• Modernism paved the way for the rapid spread of New Age philosophy.
  
• Modernism paved the way for the onslaught of the modern Bible versions.
  
• Modernism paved the way for the corruption of popular Christianity.

Dave's UU church is mentioned in the timeline. And bro Zeeks favorite, Paul Tillich, is mentioned as well. Even Billy Graham is said to bring in the dreaded modernism.

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files...the_bible.html

[Jesus4Me]

awareness: Even Billy Graham is said to bring in the dreaded modernism.

Here's one of the ways BG had flip-flopped from fundamentalism.

He would preach..."It is not going to church every Sunday that is going to save you. It is not keeping the Ten Commandments that is going to save you. It is all those that call upon the name of the Lord." Sounds like the Good News, right?

Now comes the flip flop: right at the altar call.

"If you are not sure you are saved, come forward and make a commitment to follow Christ."

Believers really need to take a step back and discern with His help on that altar call because it is the OPPOSITE of what BG had just preached.

Can any one get assurances of their salvation by keeping their commitment to follow Christ? What does it mean to keep that commitment to follow Christ? You will go to church every Sunday. You will keep the Ten commandments and more because the teachings of Jesus are higher than the works of the law when you have to deal with what is inside; that sinful heart & flesh. It's your commitment. You said you are going to do it. Jesus will step back and let us see if believers can really keep that religious commitment to follow Him which is akin to a promise. Can they do it? Can they really get their assurance of their salvation by keeping that commitment to follow Christ? How is that not like thinking you are working for your salvation?

We are to follow Jesus as His disciple by faith in the Son of God in us and rest in all His promises to us, because He has no confidence in us to keep that commitment to follow Him.

John 2:²³ Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. ²⁴ But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, ²⁵ And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

That is why it is written simply that the just shall live by faith. If we could not save ourselves; we surely cannot do the best we can in following Him by keeping that commitment or promises to do so.

We are to surrender & trust Him as our Saviour that we are saved just as we are to surrender & trust Him as our Good Shepherd that He will help us to follow Him. That is the only way we can get to know Him & the power of His resurrection when we deny ourselves as able, and trust in Him that He is able. Our confidence is to be in Him only, the author & finisher of our faith, to finish His work in us just as the Son of God is our only hope.

By the grace of God, we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and so by the grace of God we follow Him by faith in Jesus Christ.

BG should have stated in keeping with the fundamental gospel, "If you are not sure you are saved, if you had called upon the name of the Lord, believe in His promise that you are saved."

And "For those that are having trouble following Him, believe in Him as your Good Shepherd, and He will help you to understand & discern by His words as kept in the King James Bible by those that loved Him & His words so that you can follow Him as all the promises of God are yes in Christ Jesus as He will enable you to follow Him."

1 John 3:³ And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.....⁸ He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

2 Timothy 4:¹⁸ And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Jude 1:²⁴ Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, ²⁵ To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

So once again; scripture as fundamentally used rightly, points us to the Son of God as our Good Shepherd as well as our Saviour to rest in Him & all His promises to us so that we can cease from our own works in trying to save ourselves and to make ourselves His when we are His workmanship; the work of His hands only, wherein no man can boast.

This is why BG's altar call was of the world because many wise men after the flesh, many mighty men and nobles would respond to that altar call in seeking the praise of men by keeping that commitment to follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 1: ²⁶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: ²⁷ But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; ²⁸ And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: ²⁹ That no flesh should glory in his presence. ³⁰ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: ³¹ That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Keeping the faith in Jesus Christ and all His promises to us is the fundamental thing to do, which is done by His grace & His help as well.

May the Lord set those astray free from their yokes of bindages to rest in Him & all His promises to us so we can live by faith in Jesus.

Galatians 5:1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.....⁵ For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Philippians 1:⁶ Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: ⁷ Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. ⁸ For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. ⁹ And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; ¹⁰ That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. ¹¹ Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact is you cannot state anything is true without presupposing something that you cannot prove. You are doing it yourself above. All proof is based on first principles that are presupposed and cannot be proved.

That isn't true. Propositions can be based on observable facts rather than abstract presuppositions.

So if all our systems of thought are based on ideas that cannot be proved, then it follows that the universe itself is based on something that cannot be proved. We cannot even come up with a theory of reality that is based on a provable first principle. Try. It cannot be done. Because, to say the least, the idea that your reasoning ability actually accurately corresponds to reality is a presupposition. So right from the get-go you are depending on presuppositions.

The universe is an observable fact. No presuppositions necessary.

So the question is, which presuppositions are you going to embrace? Because everyone chooses some. No one lives by only what can be proved.

Can you prove that?

We can make statements about the material universe that we cannot make about something outside of it, because we live in the universe and can observe its laws. The laws of something beyond our universe are not naturally observable to us. So we cannot say that it is limited by the laws of time as we know them. All we can say is there is evidence of its existence because the physical universe can neither have caused itself nor have been here forever.

If God can cause himself or have existed forever, why can't the universe cause itself or have existed forever?

But we can make more confident statements about the material universe. And one thing we can say is that logic and the nature of the universe tell us that time cannot regress infinitely into the past. So time had to have a beginning. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning.

Why can the universe not regress infinitely but God can regress infinitely? Why must the universe have a beginning and God does not need a beginning?

The material universe has always been here -- Not possible because time cannot regress infinitely into the past.

The material universe appeared without cause -- Not possible because everything physical has a cause.

Something above and apart (i.e. "supernatural") from the physical universe caused it -- Possible, if not entirely understandable.

All you're "not possibles" are just as impossible when applied to God as they are to the universe. The incantation "supernatural" simply means the ability to do the impossible. It doesn't explain anything.

It would be simpler to propose that the universe has supernatural power than to propose another unknown entity called God that possesses supernatural power. But, in either case it doesn't explain being itself. There is no explanation.

The basic mystery is "Why there is anything at all including God if God exists?" The short answer is "No one knows." Beyond that it is all speculation. The word "God" doesn't answer the question. Being is still as great a mystery whether we're talking about the universe or God.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That statement is self-contradicting, because it's an absolute statement.


BTW, this thread is getting off topic. Why don't we return to the subject of fundamentalism?

It's not self-contradicting. It's an oxymoron. The God of the Bible is an oxymoron as well.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

That isn't true. Propositions can be based on observable facts rather than abstract presuppositions.

You are presupposing that what you think you observe is actually reality. You have no way of "proving" it is. You may have what you think is strong evidence, but you do not have proof.

The same thing holds for God. I can say I have proof of God because the evidence is so strong. But I really don't have any more proof that you have proof that the universe exists. All you are really saying is that you trust your physical senses more than your spiritual ones. But that doesn't necessarily constitute stronger evidence.

The bottom line is that we believe what we believe not because we have "proof" but because that's where we think evidence points us. And that's all we can do.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

It's not self-contradicting. It's an oxymoron. The God of the Bible is an oxymoron as well.

Dave, that's exactly what an oxymoron is--something that is self-contradicting.

ox·y·mo·ron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

In fact, it's funny, because the statement, "It's not self-contradicting. It's an oxymoron," is itself an oxymoron, and so also self-contradicting. That's a classic. Did you mean it to be funny? If so, .

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If God can cause himself or have existed forever, why can't the universe cause itself or have existed forever?

Because the fact that the universe is physical and thus bound by time tells us that since time cannot regress infinitely into the past neither can the universe. God is not necessarily bound by time, but the universe is. I already said that.

All you're "not possibles" are just as impossible when applied to God as they are to the universe.

Not so. We can understand the physical laws of the universe much better than we can understand God. And what we know about it tells us that it cannot have always existed. That's one of those observable facts you talk about. God can have always existed as far as we know since he is not physical. But we do know that the physical universe cannot have always existed. Anyone who tells you otherwise is making it up.

It's arbitrary for you to say the rules that rule the universe must also apply equally to God. Some might. But the fact that the universe cannot have always existed is a limitation of it being physical. God is not physical.

You seem to think when I say the universe cannot have always existed that's some kind of philosophical or metaphysical statement. It isn't. It's simply a statement about the limitations of the PHYSICAL universe. Those same rules don't apply to God, or for that matter even ideas. Although ideas have to have a source, a mind. So the mind had to pre-exist.

It would be simpler to propose that the universe has supernatural power than to propose another unknown entity called God that possesses supernatural power.

If that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Make the case. Start a movement. Devote your life to it. But for me the evidence points elsewhere.

We never have "proof." Real "proof" removes the opportunity to make your mind up. We only have clues. We all have to make up our own mind. But whatever we decide, we are betting our life on it. You have to decide if it's worth that bet. I can tell you what I think, but I can't make the bet for you.

[awareness]

What if, in the non-physical universe it is known that at one point nothing non-physical existed. That there was nothing. No timelessness, no eternity, no God, or gods, no angels or spirits. And BANG the non-physical universe burst into being. and out came God, and all the rest of non-physical non-stuff.

Sounds fanciful doesn't it. But how could we, can we, know? Truth is, the physical universe is a grand mystery, and the non-physical even more so.

Am I taking the stand "that we can't know, so give it up?" No! It is where I'm left standing, but not something I'm taking a stand for. I don't like it any more than you do.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

What if, in the non-physical universe it is known that at one point nothing non-physical existed. That there was nothing. No timelessness, no eternity, no God, or gods, no angels or spirits. And BANG the non-physical universe burst into being. and out came God, and all the rest of non-physical non-stuff.

Sounds fanciful doesn't it. But how could we, can we, know? Truth is, the physical universe is a grand mystery, and the non-physical even more so.

Am I taking the stand "that we can't know, so give it up?" No! It is where I'm left standing, but not something I'm taking a stand for. I don't like it any more than you do.

Because everything we know about the physical universe says that every effect has a cause. Physical things do not appear out of nowhere without cause.

As I said you can speculate that the universe has always been here, or that it caused itself. But as far as I'm concerned those are bad bets.

God is not subject to such a limitation because not being physical he would not need to be. But anything physical has such a limitation. In fact it is the limitation of the physical universe that suggests there is something beyond it which caused it. As big as the universe is, it still cannot carry the weight of having always been here.

You keep asking, how can we know. Well, how do you know anything? You examine the evidence and come up with the most likely explanation. It seems to me that God is the most likely explanation. Added to that is not only do I intellectually believe that, but my personal experience validates that it is correct. I have a personal relationship with the Creator. I don't expect my experience to be "proof" to you. But it's close enough to "proof" for me. And that's all I really need, right?

As I said, like it or not we all have to place our bets. If you are happy with your bet, let it stand. If not, change it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because the fact that the universe is physical and thus bound by time tells us that since time cannot regress infinitely into the past neither can the universe. God is not necessarily bound by time, but the universe is. I already said that.

Yes you said it. But you haven't shown how it is possible to be outside time. So, you haven't backed up your proposition with evidence or logical argument.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are presupposing that what you think you observe is actually reality. You have no way of "proving" it is. You may have what you think is strong evidence, but you do not have proof.

No, in the first place, it is simply the phenomenon of experience, in other words, how it seems. It doesn't have to be proved, it is experienced regardless of what is theorized about it.

The same thing holds for God. I can say I have proof of God because the evidence is so strong. But I really don't have any more proof that you have proof that the universe exists. All you are really saying is that you trust your physical senses more than your spiritual ones. But that doesn't necessarily constitute stronger evidence.

No it doesn't. The data of experience is there regardless what we think about it. The same cannot be said of God. People who have never heard of God experience the data of their senses spontaneously.

Not so. We can understand the physical laws of the universe much better than we can understand God. And what we know about it tells us that it cannot have always existed. That's one of those observable facts you talk about. God can have always existed as far as we know since he is not physical. But we do know that the physical universe cannot have always existed. Anyone who tells you otherwise is making it up.

How do we understand physical laws better when we understand God? And more fundamentally how do we understand God? We can understand nature, but to say that God is "supernatural" is to make the implicit admission that you DON"T understand God.

It's arbitrary for you to say the rules that rule the universe must also apply equally to God. Some might. But the fact that the universe cannot have always existed is a limitation of it being physical. God is not physical.

It is possible to understand physical things. How do you understand something that is not physical? How do you know that something which is not physical exists?

You seem to think when I say the universe cannot have always existed that's some kind of philosophical or metaphysical statement. It isn't. It's simply a statement about the limitations of the PHYSICAL universe.

The universe includes all that is known. So, it is simpler and more a more accurate representation of the state of our knowledge to admit that we don't know how it came to exist than to claim that we know there is another entity that has determinant powers that created the universe. The latter involves a leap of faith.

Those same rules don't apply to God, or for that matter even ideas. Although ideas have to have a source, a mind. So the mind had to pre-exist.

So natural law doesn't apply to God. What laws do and how did you discover them? And why do you think the mind had to pre-exist?

If that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Make the case. Start a movement. Devote your life to it. But for me the evidence points elsewhere.

It isn't what I want to believe it is the state of knowledge as I understand it. Belief in God goes beyond what is known and therefore requires faith.

We never have "proof." Real "proof" removes the opportunity to make your mind up. We only have clues. We all have to make up our own mind. But whatever we decide, we are betting our life on it. You have to decide if it's worth that bet. I can tell you what I think, but I can't make the bet for you.

If by proof you mean an absolutely certain conclusion about the ultimate nature of reality, I agree with you. We can't even be sure that we actually decide because the issue of free will versus determinism has not been conclusively resolved. People find the uncertainty of our actual epistemological situation uncomfortable so they like to imagine it resolved one way or the other even though it really isn't. Claiming we have knowledge when what we have is actually faith is one way of doing that. That's a characteristic of fundamentalist thinking too.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes you said it. But you haven't shown how it is possible to be outside time. So, you haven't backed up your proposition with evidence or logical argument.

Yes, I have. The logical argument is that the physical universe itself cannot have always existed and cannot have caused itself. Therefore something else had to cause it.

I don't have to explain how something can exist outside of time. All I have to do is explain that something MUST exist outside of time. And I have done that. I don't have to understand God. All I need is enough understanding of the physical universe to say it cannot exist on its own.

How do we understand physical laws better when we understand God?

Because they are easier to understand. A creation is always simpler than its creator. (I'm assuming you meant "than" not "when.")

It is possible to understand physical things. How do you understand something that is not physical? How do you know that something which is not physical exists?

I didn't say I understood God. I said the physical universe tells us that it cannot have caused itself or always existed. Therefore there must be something else that caused it.

The universe includes all that is known. So, it is simpler and more a more accurate representation of the state of our knowledge to admit that we don't know how it came to exist than to claim that we know there is another entity that has determinant powers that created the universe. The latter involves a leap of faith.

It is a leap of faith based on necessity. If the physical universe cannot have caused itself and cannot have existed forever then the only logical next step is to assume something above and beyond it caused it. Whatever it is.

So natural law doesn't apply to God. What laws do and how did you discover them? And why do you think the mind had to pre-exist?

If God exists then he would be the source of all laws. He's not under any laws. But again you have to look at all the evidence. There is a lot. You have to find that for yourself. I think you probably know in general what I think.

It isn't what I want to believe it is the state of knowledge as I understand it. Belief in God goes beyond what is known and therefore requires faith.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of things you think you know are actually matters of faith.

If by proof you mean an absolutely certain conclusion about the ultimate nature of reality, I agree with you. We can't even be sure that we actually decide because the issue of free will versus determinism has not been conclusively resolved. People find the uncertainty of our actual epistemological situation uncomfortable so they like to imagine it resolved one way or the other even though it really isn't. Claiming we have knowledge when what we have is actually faith is one way of doing that. That's a characteristic of fundamentalist thinking too.

Right. So it applies across the board. All presuppositions are matters of faith and all knowledge is based on presupposition. I don't know for sure that I'm really here typing on a keyboard. I could be dreaming. I could be delusional. I believe I am typing. But I don't really know for sure. Matters of God are the same. Spiritual experiences are no less "provable" that physical ones. It's simply a matter of which senses you trust more. Most people trust their physical senses more. But the Bible implies that the spiritual is actually more real. It is just apprehended in a different way.

[Cal]

Also, since nothing is really provable, what we choose to believe is a test of character. I find that fact very interesting. To me it points to the moral nature of God.

[Cal]

Just a couple of follow-up thoughts:

Suppose I'm walking in the country and come across something that looks likes a mechanical device, but one I don't recognize. It seems to be using energy, but I can't be sure what type. But observing it I conclude someone made it. Its characteristics tell me it couldn't have just appeared on its own.

But I don't have to know anything about the creator of it, how he made it, what tools he used, how he found the time or the energy or whatever to make it. All I know is, someone or something APART and OUTSIDE of it made it. The device itself tells me that.

The universe is basically the same. It is physical and so is subject to physical laws, which include that it is limited by time. And as we've seen time had to have a beginning, as an infinite number of moments in the past is not possible, otherwise we could have never reached now. Time is a physical phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Physicists know that time principles are interwoven with the fabric of the physical universe.

So I don't have to know anything about the Creator of the universe to know he or it exists. Because the universe had to have a cause. All physical phenomenon must have a cause. So it's not necessary to explain how the Creator exists outside of time, because he is not physical and time is a physical characteristic. All we need know is that time, that is time as applies to the physical universe we know, had a beginning, so it had to have a Beginner.


Nothing, really, is provable. Kant was right. The only things we really know are things that are true by definition. We define a circle as "round" so we "know" a circle is round. But this knowledge, no pun intended, is a circle. Everything else is simply our best guess.

But that doesn't mean all ideas are equal. We can use basic common sense to compare ideas and know which ones make more sense. But why even bother? Why do we care? One reason is we want to survive, in all senses. We want to survive physically, mentally, emotionally and even spiritually. We want to be whole, and experience tells us if you want to be whole then you'd better deal with reality the way it really is. So how do we know how it really is? Well, as we said, nothing is provable, but some things just make more sense. Will you go with them, or hang on to what you wish were true, stubbornly demanding the "proof" that isn't going to come? This is the test of character I was talking about.

Ideas like the notion that the universe appeared on its own cannot really be proved or disproved. But what we know tells us that it is highly unlikely. I'm not sure why some people choose to believe what is unlikely, but guys like Harold, bless his soul, seem to get a kick out of doing that. Harold is sort of like the guy who plays the lottery. He's a sucker for the long shot. I do hope he eventually picks a winner. But it's likely not going to be the thing for which the odds are longest. When betting your soul, it pays to go with the odds-on winner, and not spend your life waiting for "proof." Of course, you also re-examine your beliefs along the way and modify as makes sense.


When the "proof" about God finally comes, it will be too late to make a decision either way. You don't need to "decide" when there is absolutely no longer any doubt. People who want proof of God will get it. But betting on God at that point will be like betting on a football game after it's over. No faith, no risk, no test of character, so no reward.


PS I can't prove any of this, it's just what makes the most sense to me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I don't have to know anything about the creator of it

I think I, and zeek, and Dave, and all the hordes of skeptics on AtlVs understand what bro Igzy is getting at. He's done a pretty good job of explaining it. I admire his sticktoitiveness.

Basically, in a nutshell, it's Pascal's Wager.

But both Pascal and Izgy, methinks, err when they make it a bet. Why? Because I'm not a betting man. If I ever do, I go into begrudgingly. I don't have to bet, one way or another.

So concerning creation, or the age of the earth, and all that, I don't feel I really need to know, one way or another. It's here. And I'm HERE.

So the question that eats at me is: Why am I here? I'm amazed everyday, every moment, and mystified, that I'm here NOW. Forget about long ago. It has no bearing on NOW, TODAY.

And I hardly doubt that God will judge against me for not buying into the creation account in Genesis. Any idea of such a thing, by inerrancy worshipers for example, makes me laugh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I hardly doubt that God will judge against me for not buying into the creation account in Genesis.

You're prolly right. What kind of God would judge us for getting the dates of fossils wrong?

But what would God say to those who discarded faith and His word?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I, and zeek, and Dave, and all the hordes of skeptics on AtlVs understand what bro Igzy is getting at. He's done a pretty good job of explaining it. I admire his sticktoitiveness.

Basically, in a nutshell, it's Pascal's Wager.

But both Pascal and Izgy, methinks, err when they make it a bet. Why? Because I'm not a betting man. If I ever do, I go into begrudgingly. I don't have to bet, one way or another.

So concerning creation, or the age of the earth, and all that, I don't feel I really need to know, one way or another. It's here. And I'm HERE.

So the question that eats at me is: Why am I here? I'm amazed everyday, every moment, and mystified, that I'm here NOW. Forget about long ago. It has no bearing on NOW, TODAY.

And I hardly doubt that God will judge against me for not buying into the creation account in Genesis. Any idea of such a thing, by inerrancy worshipers for example, makes me laugh.

Thanks, Harold.

But whether we are betting men or women or not we still all bet our lives on something. It can't be avoided. The incompleteness of knowledge forces us to make a guess, whether it's our best guess or a sloppy one. So don't kid yourself. You are betting your future on something.

So the question is, are you satisfied with the bet you've made. Because you've made one whether you wanted to or not.

As to the details of the creation story, that's not nearly as important as whether you believe there is a Creator or not.

Also, my view contains elements of Pascal's wager. But strictly speaking, Pascal's wager was simply that the bet was a good one only based on the choice between God and no God. My position includes the view that evidence for God is very strong. It's not just a blind guess based on compared end results of faith or no faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But whether we are betting men or women or not we still all bet our lives on something. It can't be avoided. The incompleteness of knowledge forces us to make a guess, whether it's our best guess or a sloppy one.

So don't kid yourself. You are betting your future on something.

Proven by the fact that we all bought into Lee's failed promises.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, I have. The logical argument is that the physical universe itself cannot have always existed and cannot have caused itself. Therefore something else had to cause it.

You don't seem to recognize that the proposition "God" doesn't solve the fundamental mystery of being. It simply displaces the problem from the universe the existence for which we have no explanation to a hypothetical entity--"God" whose existence has no explanation.

I don't have to explain how something can exist outside of time. All I have to do is explain that something MUST exist outside of time. And I have done that. I don't have to understand God. All I need is enough understanding of the physical universe to say it cannot exist on its own.

Which is essentially the same thing as saying if something MUST exist outside of time, and you don't understand how the universe can exist. The only difference is that you have added the word "God" which you admit you don't understand.

Because they are easier to understand. A creation is always simpler than its creator. (I'm assuming you meant "than" not "when.")

No I meant what I said. I was asking you to explain your claim.

I didn't say I understood God. I said the physical universe tells us that it cannot have caused itself or always existed. Therefore there must be something else that caused it.

No, the existence of the universe is an awesome mystery which cannot be explained.

It is a leap of faith based on necessity. If the physical universe cannot have caused itself and cannot have existed forever then the only logical next step is to assume something above and beyond it caused it. Whatever it is.

It is a leap from our epistemological situation which is that we do not know our ultimate origin. For many it is a self-mystifying leap into a delusion that they know something they don't. I am suggesting that if we recognize that it is a matter of faith and not knowledge, we can participate in the courage and risk of faith without delusion.

If God exists then he would be the source of all laws. He's not under any laws. But again you have to look at all the evidence. There is a lot. You have to find that for yourself. I think you probably know in general what I think.

A god who is the source of law that he does not subject himself to would be a tyrant and a hypocrite. The New Testament presents a God who empties himself and makes himself subject to the exigencies of existence including natural and human law.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of things you think you know are actually matters of faith.

Did I ever claim otherwise? The important thing is to recognize and admit and understand what we are doing. Such is the wisdom of self-reflection. Who can do more than that?

Right. So it applies across the board. All presuppositions are matters of faith and all knowledge is based on presupposition. I don't know for sure that I'm really here typing on a keyboard. I could be dreaming. I could be delusional. I believe I am typing. But I don't really know for sure. Matters of God are the same. Spiritual experiences are no less "provable" that physical ones. It's simply a matter of which senses you trust more. Most people trust their physical senses more. But the Bible implies that the spiritual is actually more real. It is just apprehended in a different way.

I don't entirely agree with your characterization of our existential situation. We are able to live quite well without knowing the ultimate nature of things most of the time. Most people rarely seem to think about the ultimate questions. They live, not in a purely sensual world, but a world in which convention instructs them what to think and how to act most of the time. Fundamentalist religion can reinforce this human tendency by presenting ultimate questions as settled so that the believer can forget about them and get on with the business of living. You even see that here on LCD. People want to believe that the Bible is a settled book that they understand. That's not how I see it, and that to me is not spirituality. Spirituality involves a leap of faith outside of knowledge into an unknown where "what is" has to be discovered because the pat answers of convention and religion don't work any more. Faith is not for the faint of heart.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Basically, in a nutshell, it's Pascal's Wager.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, my view contains elements of Pascal's wager. But strictly speaking, Pascal's wager was simply that the bet was a good one simply based on the choice between God and no God. My position includes the view that evidence for God is very strong. It's not just a blind guess based on compared end results of faith or no faith.

I never heard of Pascal's wager, but have read about Pascal, so I posted the following from wikipedia for the rest of us "uninformed" ...

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal. It posits that all humans bet with their lives either that God exists or that He does not exist. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact does exist, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in hell.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never heard of Pascal's wager, but have read about Pascal, so I posted the following from wikipedia for the rest of us "uninformed" ...

The weird thing is that Pascal's wager actually makes more sense than not.

The way people attack it is they will say things like, well suppose there is a giant invisible shark that will eat you if you don't believe in it. Or what if there is a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (see Wikipedia also). These are attempts to point out an arbitrariness in the idea of worrying about an invisible deity.

However, the problem with those arguments is that nobody worries about giant invisible sharks or flying spaghetti monsters or any of those supposed equivalents. But for some reason a lot of people worry about God, and always have. Why would that be?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

However, the problem with those arguments is that nobody worries about giant invisible sharks or flying spaghetti monsters or any of those supposed equivalents. But for some reason a lot of people worry about God, and always have. Why would that be?

It doesn't have to make sense, but think about how many golfers now worry about krakens in the water hazards?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The weird thing is that Pascal's wager actually makes more sense than not.

The way people attack it is they will say things like, well suppose there is a giant invisible shark that will eat you if you don't believe in it. Or what if there is a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (see Wikipedia also). These are attempts to point out an arbitrariness in the idea of worrying about an invisible deity.

However, the problem with those arguments is that nobody worries about giant invisible sharks or flying spaghetti monsters or any of those supposed equivalents. But for some reason a lot of people worry about God, and always have. Why would that be?

Yes. This is all true.

But Pascal's Wager is problematic. If I believe only because it is the better bet, what do I believe? That my outcome will be better if the bet is right? What kind of faith is that?

The funny thing is that Pascal actually did not mean that kind of empty faithless mental assent. But it is difficult to treat "belief" based on probabilities as much more than that. You have to either come to really believe it, and live as if you do, or you failed and despite your desire to believe that way, really don't.

That there is faith involved in analyzing the origins of the universe is a given. Many atheists do not like that. Many declare that they are reserving judgment on what it is that explains the origins. But they refuse to accept even the notion that it might be any kind of supreme being.

I don't simply choose God over other explanations because I like it better or it might get me a better outcome in the long run. I believe because I believe. I have experienced (yeah, that word) the grace and mercy of God. I have seen lives truly changed when people continue to declare that people cannot change. Mine has. Not enough. But it has changed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes. This is all true.

But Pascal's Wager is problematic. If I believe only because it is the better bet, what do I believe? That my outcome will be better if the bet is right? What kind of faith is that?

The funny thing is that Pascal actually did not mean that kind of empty faithless mental assent. But it is difficult to treat "belief" based on probabilities as much more than that. You have to either come to really believe it, and live as if you do, or you failed and despite your desire to believe that way, really don't.

That there is faith involved in analyzing the origins of the universe is a given. Many atheists do not like that. Many declare that they are reserving judgment on what it is that explains the origins. But they refuse to accept even the notion that it might be any kind of supreme being.

I don't simply choose God over other explanations because I like it better or it might get me a better outcome in the long run. I believe because I believe. I have experienced (yeah, that word) the grace and mercy of God. I have seen lives truly changed when people continue to declare that people cannot change. Mine has. Not enough. But it has changed.

OBW,

Good to hear from you, old friend and foil.

The way I look at it, it is better to have faith just to save your rear end than to have no faith at all.

It's funny, because sometime we confuse being selfless with not caring about ourselves at all. There is nothing crazier than a person who is so "selfless" that he doesn't even care if he goes to hell. I think it is completely rational to decide to stand with God for no other reason than it is the winning play. I think God understands that. Being selfless does not mean being willing to sacrifice your eternal soul for others. Even Jesus knew he wasn't doing that. Being selfless means you give up what you want in the short term for the sake of God and others. So, in the end, it glorifies God to choose him just to save your own soul. After all, you are betting your life on what you think the winning team is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Pascal's Wager is problematic. If I believe only because it is the better bet, what do I believe? That my outcome will be better if the bet is right? What kind of faith is that?

I think you are over-thinking this.

Pascal is only stating the obvious that not believing in God is a foolish plan.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's funny, because sometime we confuse being selfless with not caring about ourselves at all. There is nothing crazier than a person who is so "selfless" that he doesn't even care if he goes to hell. I think it is completely rational to decide to stand with God for no other reason than it is the winning play. I think God understands that.

We all get saved for selfish reasons. Why is that wrong?

Many have believed for no other reason than to possess "fire insurance."

[zeek]

My position is similar to Pascal's in contradistinction to Igzy's position that the existence of the Christian God is known by "General Revelation". Pascal admits that the existence of God is uncertain. "It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist"[Pascal's Pensées, No. 230] Therefore, a leap to faith is necessary if one is to believe. That is what I have referred to as our "epistemological situation" with respect to the God question.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We all get saved for selfish reasons. Why is that wrong?

Many have believed for no other reason than to possess "fire insurance."

And this is where the idea of belief as a mental, check-the-box, once for all times salvation seems to fall apart. Believing is not just thinking it might be true so you lean just a little to that side but never really act the part. Somehow a lot of people are going to appear in front of Christ saying they have been such a great follower and He won't even know them.

Besides, how much belief is there in taking a side because it provides more upside than the other, but never considering the content of what belief entails?

This is a form of easy believism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is where the idea of belief as a mental, check-the-box, once for all times salvation seems to fall apart. Believing is not just thinking it might be true so you lean just a little to that side but never really act the part. Somehow a lot of people are going to appear in front of Christ saying they have been such a great follower and He won't even know them.

Besides, how much belief is there in taking a side because it provides more upside than the other, but never considering the content of what belief entails?

This is a form of easy believism.

Contrary to your human rationale, God has commanded men everywhere to believe. He will also address our works, either to approve and reward, or to punish and not know.

You got thinks mixed up, but hey, everything goes on this "dark side of the forum."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

My position is similar to Pascal's in contradistinction to Igzy's position that the existence of the Christian God is known by "General Revelation". Pascal admits that the existence of God is uncertain. "It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist"[Pascal's Pensées, No. 230] Therefore, a leap to faith is necessary if one is to believe. That is what I have referred to as our "epistemological situation" with respect to the God question.

If you define "certain" as "provable" then I agree that certainty is hard to come by. However, if you define certain as "overwhelmingly obvious" then I think we can be certain. I feel certain. Of course, zeek would probably say that's just my opinion.

But, again, I don't think the certainty zeek is speaking of is an option or that it's lack excuses us. As James said, "even the demons believe, and shudder." They have certainty. The belief God expects is belief with a risk, it's belief that is based not on what is provable, but what is plainly revealed. It's a belief based not on logical certainty, but on gut check.

In short, God not being provable does not change the fact that believing in him is the wise play, given everything we know. Belief in something for which there is absolutely no doubt is not belief, it's knowledge. The demons have that, but it won't save them. Neither will it save those people who eventually get it. And they will.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is where the idea of belief as a mental, check-the-box, once for all times salvation seems to fall apart. Believing is not just thinking it might be true so you lean just a little to that side but never really act the part. Somehow a lot of people are going to appear in front of Christ saying they have been such a great follower and He won't even know them.

Besides, how much belief is there in taking a side because it provides more upside than the other, but never considering the content of what belief entails?

This is a form of easy believism.

There are two issues here: What is right, and what benefits us in the long run. They are actually the same thing. So whether you believe because it's right to, or because it benefits you in the long run, you are really doing the same thing.

Otherwise you are saying there is a good choice that does not benefit us as much in the long run, but is somehow more noble and glorifies God more than the one that does. The Bible never suggests this. Nor does the Bible suggest that long term rational self-interest is a bad thing. In fact, it reveals just the opposite. The Bible clearly says "be saved" and "save yourself." Paul said run the race to gain the prize. That appeals to rational self-interest.

Nothing wrong with believing because it saves you. Nothing at all. When it comes to your eternal soul, Jesus said there was no price too high.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But what would God say to those who discarded faith and His word?

I couldn't just let this one pass by.

I have no concern that God would require that we believe the Bible is His very words.

First of all, if anyone understands the limitation of words to covey understanding it has to be God ; who has to condescend to our particular language, and the limited understanding of our day, age, or times.

Second, if God is speaking thru the books of the Bible, He's sort of stuck and limited. Cuz He has no choice but to do it thru flawed men, of very little understanding and knowledge (Bronze and Iron age understanding).

And finally. If I don't buy that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God that's one less thing to distract from where my faith belongs: in God. So not believing in the book does not necessarily result in loss of faith. It can leave us with only one place to put our faith: in God. And isn't that where, by the way, the book tells us to place our faith?

Now personally:
It's not that I'm not seeking the words of God. In fact I'm looking everywhere, even in nature and nature's laws (the only book written by God's own hands, not men's). And I'm spending much of my days seeking God's speakings.

Do I look in the Bible? Yes! And I study the evidence of the changes -- editing, additions, and deletions -- of the text of the books; trying to sort thru that which is of man and which is of God.

I also look into the Pseudepigrapha and Apocryphal books, seeking that maybe God is speaking there. That's because I want God's words so bad that I have all portals wide open.

I'm actually obsessed with seeking God's words, God's speakings ... from everywhere and anywhere ... even from you bro Ohio ... and all the rest of the fine gals and guys on this forum.

But just because I'm seeking does not mean I buy into all I look into. In fact, it's frustrating. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack ... or panning for gold. And sometimes God doesn't speak thru anything, but from within. Actually, book(s), or no book(s), in the end, that's the only real speaking.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I couldn't just let this one pass by.

I have no concern that God would require that we believe the Bible is His very words.

First of all, if anyone understands the limitation of words to covey understanding it has to be God ; who has to condescend to our particular language, and the limited understanding of our day, age, or times.

Second, if God is speaking thru the books of the Bible, He's sort of stuck and limited. Cuz He has no choice but to do it thru flawed men, of very little understanding and knowledge (Bronze and Iron age understanding).

And finally. If I don't buy that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God that's one less thing to distract from where my faith belongs: in God. So not believing in the book does not necessarily result in loss of faith. It can leave us with only one place to put our faith: in God. And isn't that where, by the way, the book tells us to place our faith?

Now personally:
It's not that I'm not seeking the words of God. In fact I'm looking everywhere, even in nature and nature's laws (the only book written by God's own hands, not men's). And I'm spending much of my days seeking God's speakings.

Do I look in the Bible? Yes! And I study the evidence of the changes -- editing, additions, and deletions -- of the text of the books; trying to sort thru that which is of man and which is of God.

I also look into the Pseudepigrapha and Apocryphal books, seeking that maybe God is speaking there. That's because I want God's words so bad that I have all portals wide open.

I'm actually obsessed with seeking God's words, God's speakings ... from everywhere and anywhere ... even from you bro Ohio ... and all the rest of the fine gals and guys on this forum.

But just because I'm seeking does not mean I buy into all I look into. In fact, it's frustrating. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack ... or panning for gold. And sometimes God doesn't speak thru anything, but from within. Actually, book(s), or no book(s), in the end, that's the only real speaking.

Harold,

I appreciate this explanation. However, I have one question. Since you obviously reserve for yourself the right of final approval on what is God's word and what isn't (for you), how does God tell you something you really don't want to hear? How do you tell the difference between what isn't true and what you don't want to be true; or conversely, what is true and what you wish were true?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Contrary to your human rationale, God has commanded men everywhere to believe. He will also address our works, either to approve and reward, or to punish and not know.

You got thinks mixed up, but hey, everything goes on this "dark side of the forum."

Wow. Didn't really read the post did you?

I am fully behind that everyone should believe. My issue is with claims of belief that do not actually require belief.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Wow. Didn't really read the post did you?

I am fully behind that everyone should believe. My issue is with claims of belief that do not actually require belief.

Really? I thought you were saying that there were legitimate reasons to believe and illegitimate reasons. The Bible thought doesn't differentiate between reasons to believe. It just says believe.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold,

I appreciate this explanation. However, I have one question. Since you obviously reserve for yourself the right of final approval on what is God's word and what isn't (for you), how does God tell you something you really don't want to hear? How do you tell the difference between what isn't true and what you don't want to be true; or conversely, what is true and what you wish were true?

I generally agree with the idea that the Bible is God's word. But does it actually say that?

And when it comes to those other sources that Harold mentioned, like the Apocryphal books, how is it that we are so sure that those are not of value "for teaching, for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness"? I haven't read them and probably won't. But are we really that sure? Different groups of Christians have different ideas. And those ideas change over time.

And I didn't see Harold say that he reserved the right to decide what was scripture and what wasn't. Just that he had some problems with some of it. As if he was the first person to go through this. Seems that a few of the writers did so themselves.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Really? I thought you were saying that there were legitimate reasons to believe and illegitimate reasons. The Bible thought doesn't differentiate between reasons to believe. It just says believe.

Not much different than Ohio's post.

What is belief? Saying it once? Calling "Oh Lord Jesus" three times? Going to church? Following all the commandments (at least as much as possible)?

Seems that belief was not in a proposition, but in a person who claimed to be the Lord of his followers. It would seem that a lack of actual following would be evidence that there was no actual belief. No matter what was said or claimed.

If I have a mental assent because it is the better bet, do I actually believe? Or just say it because I've been told that saying it is all that is really required? The answer is beyond what is said. It is beyond the claim of having said some words once upon a time.

I did not say anything about the reasons to believe. I said that belief is more than a conceptualizing once upon a time because it is a better bet. But if I accept that bet and decide to consider the meaning of believing, and as a result, I come to believe, then that is good.

But "that's an interesting way to put it, so I guess I will believe" isn't belief. It could be the gateway to come to belief. But in the manner that I paraphrased it above, it is not really belief. And I have heard that people who have read more of Pascal's writings have said that he did not presume that as belief. He expected the idea to be the beginning of a decision to at least take a serious look at Christianity, and more specifically Christ, and come to believe. In that context, the wager is sound.

And that is all I ever said.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold,

I appreciate this explanation. However, I have one question. Since you obviously reserve for yourself the right of final approval on what is God's word and what isn't (for you), how does God tell you something you really don't want to hear? How do you tell the difference between what isn't true and what you don't want to be true; or conversely, what is true and what you wish were true?

Bro Igzy, thanks for your sincere questions. But I'm at a loss as to how to explain to you how God speaks to me ; any more than I can tell you how I play the harmonica. As to God telling me what I don't want to hear it's happened too many times to count. For example, I didn't want to hear that the local church is a cult. I avoid pain and it hurt way too much for me to like it.

As to the Pseudepigrapha and Apocryphal books, first it's pretty clear why they weren't included in the canon. After all, you'd think the Gospel of Peter would be included, but then we'd have to believe in a walking talking cross.

However, one of the values of reading such books is that they provide a window in how people back then thought ; and what symbology meant to them, and how it was bantered about in those days.

That may mean nothing to you, but it speaks volumes to me. It's like God is saying, "take a look over here, and see what you see. I want to show you some pretty crazy stuff."

And don't get me wrong. I'm no scholar on those types of books. I'm no Bart Ehrman. I don't make my living off knowing, and teaching, such stuff. And I'm still not done reading them all. I'm forever reading something, even Jehovah's Witness publications. Why not? It can't hurt. And I usually learn something I didn't know before. God can speak from/thru anything ... and when it happens it's a pleasant surprise ... even when it hurts ... even when it proves I've been wrong wrong wrong (I never like that). But Nee and Lee, except for when they come up here, I shy away from. I learned just about enough from them already. I must move on, but to where I don't know.

Okay, I'm gonna pull a J4M move, and quote scripture to give my words the weight of God. So listen up for words directly from God:

Jer 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Dave, that's exactly what an oxymoron is--something that is self-contradicting.

ox·y·mo·ron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

In fact, it's funny, because the statement, "It's not self-contradicting. It's an oxymoron," is itself an oxymoron, and so also self-contradicting. That's a classic. Did you mean it to be funny? If so, .

When I made the statement, "There are no absolutes" it was intentionally contradictory about the dialog between you and zeek. When you didn't get it and said it was self-contradictory I added the word oxymoron but I am not sure you get it yet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

When I made the statement, "There are no absolutes" it was intentionally contradictory about the dialog between you and zeek. When you didn't get it and said it was self-contradictory I added the word oxymoron but I am not sure you get it yet.

Thinking in absolutes goes off the rails. For example, What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. The absolutes are "unstoppable" and, "immovable." That's why thinking in absolutes creates absurdities.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

When I made the statement, "There are no absolutes" it was intentionally contradictory about the dialog between you and zeek. When you didn't get it and said it was self-contradictory I added the word oxymoron but I am not sure you get it yet.

No, I don't, because like I said "There are no absolutes" is inherently self-contradictory. I'm not sure you get that yet.

So you probably should try to express what you mean in less confusing terms.

I myself would say, there are absolutes, but not everything is an absolute, and we have to figure out which is which.

But in general I agree that insisting that one's viewpoint is an absolute is a characteristic of a fundamentalist. I don't look at my own opinion that way, but I hold my opinion because I think it is better than others I've considered. Doesn't mean it can't change.

But saying "there are no absolutes" comes across as strident, unyielding and, ironically, fundamentalist a statement as any.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

However, one of the values of reading such books is that they provide a window in how people back then thought ; and what symbology meant to them, and how it was bantered about in those days.

I agree you can learn a lot from reading historical books. But to me there is a difference between canon and other writings.

I believe God has put his stamp on the Bible. I believe what was left out was sovereign. The Apocrypha is not a big deal because there is not much doctrine in it. But the reason the Catholics like it is it supports their doctrine about praying to the dead. Does anyone think praying to the dead is a central matter of the faith?

I just don't think God would put the world in a situation where it's every man for himself in figuring out what the basic message is. I believe he would give us some surety and not put us in a position of always wondering about every passage of every book in the world that might or might not be God's speaking.

So he starts us with the Bible, OT and NT, but from there says "interpret it." That to me would be a very wise beginning. Otherwise it's either too general and fuzzy, or too specific (like if Lee's outlines were canon).

So though you can learn from other books and I'm sure God can speak from them, I think it's a mistake to consider them as authoritative as the Bible. I see no reason to think that God just scattered his speaking equally every which way and we have to figure it all out. Jesus himself confirmed the OT.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I did not say anything about the reasons to believe. I said that belief is more than a conceptualizing once upon a time because it is a better bet. But if I accept that bet and decide to consider the meaning of believing, and as a result, I come to believe, then that is good.

But "that's an interesting way to put it, so I guess I will believe" isn't belief. It could be the gateway to come to belief. But in the manner that I paraphrased it above, it is not really belief. And I have heard that people who have read more of Pascal's writings have said that he did not presume that as belief. He expected the idea to be the beginning of a decision to at least take a serious look at Christianity, and more specifically Christ, and come to believe. In that context, the wager is sound.

And that is all I ever said.

Ok, fair enough. I think everyone understood that the simple mental apprehension of the logic of Pascal's wager wasn't enough. It has to impress you enough to push you to real faith and repentance. Perhaps it alone could not. But that's really academic because we don't deal with such ideas in a vacuum. We deal with them in the context of everything else we know.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thinking in absolutes goes off the rails.

This is also a self-contradictory idea, because the statement itself is an absolute one.

So if I agree with your absolute statement, agreeing with it will send me off the rails. That's basically what you are saying.

I know that's not what you really meant, but it's what you said.

So if the statement "There are no absolutes" is inherently contradictory, that implies that there probably are absolutes. Though it doesn't tell us which things are absolutes. Therefore, thinking in absolutes is at least sometimes correct. Saying it is never correct is an inherently absurd statement and cannot be true.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree you can learn a lot from reading historical books. But to me there is a difference between canon and other writings.

I believe God has put his stamp on the Bible.

I see your comments about historical books much the same as you. But as far as the canon, if we consider its development, it was men that put their stamp on it ; men that wrote it, and men afterwards, sometimes long afterwards, that put their stamp on it. And from what I've read and understand, all flawed, and sometimes not even appearing to be Christ-like men in the least.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jesus himself confirmed the OT.

Because Jesus4Me has made this point (more than once - hammering on it really), to prove the OT was affirmed by Jesus, I feel to comment on this.

First, Jesus was a Jew. Second, he was speaking to Jews. Third, the gospel writers were Jews. So what book do you expect Jesus, his followers, and the gospel writers, to use? >the Tao Te Ching (Taoism, 500 yrs prior Jesus), or the Bhagavad Gita, Hinduism, also prior?

Seems to me that many times Jesus uses their sacred scriptures against them. They believed in their scriptures, pretty much worshiped them. and believed G-d spoke thru them.

But they failed to believe that God was still moving, like in their sacred stories of old.

And Jesus used their holy writ and turned them on them. Why, because as is written he came to the house of Israel. As was written by Jews. Jews who's only reference material was their Torah (or Tanakh - mostly Septuagint-LXX-Greek) at that time.

So I don't take Jesus' references to the OT in the same way you and Jesus4Me seem to be taking it. I see a different possibility at work. I see Jews steeped in the OT. I see Jewish gospels writers, that back weave references to the OT into the narrative, actually putting those references into the mouth of Jesus.

And why not? Jews talking to Jews? What else do you expect?

So why treat the canon like the Jews took their Tanakh? I thought Jesus freed us from that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

When I made the statement, "There are no absolutes" it was intentionally contradictory about the dialog between you and zeek. When you didn't get it and said it was self-contradictory I added the word oxymoron but I am not sure you get it yet.

As the originator of this thread I must stipulate that there will be absolutely no irony on this thread !

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is also a self-contradictory idea, because the statement itself is an absolute one.

So if I agree with your absolute statement, agreeing with it will send me off the rails. That's basically what you are saying.

You finally get it bro Igzy. Absolutes lead to absurdity.

But in truth, we can't stop thinking in absolutes ... and going off the rails with them. And that's absolute ... hahahaha .. as I go off the rails and into the ravine.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I see your comments about historical books much the same as you. But as far as the canon, if we consider its development, it was men that put their stamp on it ; men that wrote it, and men afterwards, sometimes long afterwards, that put their stamp on it. And from what I've read and understand, all flawed, and sometimes not even appearing to be Christ-like men in the least.

Okay, but so what? Basically you are saying you think the whole idea of inspired, inerrant text is impossible, that God is incapable of accomplishing such a thing through flawed people and so you'd rather not consider it. Sounds like you have a pretty feckless God.

So I don't take Jesus' references to the OT in the same way you and Jesus4Me seem to be taking it. I see a different possibility at work. I see Jews steeped in the OT. I see Jewish gospels writers, that back weave references to the OT into the narrative, actually putting those references into the mouth of Jesus.

And why not? Jews talking to Jews? What else do you expect?

So why treat the canon like the Jews took their Tanakh? I thought Jesus freed us from that.

I don't think this is the most reasonable conclusion at all. I just don't understand your reasoning here.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

You finally get it bro Igzy. Absolutes lead to absurdity.

But in truth, we can't stop thinking in absolutes ... and going off the rails with them. And that's absolute ... hahahaha .. as I go off the rails and into the ravine.

That's not fair, because you know that's not what I meant.

Absolutes don't lead to absurdities. Claiming they don't exist does. That's what I said.

Please try to keep things straight. And please don't put words in my mouth again.

Thank you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ok, fair enough. I think everyone understood that the simple mental apprehension of the logic of Pascal's wager wasn't enough. It has to impress you enough to push you to real faith and repentance. Perhaps it alone could not. But that's really academic because we don't deal with such ideas in a vacuum. We deal with them in the context of everything else we know.

I would say that you are mostly correct. Yet within fundamentalism, and even evangelicalism outside of the fundamentalist dogma, is a thought that someone can move from totally ignorant to believer in little more than a few minutes, and then leave it all behind without any negative consequence before the day is over. Yet we trot out Calvinism and declare them eternally saved.

I'm not so sure.

No, we tend to withhold our judgment as to the reality of those kinds of salvation, but we are still more prone to simply accept them than question them. I would say that it is probably better to take the loving position and try to shepherd them forward in faith. But from the standpoint of truth/reality, there really may be nothing there. It is not our position to declare that it is not. But at the same time it is not invalid to question the idea because maybe it will push us to be more than just those who limit their Christian outreach to what could be called "altar call" salvation with nothing to follow-on.

We need reasons for people to start to consider. Whether it is a Pascal's Wager or just observing the lives of people who call themselves Christians, or something else, we should be ready to work with any of it.

But there is a segment of "our end" of the Christian pool that tends to think that checking the right box is the only thing and everything. And those people can lull the otherwise serious taker of Pascal's Wager into a false sense of security.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that you are mostly correct. Yet within fundamentalism, and even evangelicalism outside of the fundamentalist dogma, is a thought that someone can move from totally ignorant to believer in little more than a few minutes, and then leave it all behind without any negative consequence before the day is over. Yet we trot out Calvinism and declare them eternally saved.

I'm not so sure.

No, we tend to withhold our judgment as to the reality of those kinds of salvation, but we are still more prone to simply accept them than question them. I would say that it is probably better to take the loving position and try to shepherd them forward in faith. But from the standpoint of truth/reality, there really may be nothing there. It is not our position to declare that it is not. But at the same time it is not invalid to question the idea because maybe it will push us to be more than just those who limit their Christian outreach to what could be called "altar call" salvation with nothing to follow-on.

We need reasons for people to start to consider. Whether it is a Pascal's Wager or just observing the lives of people who call themselves Christians, or something else, we should be ready to work with any of it.

But there is a segment of "our end" of the Christian pool that tends to think that checking the right box is the only thing and everything. And those people can lull the otherwise serious taker of Pascal's Wager into a false sense of security.

I pretty much agree with you. However, I'm not sure Pascal's Wager would be of much interest to people who are looking to just check a box. Seems like those kinds of people shy away from logical arguments and tend toward emotional ones.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's not fair, because you know that's not what I meant.

Absolutes don't lead to absurdities. Claiming they don't exist does. That's what I said.

Please try to keep things straight. And please don't put words in my mouth again.

Thank you.

Just having some fun with you. Would I be putting words in your mouth if I said you are defending absolutes because you believe that God is the truest and highest absolute? The absolute of absolutes?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just having some fun with you. Would I be putting words in your mouth if I said you are defending absolutes because you believe that God is the truest and highest absolute? The absolute of absolutes?

No. Like I said, I believe there are some absolutes. God being one.

And I can take a joke. And if that's all it was...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But as far as the canon, if we consider its development, it was men that put their stamp on it ; men that wrote it, and men afterwards, sometimes long afterwards, that put their stamp on it. And from what I've read and understand, all flawed, and sometimes not even appearing to be Christ-like men in the least.

I am wondering why you don't see guys like Bart Ehrman in the same light? If a man serves God, you only look for his flaws. If a man discredits the scripture, then you accept whatever he says.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you define "certain" as "provable" then I agree that certainty is hard to come by. However, if you define certain as "overwhelmingly obvious" then I think we can be certain. I feel certain. Of course, zeek would probably say that's just my opinion.

Pascal disagrees with you. He said, "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him." According to Pascal's reasoning, God's existence is by no means obvious.

But to me, to assert or deny the existence of God is a mistake. As the source of everything that exists, God cannot be said to exist. God must be Existence. That is, God is not a being but rather Being Itself. Every true proposition regarding God is a expression of this fact. Your proposition that God is Truth insofar as it is true is consistent with this fact. Nothing can exist without God. God did not only create the world in the past, without God, nothing can exist in the present. In God "we live and move and have our being" as Paul said.

This can be expressed metaphorically by saying that everything that exists "partakes of" or "participates in" God. Any putative thing that does not partake of or participate in God does not exist. It has no being.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Pascal disagrees with you. He said, "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him." According to Pascal's reasoning, God's existence is by no means obvious.

But to me, to assert or deny the existence of God is a mistake. As the source of everything that exists, God cannot be said to exist. God must be Existence. That is, God is not a being but rather Being Itself. Every true proposition regarding God is a expression of this fact. Your proposition that God is Truth insofar as it is true is consistent with this fact. Nothing can exist without God. God did not only create the world in the past, without God, nothing can exist in the present. In God "we live and move and have our being" as Paul said.

This can be expressed metaphorically by saying that everything that exists "partakes of" or "participates in" God. Any putative thing that does not partake of or participate in God does not exist. It has no being.

Hear! Hear! Preach it brother preach it!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I don't, because like I said "There are no absolutes" is inherently self-contradictory. I'm not sure you get that yet.

So you probably should try to express what you mean in less confusing terms.

I myself would say, there are absolutes, but not everything is an absolute, and we have to figure out which is which.

But in general I agree that insisting that one's viewpoint is an absolute is a characteristic of a fundamentalist. I don't look at my own opinion that way, but I hold my opinion because I think it is better than others I've considered. Doesn't mean it can't change.

But saying "there are no absolutes" comes across as strident, unyielding and, ironically, fundamentalist a statement as any.

David Hume argues that, “no proof can be derived from any fact, of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there anything of which we can be certain, if we doubt this” (Treatise 2645) I recall back in 1969 when I was passing out tracts while attending Bible College (before I became involved in the LC) on the boardwalk in Santa Cruz each Saturday I spoke with a student from Berkley who quoted Hume stating there are no absolutes. I thought to myself at the time that the statement was an absolute by its very definition. However, if we read Hume correctly it is not an absolute because he was a pragmatist and from his perspective pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. Thus, our perspectives are always marred whatever we believe to be the absolute truth. Yes, it is contradictory but only if we take it at face value. From a Biblical standpoint, I would agree with you that fundamentalists take everything at face value not allowing for other factors.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

As the originator of this thread I must stipulate that there will be absolutely no irony on this thread !

Sorry about the irony but it may persist.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am wondering why you don't see guys like Bart Ehrman in the same light? If a man serves God, you only look for his flaws. If a man discredits the scripture, then you accept whatever he says.

Not true at all. Bart doesn't claim his work is inspired of God, and admits he's flawed.

And why does it trouble you when I point out that men that serve God are flawed, and when I point out that both the men that wrote scripture (claimed to be inspired of God, by flawed men later), and that the men that selected the books of the canon (not even claimed to be inspired of God) were flawed men?

Aren't I being like the apostle Paul? (except for the killing part): "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" who was clearly flawed.

Hey, maybe everyone is flawed. How 'bout that? And our problem is giving them that "serve God" more credit than is due to them? Isn't that what we did with Lee, and Titus in your case?

For that reason I think the preamble to the five fundamentals should be: "All humans are flawed, Christian or otherwise (and so are we)."

Besides, isn't it written by flawed men that, Jesus said something about those that left themselves up? Something about them being brought low? Maybe when I bring down "men of God" I'm inspired of Jesus. (To hear from Christians with a persecution complex, maybe not.)

But thanks bro Ohio, for reminding me that I'm flawed. I'm single. And as a result, since divorce, don't get reminded as much as I prolly should.

It's said, we tend to see our flaws in others. Perhaps I see flawed people because I'm flawed ... or should I say, human? like everyone else ... like even "men of God" -- or those that lift themselves up as such.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not true at all. Bart doesn't claim his work is inspired of God, and admits he's flawed.
.

And that's my point. Guy like Ehrman becomes a rich and famous "scholar" by "undermining" the scripture to all the dumb sheep out there, and you promote him because "he admits that he is flawed."

Oh the irony!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Pascal disagrees with you. He said, "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him." According to Pascal's reasoning, God's existence is by no means obvious.

I disagree with Pascal here. Clearly his apprehension of God was intellectual, not experiential.

But to me, to assert or deny the existence of God is a mistake. As the source of everything that exists, God cannot be said to exist. God must be Existence. That is, God is not a being but rather Being Itself. Every true proposition regarding God is a expression of this fact. Your proposition that God is Truth insofar as it is true is consistent with this fact. Nothing can exist without God. God did not only create the world in the past, without God, nothing can exist in the present. In God "we live and move and have our being" as Paul said.

This is basically pantheism. "Being itself" is deified. So if you exist, you are part of God. My experience tells me otherwise.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's my point. Guy like Ehrman becomes a rich and famous "scholar" by "undermining" the scripture to all the dumb sheep out there, and you promote him because "he admits that he is flawed."

Oh the irony!

Ehrman doesn't need my promotion. Any serious Bible student, without blinders, will find him. Few reach the lay persons as well as Ehrman. And the fact that he's agnostic only means he's an objective teacher of the Bible ... without a presupposed spin or bias. That's why he writes for Bible scholars and seminaries.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is basically pantheism. "Being itself" is deified. So if you exist, you are part of God. My experience tells me otherwise.

Simply putting a heresy label on my proposition doesn't refute it. To refute a proposition you have to show how it is false. Furthermore, you haven't explained what you mean by pantheism. If you mean that everything is God, I don't claim that. On the contrary, no thing is God. That's the problem with claim that God is a being even the "supreme being." It makes God a being among beings-- a thing among things. As Being, God is unique-- in a category by Himself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is basically pantheism. "Being itself" is deified. So if you exist, you are part of God. My experience tells me otherwise.

Not to nitpick but more like panentheism.

And how does your experience tell you that In God "we [don't] live and move and have our being?"

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the fact that he's agnostic only means he's an objective teacher of the Bible ... without a presupposed spin or bias. That's why he writes for Bible scholars and seminaries.

Harold, what have you been smoking this time? Bart Ehrman is a stone cold, flat out ATHEIST, and he has made this very clear in most of the speeches and debates in the last number of years. He calls himself an "agnostic" with regard to us possessing anything close to the original manuscrits, but clearly and strongly admits that in practice he is a flat out atheist. You, of course, know this very well but you want to use the term of "agnostic" because you are trying to make him out to be without "spin or bias". Ehrman has also made it very clear that if somehow THE ORIGINALS - the original autographs written from the hand of the apostles - were somehow discovered HE WOULD STILL NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF THE GOSPEL or that God even exists. So this is HIS presupposed spin and bias - that the writers of the New Testament were liars and frauds. He calls John, Peter, and Paul liars - that they are bearing false witness when they claim to have seen the resurrected Christ.

Ehrman has abandoned the Christian faith and become a traitor to the One who bled and died for him. The fact that he is an expert in the assembly, collating and verification of the Greek manuscripts IS ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IRRELAVENT with regard to the main claims of Jesus Christ, the early apostles and writers of the New Testament. Ehrman clearly admits that the manuscripts that we do have do NOT misrepresent, much less contradict, ANY of the main claims of The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, Ehrman admits that WE HAVE THE GOSPEL AS RELATED BY CHRIST AND THE EARLY APOSTLES, he just does NOT believe said Gospel.

So Harold, sorry to disappoint you, but your hero doesn't teach quite what you claim he does. And he is probably one of the most biased "biblical scholars" on the face of the earth, and he proudly proclaims this fact! So you need to start looking elsewhere when it comes to confirming your skepticism and disbelief of the claims of The Gospel. Telling God that you didn't belief the Gospel because of "variants in the manuscripts" (NONE, NOT ONE of which disputes or contradicts the main claims of Christ and the Apostles) is not going to work out very well for you, I'm afraid.

[Ohio]

My name is Ohio, and I approve this message.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Simply putting a heresy label on my proposition doesn't refute it. To refute a proposition you have to show how it is false. Furthermore, you haven't explained what you mean by pantheism. If you mean that everything is God, I don't claim that. On the contrary, no thing is God. That's the problem with claim that God is a being even the "supreme being." It makes God a being among beings-- a thing among things. As Being, God is unique-- in a category by Himself.

I didn't call it heresy. I just said it was pantheism.

I'm sorry, maybe I really don't understand what you are talking about. What does it mean to say God is "Being itself?" Sounds really "deep." Too deep for me.

I really don't see the "problem" with God being a being among beings, other than that you don't like the idea. For me, God is personal and he wants to share his wealth with other persons, so he made some. The wealth he shares is himself, which we gain through a personal relationship with him. Simple. I don't see the problem with that. That's what all my study and experience has led me to. It works for me and fills me with joy and purpose.

zeek, you are free to believe what you want. I can't "show it is false" anymore than you can show what I believe is false. What you are sharing may make sense to you. But I don't get it or recognize it as being true.

We can philosophize all day and not get anywhere. My question is, what do your beliefs do for you, and why are you here pushing them? What are you trying to accomplish?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not to nitpick but more like panentheism.

And how does your experience tell you that In God "we [don't] live and move and have our being?"

If you define God as "existence itself" then either you are saying nothing or you are saying to exist is to be God. That's pantheism.

As far "living and moving and having our being in God," that can be interpreted in many ways, including simply that God is omnipresent.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Harold, sorry to disappoint you, but your hero doesn't teach quite what you claim he does.

O me O my. Why does that always happen? The way to lose a hero is to get to know him. So ... in the end ... all my hero's let me down. Now I'm hero-less. And have no one to calm my PTBS (Post-Traumatic Bible Syndrome). Bart was pretty good at that. But I guess he was just a temporary relief.

Maybe I need to dose up on Jesus4Me. He's a walking talking Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't call it heresy. I just said it was pantheism.

So pantheism isn't heresy to you?

I'm sorry, maybe I really don't understand what you are talking about. What does it mean to say God is "Being itself?"

That is the ontological question: What is being itself? What is that which is not a special being or a group of beings, not something concrete or something abstract, but rather something which is always thought implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, if something is said to be? Thinkers have long asked the question of being as being. To ask it is to investigate the character of everything that is in so far as it is. The question arises from the shock that there is something instead of nothing. Thought must start with being. It can't go behind it, as the form of the question itself shows. If one asks why there is not nothing, one attributes being even to nothing! Thought is based on being, and it cannot leave this basis. But thought can imagine the negation of everything that is. Mythology[in the positive sense], cosmogony, and metaphysics have tried to answer the question of being. For example, the Resurrection is a symbol of the power of Being to resist and overcome nonbeing.

Sounds really "deep." Too deep for me.

Deeper than your notion of "Truth" or God as "necessary being? This is the "Fundamentalism" thread after all. What better place to discuss the fundamentals of everything?

I really don't see the "problem" with God being a being among beings, other than that you don't like the idea.

It would make God dependent on another source for his existence. Thus, it would violate the aseity of God. Wikipedia defines aseity as "the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself and tells us that "notions of aseity as the highest principle go back at least to Plato and have been in wide circulation since Augustine..."

My question is, what do your beliefs do for you, and why are you here pushing them? What are you trying to accomplish?

My beliefs are expressions of my experience. To assert that I am "pushing them" is presumptuous. I am responding to your theological thesis i.e. pursuing truth through dialogue. That's how we got started on this discussion, remember?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you define God as "existence itself" then either you are saying nothing or you are saying to exist is to be God. That's pantheism

No that which exists is not existence itself. Everything depends on God for its existence. That doesn't mean that everything is God. But, it participates in God. Otherwise it is not. God is not only the creator but also the sustainer of everything that exists. So it is with Being.

As far "living and moving and having our being in God," that can be interpreted in many ways, including simply that God is omnipresent.

That's right. "Omnipresent" is another way of saying the same thing. Everything is in God and God is in everything. If not, everything would cease to exist. Thus, everything declares the glory of God by it's mere existence.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, what have you been smoking this time? Bart Ehrman is a stone cold, flat out ATHEIST, and he has made this very clear in most of the speeches and debates in the last number of years. He calls himself an "agnostic" with regard to us possessing anything close to the original manuscrits, but clearly and strongly admits that in practice he is a flat out atheist. You, of course, know this very well but you want to use the term of "agnostic" because you are trying to make him out to be without "spin or bias". Ehrman has also made it very clear that if somehow THE ORIGINALS - the original autographs written from the hand of the apostles - were somehow discovered HE WOULD STILL NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF THE GOSPEL or that God even exists. So this is HIS presupposed spin and bias - that the writers of the New Testament were liars and frauds. He calls John, Peter, and Paul liars - that they are bearing false witness when they claim to have seen the resurrected Christ.

Ehrman has abandoned the Christian faith and become a traitor to the One who bled and died for him. The fact that he is an expert in the assembly, collating and verification of the Greek manuscripts IS ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IRRELAVENT with regard to the main claims of Jesus Christ, the early apostles and writers of the New Testament. Ehrman clearly admits that the manuscripts that we do have do NOT misrepresent, much less contradict, ANY of the main claims of The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, Ehrman admits that WE HAVE THE GOSPEL AS RELATED BY CHRIST AND THE EARLY APOSTLES, he just does NOT believe said Gospel.

So Harold, sorry to disappoint you, but your hero doesn't teach quite what you claim he does. And he is probably one of the most biased "biblical scholars" on the face of the earth, and he proudly proclaims this fact! So you need to start looking elsewhere when it comes to confirming your skepticism and disbelief of the claims of The Gospel. Telling God that you didn't belief the Gospel because of "variants in the manuscripts" (NONE, NOT ONE of which disputes or contradicts the main claims of Christ and the Apostles) is not going to work out very well for you, I'm afraid.

Why attack the man? Why not simply debunk his scholarship?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why attack the man? Why not simply debunk his scholarship?

The Bible instructs us to keep a watchful eye on ones like Ehrman ...

17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

It's a little ironic that you would use this line about "debunking scholarship" in the defense of Ehrman, and not Lee.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why attack the man? Why not simply debunk his scholarship?

No worries my man, I was merely debunking Harold's outrageous claim:

Originally Posted by awareness

the fact that he's agnostic only means he's an objective teacher of the Bible ... without a presupposed spin or bias.

I doubt Ehrman himself would think that I am attacking him. He is a scientist of sorts. I simply am pointing out that his scientific studies have become detached from his belief systems (or lack thereof). Ehrman freely admits as much...I just wish some of the people who cite him would admit as much as well. Nevertheless, his scholarship is not in dispute so much as the conclusions he draws from it.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The fact that he is an expert in the assembly, collating and verification of the Greek manuscripts IS ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IRRELAVENT with regard to the main claims of Jesus Christ, the early apostles and writers of the New Testament.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No worries my man, I was merely debunking Harold's outrageous claim:


I doubt Ehrman himself would think that I am attacking him. He is a scientist of sorts. I simply am pointing out that his scientific studies have become detached from his belief systems (or lack thereof). Ehrman freely admits as much...I just wish some of the people who cite him would admit as much as well. Nevertheless, his scholarship is not in dispute so much as the conclusions he draws from it.

Okay I'm fair game. I get that.

But just to make it clear, about Bart Ehrman, and his agnosticism and atheism, I present it in his own words (from his personal blog):
http://ehrmanblog.org/am-i-an-agnostic-or-an-atheist/

Am I an Agnostic or an Atheist? (For Members)

QUESTION:

If you don’t think God exists, why do you refer to yourself as an agnostic? If this is your perspective, why not refer to yourself as an atheist? Could it be that you don’t believe the Christian God exists, but are open to the possibility that some kind of higher power exists (this is my perspective) and this is why you call yourself agnostic?

ANSWER:

I have been getting this question a lot, and so I’ve decided to try to explain my position a bit more fully here in this post.

The first thing to say is that I had no idea how militant both atheists and agnostics could be about their labels, until I became an agnostic myself! As a believer, I pretty much thought they were two amicably related positions, one saying that there is no God and the other saying that s/he doesn’t know if there is a God. But when I became an agnostic, I started getting some very spirited emails from atheists who were incensed that I called myself an agnostic, as if I were being intellectually dishonest (that’s not the case with the person who asks the question above – he is good spirited about it and just curious).

What I came to see is that many agnostics and many atheists think they have a corner on the truth. And they think the other side just won’t come clean. In short, many atheists seem to think that agnostics are just wimpy atheists; and many agnostics seem to think that atheists are just arrogant agnostics. That is to say: atheists think that agnostics are afraid to follow the truth of their convictions; and agnostics think that atheists claim to know far more than they could possibly know.

I’m not sure that’s the best way to think about the terms. For years I thought that an atheist was someone who said there was no God, and an agnostic was someone who said they didn’t know. I’ve changed my mind about that in the past year or two. Now I think that “atheism” is a statement about faith and “agnosticism” is a statement about epistemology (the “science of knowledge”).

If someone has a better way of explaining the terms, I’m open to it. But for now, for me, the way it works like this. An “atheist” is literally one who does not believe in a divine being. That is, s/he does not believe in God and so is “without God” (the literal meaning of the term).. An “agnostic” is one who says s/he does “not know” if there is a God (the literal meaning of that term; it’s about knowledge, not faith). And so they are dealing with two incommensurate entities: faith (atheism) and knowledge (agnosticism).

When it comes to faith, I am an atheist. I don’t believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God (or in Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo, etc) (I sometimes believe in Dionysus/Bacchus, but that’s another story…). But as to whether there is some greater spiritual power/intelligence in the universe, I’m agnostic. I don’t know if any such being exists. And in my opinion, either does anyone else!

That means that I’m not sure what to call myself. I suppose I lean toward “agnostic” rather than “atheist” simply because as a scholar and professional thinker I am, at the end of the day, more interested in “knowledge” than “faith.” Moreover, the term does seem to me to convey a greater sense of humility in the face of an incredibly awesome universe, about which I know so little. I happen to think that humility is a good thing in these circumstances. At the same time, I can understand why others may want to emphasize what they do not believe rather than what they do not know, and so call themselves atheist. (Why they are so incensed that I don’t follow suit, however, continues to be a mystery to me.)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by BartEhrman

When it comes to faith, I am an atheist.

All the rest of the stuff he wrote here is academic/philosophical fluff talk. The bottom line is that Ehrman is an atheist. It's like being pregnant...any qualification, proviso or caveat does absolutely nothing to ad or detract from the fact.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

All the rest of the stuff he wrote here is academic/philosophical fluff talk. The bottom line is that Ehrman is an atheist. It's like being pregnant...any qualification, proviso or caveat does absolutely nothing to ad or detract from the fact.

But when you say it it sounds real bad. And it is meant to.

I understand why you've got to keep pounding it. It's the same reason all fundamentalist reject Ehrman: He proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the Bible is not inerrant.

That's the very first plank of fundamentalism. So they've got to avoid his scholarly Bible and manuscript work, and shoot that damn messenger ... BANG! Shot with atheism right thru the heart!

And like the verse from Romans, that bro Ohio somehow managed to apply something said 2000 years ago to Bart Ehrman: "and turn away from them."

Bible inerrantists will exercise all kinds of gyrations, and jump thru all kinds of twisted loops and hoops of logic, to defend their first plank.

But Bart Ehrman proves beyond any shadow of doubt that it doesn't hold. And he's able to reach the lay Christians like few others, AND IS. So again, shoot that damn messenger straight away.

I'm glad we don't allow burning at the stake any more.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Quote from Ehrman, "When it comes to faith, I am an atheist. I don’t believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God (or in Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo, etc) (I sometimes believe in Dionysus/Bacchus, but that’s another story…). But as to whether there is some greater spiritual power/intelligence in the universe, I’m agnostic. I don’t know if any such being exists. And in my opinion, either does anyone else!"

The problem with taking Ehrman's statement out of context as UntoHim has done is that UntoHim is basically saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the "...traditional Judeo-Christian God" is an atheist. In addition UntoHim is implying that he believes in Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo etc but we know that UntoHim doesn't believe in those "gods" so in essence UntoHim is an atheist to the "gods" Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo etc. Thus, the way UntoHim has taken Ehrman's statement out of context, we all are atheists. This is exactly the way the Roman's viewed early Christians because they wouldn't believe in their "gods".

I prefer to take Ehrman's statement in context where he is stating that he is an agnostic, he doesn't know since the universe is so vast and there is so much he doesn't know about the universe. He is an agnostic. If he was an atheist, he wouldn't have to take so much grief from atheists which was in part why he wrote that explanation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I understand why you've got to keep pounding it. It's the same reason all fundamentalist reject Ehrman: He proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the Bible is not inerrant.

All Ehrman does is cast shadows of doubt. He has "proven" nothing about the scripture. All textual criticism Bible scholars know that the Bible is not a perfect duplication of the original autographs. They also know that such perfection does not exist in any document of antiquity.

Wikipedia says this ...

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978. The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those which exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "the autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."

Bart Ehrman has basically concluded, "aha, I found flaws in the Bible, hence I cannot believe in God any more." Ehrman is more about refusing to believe, rather than he is unable to believe.

If I could borrow from Dave's eloquent response: "As I see it, in several years Ehrman will be off on his own private island (arriving on a private runway with his own private plane and entourage) sitting with friends and family sipping on his beverage of choice. He will continue to give interviews and send messages out to the faithful who will still believe what he has to say. These type of individuals have been around every generation taking advantage of gullible individuals willing to "buy" into their "revelations". In time we'll find out if Ehrman is for real and if he is giving everyone a "Go back to Sleep - God is not Speaking to us".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

The problem with taking Ehrman's statement out of context as UntoHim has done is that UntoHim is basically saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the "...traditional Judeo-Christian God" is an atheist. In addition UntoHim is implying that he believes in Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo etc but we know that UntoHim doesn't believe in those "gods" so in essence UntoHim is an atheist to the "gods" Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo etc. Thus, the way UntoHim has taken Ehrman's statement out of context, we all are atheists. This is exactly the way the Roman's viewed early Christians because they wouldn't believe in their "gods".

I prefer to take Ehrman's statement in context where he is stating that he is an agnostic, he doesn't know since the universe is so vast and there is so much he doesn't know about the universe. He is an agnostic. If he was an atheist, he wouldn't have to take so much grief fromy atheists which was in part why he wrote that explanation.

I have long considered many of today's "atheists" to be idol worshippers.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

If he was an atheist, he wouldn't have to take so much .....

Originally Posted by BartEhrman

When it comes to faith, I am an atheist.

I know you can read Dave. (you apparently don't read my posts very carefully, but nonetheless I know you can read.)

Why is it so hard for you and Harold to just admit that Ehrman is an atheist? I suspect it is for the same reason that Local Churchers can't admit that Witness Lee was not the one minister with the one ministry for the age. It's a credibility problem. Ehrman claims to be a expert on the biblical manuscripts (which he is) and further admits that the main themes of said manuscripts have come down to us WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT ERROR THAT WOULD DISPUTE THE MAIN CLAIMS THEREIN, but simply does not believe in said claims. He doesn't believe in the God of the Old Testament. He doesn't believe Jesus Christ was who he said he was, or that he was the Son of God. He doesn't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles. He doesn't believe that Jesus Christ ascended to God and is seated with the Father in Heaven. EHRMAN IS AN ATHEIST AS IT RELATES TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. And he is an atheist for the exact same reason that all atheist are atheist. NO FAITH.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's the very first plank of fundamentalism. So they've got to avoid his scholarly Bible and manuscript work, and shoot that damn messenger ... BANG! Shot with atheism right thru the heart!

Harold, Harold, Harold. What scholarly Bible and manuscript work do you speak of? You mean where Ehrman finds early, genuine manuscripts that dispute ANY of the MAJOR claims of Christ or the early apostles? Keep looking dude, because there isn't any. NOT ONE. Your hero has admitted as much many times. In fact, he admits that even if we found THE ORIGINALS, THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS FROM THE SCRIPTURE WRITING APOSTLES HE WOULD NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF THEM. And neither would you my friend Harold. This is because "flesh and blood" does not reveal this to anyone. IT IS BY FAITH. God has provided us with enough. It is called the Gospel. And the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has made it to us intact and just as glorious as it came forth from the lips of Jesus Christ. Your hero admits as much. He also readily admits that he is just as bias as any scholar out there. He has an ax to grind and bone to pick AND HE ADMITS IT ALL THE TIME. You are just like the Leeites who can't admit their guru/hero is just a man like everybody else. Oh well. Live and learn.

Bible inerrantists will exercise all kinds of gyrations, and jump thru all kinds of twisted loops and hoops of logic, to defend their first plank.

Yep, kind of like stone cold atheists who go through all kinds of gyrations and jump thru all kinds of twisted loops and hoops of logic to say that they are really just altruistic agnostics, and that God has not proven anything to them. Oh well, Live and learn. But one thing is for sure...you better find a plank worth defending now....cause you might find yourself walking one on that day.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have long considered many of today's "atheists" to be idol worshippers.

Yeah, they are like those in Athens, those pagans (Ehrman=Pagan) that worshiped "The Unknown God."

But at least Paul gave "good pagan" to them, and spoke great paganese, seeking to reach them. He actually admitted that they were worshiping THE God that made every thing, but they didn't know it.

Maybe that's why Ehrman is so obsessed with the God he hates, and the Bible ... enough to give his whole life to it.

Methinks perchance that bro Ohio is just jealous of Bart Ehrman, because Bart knows his Bible better than he does.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Methinks perchance that bro Ohio is just jealous of Bart Ehrman, because Bart knows his Bible better than he does.

It's not about WHAT you know, but WHO you know. All the knowledge in the world can not save us from our debts to the law of God for our sins. We are uniquely justified by God only by knowing Him, not for knowing endless historical trivia about the transmission of the Biblical records. In the New Covenant we are uniquely blessed with "knowing Him." It is a profound tragedy that Ehrman has traded this for prosperity, fame, and the praises of man.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible instructs us to keep a watchful eye on ones like Ehrman ...

So, in your judgment those verses apply to Ehrman. He isn't working from within the community of faith like the ones Paul is talking about. I just look at his propositions about history in terms of the evidence. If it looks like he is biased for or against Christianity, then his case with regard to historic probability is weakened. But, that's true of any historical researcher on the subject.

It's a little ironic that you would use this line about "debunking scholarship" in the defense of Ehrman, and not Lee.

I don't get what you're saying. Lee was basically a preacher not a scholar like Ehrman. I don't view them as comparable for the most part.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, in your judgment those verses apply to Ehrman. He isn't working from within the community of faith like the ones Paul is talking about. I just look at his propositions about history in terms of the evidence. If it looks like he is biased for or against Christianity, then his case with regard to historic probability is weakened. But, that's true of any historical researcher on the subject.

Paul warned about both insiders (e.g. Acts 20.30) and outsiders (e.g. Acts 20.29).

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't get what you're saying. Lee was basically a preacher not a scholar like Ehrman. I don't view them as comparable for the most part.

Point was not whether one was considered a scholar or not, but why do you expect Ehrman to get better treatment on the forum than Lee?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul warned about both insiders (e.g. Acts 20.30) and outsiders (e.g. Acts 20.29).

Acts 20:29 says the the wolves will "come in among you", meaning they will pretend to be members of the community. Ehrman openly declares that he is not a believer so he isn't doing that.

Point was not whether one was considered a scholar or not, but why do you expect Ehrman to get better treatment on the forum than Lee?

Lee claimed to be an apostle like Paul who claimed to live an exemplary life. So it follows that he would be expected to live what he taught.

Ehrman only claims to be a professional New Testament scholar. The only expectation is that he would make accurate statements about the New Testament history. His life is irrelevant apart from that.

[OBW]

zeek just said something that has been my mantra on dealing with Lee for years.

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee claimed to be an apostle like Paul who claimed to live an exemplary life. So it follows that he would be expected to live what he taught.

Ehrman only claims to be a professional New Testament scholar. The only expectation is that he would make accurate statements about the New Testament history. His life is irrelevant apart from that.

So often people want to do Lee's "eat the chicken meat and throw away the bones and feathers" thing. But that is really only valid of sources that are not claiming to be of spiritual authority. Since Lee claims a superior spiritual position, even if just a poor Chinese preacher, his very being becomes a yardstick for his teachings. If his life is bad, then his teachings should be ignored. Just refuse him and move on to someone else.

But in the case of someone who doesn't even claim to believe, that criteria does not exist. If he says something true, then it is simply true. If he says something false, then it is simply false.

Meanwhile, a man who claims to have a superior stance before God who lies about anyone who disagrees with him, sues anyone who says things he doesn't like, protects his predator sons from censure by the churches he has given them some amounts of authority over, etc., gets the boot. Nothing more to discuss. Don't ask for a microphone. It is not his to even borrow.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

zeek just said something that has been my mantra on dealing with Lee for years.So often people want to do Lee's "eat the chicken meat and throw away the bones and feathers" thing. But that is really only valid of sources that are not claiming to be of spiritual authority. Since Lee claims a superior spiritual position, even if just a poor Chinese preacher, his very being becomes a yardstick for his teachings. If his life is bad, then his teachings should be ignored. Just refuse him and move on to someone else.

But in the case of someone who doesn't even claim to believe, that criteria does not exist. If he says something true, then it is simply true. If he says something false, then it is simply false.

Meanwhile, a man who claims to have a superior stance before God who lies about anyone who disagrees with him, sues anyone who says things he doesn't like, protects his predator sons from censure by the churches he has given them some amounts of authority over, etc., gets the boot. Nothing more to discuss. Don't ask for a microphone. It is not his to even borrow.

Like Ehrman, I still enjoy learning about the Bible. And I'd much rather learn from Ehrman, and other Bible scholars, than from Lee. In fact, I'd much rather even learn about the Bible from members of this forum, than from Lee. I now prefer learning from those that don't claim to be speaking for God. I no longer trust those that make that sort of claim.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So pantheism isn't heresy to you?

My point wasn't whether pantheism was heresy or not. My point was your beliefs seemed to corresponded to pantheism. You took exception to me accusing you of "heresy," as if to say I was making an accusatory value judgement about them. I wasn't doing that though, I was simply saying they sounded like pantheism.

That is the ontological question: What is being itself?

"Being" is simply an idea we ascribe to things that exist. It isn't a quality in and of itself apart from things that exist. God's being is unique in that it is eternal. It is what everything else is based on. God can also create. We have being too, but not eternal being in the same way he does.

But you can't take "being" or "existence" and separate it as a thing to itself, any more than you can take righteousness or mercy and treat them as if they were actually things in themselves. You can consider them as ideas. But they are not things that exist apart from other things. They are all qualities that were originally in God. They spring from God and go back to God. Because we are God's creation we can participle in those things, but only because he gave them to us.

God is "being" in the same sense that he is love or righteousness, but I wouldn't say he is "our being." He created us, and we have temporal being apart from him. He has that kind of creating power.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point wasn't whether pantheism was heresy or not. My point was your beliefs seemed to corresponded to pantheism. You took exception to me accusing you of "heresy," as if to say I was making an accusatory value judgement about them. I wasn't doing that though, I was simply saying they sounded like pantheism.

OK so you make no value judgment on pantheism. But, you are speaking in past tense now. Does that mean that my beliefs don't sound like pantheism to you anymore?

"Being" is simply an idea we ascribe to things that exist.

Sure, being and existing are synonymous. But, what do they mean?

It isn't a quality in and of itself apart from things that exist.

If being isn't a quality then why do we ascribe it to things as you said above?

God's being is unique in that it is eternal.

Right.

It is what everything else is based on.

I agree.

God can also create.

True

We have being too, but not eternal being in the same way he does.

Also true.

But you can't take "being" or "existence" and separate it as a thing to itself, any more than you can take righteousness or mercy and treat them as if they were actually things in themselves. You can consider them as ideas. But they are not things that exist apart from other things.

That all seems true as well.

They are all qualities that were originally in God. They spring from God and go back to God.

Right.

Because we are God's creation we can participate in those things, but only because he gave them to us.

What he gives us is Himself. What we participate in is Him.

God is "being" in the same sense that he is love or righteousness, but I wouldn't say he is "our being." He created us, and we have temporal being apart from him. He has that kind of creating power.

The way I am construing it, only God has the power of being. Everything that is only is insofar as it participates in God. "Temporal being" is to participate in God temporarily--within the confines of time. Only God is eternal. "Eternal life" means to participate in God beyond the confines of time. God's creating power is Being which is Himself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

. . . My point was your beliefs seemed to corresponded to pantheism. . . .

. . . . He created us, and we have temporal being apart from him. He has that kind of creating power.

So the creator and the created are two different "beings," things, or existences?

That makes sense until omnipresence is factored in. Then it becomes like pantheism, or actually, like panentheism.

Aren't we just preferring certain linguistical terms, and not preferring other certain linguistical terms?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK so you make no value judgment on pantheism. But, you are speaking in past tense now. Does that mean that my beliefs don't sound like pantheism to you anymore?

No, they still do sometimes. Sometimes I'm not exactly sure.

Originally Posted by zeek

If being isn't a quality then why do we ascribe it to things as you said above?

I never said it wasn't a quality. It simply has no substance apart from things that exist. It's just an idea until things exist. It's like "red." Red doesn't exist somewhere apart from red things. It only is when red things are. It existed in the mind of God, it was his idea. But it doesn't exist anywhere else by itself. Being is similar. It exists in God and he bestows it on others. But he can bestow being without bestowing himself. He can create things apart from himself.

What he gives us is Himself. What we participate in is Him.

We also participate in creation, and creation is not him, or else we're back to pantheism.

The way I am construing it, only God has the power of being. Everything that is only is insofar as it participates in God. "Temporal being" is to participate in God temporarily--within the confines of time. Only God is eternal. "Eternal life" means to participate in God beyond the confines of time. God's creating power is Being which is Himself.

Well, I don't see that "being" means participating in God, except in the eternal way. Temporal existence/being does not necessarily participate in God. The whole idea of needing to be born again sends the message that in order to participate in God we need something more than to just be created. Everyone is living, moving and having their beings in the air. But if you don't breathe it you are not participating in it.

The idea you are putting forth is not in line with the Christian message as I read it. It's a nice thought, but I don't see a compelling reason to believe it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the creator and the created are two different "beings," things, or existences?

That makes sense until omnipresence is factored in. Then it becomes like pantheism, or actually, like panentheism.

I think are confusing the terms "being" and "reality."


God is personal. There is no part of God that is not personal. To participate in God means to have a relationship with him. You don't participate in God simply by existing. You participate in God by relating to him in a personal manner.

Lee tried to concoct a theology in which the relationship with God could be impersonal. So he emphasized experiencing God as all kinds of things: water, food, air, wind, etc. He imagined that we could "drink" the Spirit apart from relating to the Spirit as a personal Being. But this approach is doomed because if you depersonalize God then you are not even dealing with God anymore.

It seems a lot of new age-y stuff does the same thing. It is imagined that if God is less than personal, then there will be "freedom" in participating, experiencing, enjoying him without having to deal with his thoughts, feelings and preferences. But this is a fool's errand, because it is precisely the thoughts, feelings and preferences of God which make him who he is, and which are worth taking part in!

It seems what you and zeek are putting forth is another stab at this, another way of trying to get God without getting his mind. Sort of like a "Stepford Wives" version of God. A Stepford God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think are confusing the terms "being" and "reality."


God is personal. There is no part of God that is not personal. To participate in God means to have a relationship with him. You don't participate in God simply by existing. You participate in God by relating to him in a personal manner.

Maybe so. If being isn't reality then I'm not only confused, but lost. Help me out bro Igzy ... please.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe so. If being isn't reality then I'm not only confused, but lost. Help me out bro Igzy ... please.

Reality is what is as a whole. Being is what you are, and what I am. These two beings are not the same instance of being. They are the same idea of being in abstract, but not the same instance of being in reality. If you take the being of everything and add it all up, that's reality. But the being of each thing is only a small part of the whole reality.

"Being" is an idea. It's not an essence that can exist by itself. Something has to be besides being for being to be, even if it is just a grain of sand, or an atom. But being does not exist separately, except as an idea. You can't have being without something else that possesses it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God is personal. There is no part of God that is not personal.

Really? Then why is God called a "mighty wind" which is impersonal instead of simply a "holy breath" which is personal? Why is he called "Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, none of which are persons?" Why, indeed did you refer to God as "The Truth" which is not literally a personal symbol? It seems as if, on some level, you recognize an impersonal aspects of God as well as a persona ones like Father and Son .

And why do you suppose that God has parts when orthodox theology teaches that God is perfectly simple? I thought simplicity was what you were going for.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Really? Then why is God called a "mighty wind" which is impersonal instead of simply a "holy breath" which is personal? Why is he called "Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, none of which are persons?" Why, indeed did you refer to God as "The Truth" which is not literally a personal symbol? It seems as if, on some level, you recognize an impersonal aspects of God as well as a persona ones like Father and Son .

And why do you suppose that God has parts when orthodox theology teaches that God is perfectly simple? I thought simplicity was what you were going for.

All these are metaphors describing what God is to us. In no instance when we contact God do we not contact a personal being. We might experience him as something like Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, but in each instance we are experiencing a person who is like these things to us in some way. It's a way of describing the attributes of God.

When the Bible says God is the [fill in the blank] it is saying he is the best example of that thing in reality. But the attributes of God are all spiritual and essential (or "inward" in our experience). The outward appearance is irrelevant. God as "bread" doesn't mean he is fluffy and doughy with a brown crust. It means he is basic, healthy nourishment. That's the essential meaning of "bread."

We describe people in such ways. We say of someone, "He's a rock." We mean he is steadfast. We call our spouses "Honey." We mean their persons are sweet to us. We don't mean that the guy is literally made of stone or our loved ones are thick, sticky liquid.

If you take these metaphors too far you miss the point of them. They are all references to characteristics of the person of God. Jesus after all said, "I" (personal pronoun) am the Bread." There are no impersonal aspects of God. As Van Til said, you always, at end, are confronted with a Person. You never, at end, are confronted with just brute fact. He's the "I AM," not the "IT IS."

By depersonalizing God Lee depersonalized relationships with God, which allowed him to depersonalize relationships with others, which led to treating people as objects and means to an end.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

All these are metaphors describing what God is to us. In no instance when we contact God do we not contact a personal being. We might experience him as something like Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, but in each instance we are experiencing a person who is like these things to us in some way. It's a way of describing the attributes of God.

When the Bible says God is the [fill in the blank] it is saying he is the best example of that thing in reality. But the attributes of God are all spiritual and essential (or "inward" in our experience). The outward appearance is irrelevant. God as "bread" doesn't mean he is fluffy and doughy with a brown crust. It means he is basic, healthy nourishment. That's the essential meaning of "bread."

We describe people in such ways. We say of someone, "He's a rock." We mean he is steadfast. We call our spouses "Honey." We mean their persons are sweet to us. We don't mean that the guy is literally made of stone or our loved ones are thick, sticky liquid.

If you take these metaphors too far you miss the point of them. They are all references to characteristics of the person of God. Jesus after all said, "I" (personal pronoun) am the Bread." There are no impersonal aspects of God. As Van Til said, you always, at end, are confronted with a Person. You never, at end, are confronted with just brute fact. He's the "I AM," not the "IT IS."

Thank you for taking the time to pen what the people of faith already knew, and spelling it out in a way which even a caveman could understand.

Originally Posted by Igzy

By depersonalizing God Lee depersonalized relationships with God, which allowed him to depersonalize relationships with others, which led to treating people as objects and means to an end.

This is perhaps one of your most insightful observations about the ministry of Witness Lee. Over the past several years, this thought has helped me to rethink my own Christian walk, after leaving the LCM.

I remember during the long series of messages entitled the "Perfecting Training," which WL gave prior to the "new way," he used Romans 8 to teach how we could "turn on our spirit" like a we flip a light switch on. It was merely a mechanical action, almost robotic, with little thought of relationship. I am quite sure that all LC leaders have been poorly influenced by this teaching and others. It is quite evident from the way they treat people.

[OBW]

Igzy,

I think zeek has a point concerning the personal aspects of God. Yes, God is personal, but not just personal. Some aspects of the "personal" side of modern theology are derived from our desires for relationships rather than from sound understanding of scripture.

Even where it is stated that He will never leave us or forsake us, that does not mean that we will always have the sense of his presence. That is a desire of many. We want to see God in everything. See his hand moving things in ways that benefit us. And so we go to great lengths to find God in the auto accident. Or when a loved one dies. And we may strike a cheery pose, but too often we are internally bombarded by doubts and questions. Why me? Or why them?

And that kind of thinking is what drives spiritual imbeciles to walk up to the person who just lost their child to SIDS and say something stupid like "God just wanted this precious one to be with Him." It doesn't help. We don't want them to be with God. We want them here. And at that time, God does not seem very personal. Even if you reject the stupid "God just wanted them" nonsense, God does not seem so personal. The only personal contact you can stand is the one who simply comes alongside and mourns with you.

And even when things seem normal, God is often not so "present," no mater how much you think you are drawing near. Not denying omnipresence. But even in the midst of that, there is nothing that makes him feel present. If experience is the yardstick of God, then there is no God. Or at least he is taking a vacation.

Fortunately, God is never on vacation. But he is not dutifully showing up every time anyone raises a prayer or has a need. And in these times, truth and obedience to truth are our ways forward.

From the beginning, man was given tasks. And one caveat. And God was not simply there with Adam and Eve, although he always was there. (Not trying to be difficult. But omnipresent and omni-engaged in every detail are two different things.)

We want everything about God to be personal. And we stretch credulity if we declare that even as breath, bread, water, etc., He is personal because a person has to take it in to get any benefit. But it is not personal. It is general. It is there for everyone, not just the personal ones. It is not for me. It is for mankind.

This quest for "personal" seems more like a quest to validate my uniqueness. At some level, we are all unique. But at another, we are all simply humans. Even the races are not all that different. Overall genetics are quite general among the whole human race.

Maybe it's time to realize that we are all unique . . . just like everyone else.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

All these are metaphors describing what God is to us.

True. What, if anything can be said about God that is not a metaphor?

In no instance when we contact God do we not contact a personal being.

How do you know this? What do you mean by "personal being?" It seems that in ordinary speech persons are always human. Perhaps God is only "personal" in a metaphorical sense.

We might experience him as something like Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, but in each instance we are experiencing a person who is like these things to us in some way. It's a way of describing the attributes of God.

Like I said, perhaps God being a person is also a metaphor. How can we determine this?

When the Bible says God is the [fill in the blank] it is saying he is the best example of that thing in reality. But the attributes of God are all spiritual and essential (or "inward" in our experience). The outward appearance is irrelevant. God as "bread" doesn't mean he is fluffy and doughy with a brown crust. It means he is basic, healthy nourishment. That's the essential meaning of "bread."

"Basic, healthy nourishment" is a metaphor too. God goes beyond every metaphor used to represent Him [including the word "Him"].

We describe people in such ways. We say of someone, "He's a rock." We mean he is steadfast. We call our spouses "Honey." We mean their persons are sweet to us. We don't mean that the guy is literally made of stone or our loved ones are thick, sticky liquid.

You haven't defined what you mean by "person." Don't persons have impersonal aspects? Your hand is not a person. Maybe God is similar. Maybe not.

If you take these metaphors too far you miss the point of them. They are all references to characteristics of the person of God. Jesus after all said, "I" (personal pronoun) am the Bread." There are no impersonal aspects of God. As Van Til said, you always, at end, are confronted with a Person. You never, at end, are confronted with just brute fact. He's the "I AM," not the "IT IS."

Without the inclusion of a personal aspect the word "God" does seem to lose an essential aspect of its meaning. But, why then did classical theology employ the term "persona" for the trinitarian hypostases but not for God himself?

By depersonalizing God Lee depersonalized relationships with God, which allowed him to depersonalize relationships with others, which led to treating people as objects and means to an end.

I noticed that too. I think a balanced view that takes the personal and the impersonal into account is healthier. But, can you point to anything besides human beings that are literally persons?

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, they [my ideas] still do sometimes[remind Igzy of pantheism]. Sometimes I'm not exactly sure.

If you would define what you mean by "pantheism", I might be able tell you if that definition corresponds to my understanding.

I never said it wasn't a quality. It simply has no substance apart from things that exist. It's just an idea until things exist.

Well, I don't see how being can be a quality. For, a quality can be simply added to something. But, can a quality cannot be added to nothing to create a being?

It's like "red." Red doesn't exist somewhere apart from red things. It only is when red things are. It existed in the mind of God, it was his idea. But it doesn't exist anywhere else by itself.

Red is a phenomena that depends on human perception and hence on the human mind. It is evoked by light within a certain range wavelengths. Since light precedes the human perception of it, such wavelengths must exist independently of the human perception of the color red.

Being is similar. It exists in God and he bestows it on others. But he can bestow being without bestowing himself. He can create things apart from himself.

Being is an absolute mystery. [So, you see, I do believe in at least one absolute.] If God is omnipotent, then God can do anything including what you propose. But, I think you are mistaken if you think you have explained Being since Being is a mystery, God is a mystery and omnipotence is a mystery. To explain one mystery with another is to mystify oneself.

We also participate in creation, and creation is not him, or else we're back to pantheism.

Yet you have said that God is omnipresent which means that God is in creation including every created thing. Is God there as the being of that thing or as a foreign entity or in some other way do you suppose?

Well, I don't see that "being" means participating in God, except in the eternal way. Temporal existence/being does not necessarily participate in God. The whole idea of needing to be born again sends the message that in order to participate in God we need something more than to just be created. Everyone is living, moving and having their beings in the air. But if you don't breathe it you are not participating in it.

So then God is not omnipresent because he is not in the non-Christian? Or could God be in the non-Christian but the non-Christian does not acknowledge it? There is an apparent conflict between two mysteries: one is Being, the other is being "born again." But, these aren't phenomena that can be explained or understood. So, the apparent conflict may be simply a result of the limits of human intellect.

The idea you are putting forth is not in line with the Christian message as I read it. It's a nice thought, but I don't see a compelling reason to believe it.

We once saw things as Witness Lee did, but now we don't. So our reading of the Christian message can change. "Not in line with the Christian message"? Will you deny that implies an accusation of heresy? I don't see compelling reasons for limiting my thought to your "reading."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see compelling reasons for limiting my thought to your "reading."

It's pretty clear that not limiting yourself is very important to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Reality is what is as a whole. Being is what you are, and what I am. These two beings are not the same instance of being. They are the same idea of being in abstract, but not the same instance of being in reality. If you take the being of everything and add it all up, that's reality. But the being of each thing is only a small part of the whole reality.

"Being" is an idea. It's not an essence that can exist by itself. Something has to be besides being for being to be, even if it is just a grain of sand, or an atom. But being does not exist separately, except as an idea. You can't have being without something else that possesses it.

That was great bro Igzy, and clearly expressed.

It's funny that being (beingness, for clarity) confuses me. After all, I am undeniably being, or I wouldn't be typing this. But then, since I was born I've been being, long before I had any chance of understanding it. Still, after a lifetime, I'm at a loss of explaining just what it is.

You say that "being is an idea." But it seems pretty real to me. In fact, it seems rather undeniably real, a real THING in and of itself. May as well say reality is an idea (some scientists recently claimed, or maybe conjectured, that the universe is actually a hologram of some sort - those crazy scientists - you'd think they're just human primates, or something) ; both seem funny to me.

But enough of those infantile sort of wonderings. Let's move on to this one:

Where is God?

I asked my mom this when I was just a wee little smart aleck tyke. Her answer was "in heaven." So considering your answer to what is reality -- the sum of all parts, or things, that have being -- we can add God, and heaven, to that big pile we call reality ; where we have our being.

So I'm am being, all the rest is being, God is being, and heaven is being. Add it up and we have reality, you're saying?

But just how is God a being? What kind of being? An invisible being, perhaps? A shapeless being? (omnipresent everywhere - but in heaven at the same time)?

The Bible seems ambivalent on this matter. In the Bible God is a physical being ; that walks in the cool of the day ; that sits down and eats with Abraham ; that shows his backside to Moses ; and then, let's not forget this one, incarnates himself into human flesh -- that then becomes a omnipresent spirit -- but was also that way before incarnation.

What kind of being is that? Where is God anyway?

Jer 23:24 says: Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?" declares the LORD. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD.

So, here, God is being behind, or in, all things that are being, in heaven and earth. I'm confused. According to the Bible God is a physical being, and, at the same time, being within all things that are being.

Talk about confusing. WOW! That brings me back to: Where is God?

Does my confusion clear things up?

Thanks bro Igzy, for sharing your thoughts with me on these matters. They're kind of important to me. Maybe to all of us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's pretty clear that not limiting yourself is very important to you.

We were discussing reasons, which I take to mean arguments, thoughts which I take to mean concepts, and readings which I take to mean interpretations about God. Now when you say "yourself" referring to me, I ask myself how did I become the topic of discussion?

Do you really want to discuss me and what's important to me? Why? What are you implying about me? How did you arrive at that "clear" conclusion? What does that conclusion suggest about my position with respect to God? I take your comment to be an ad hominem argument by which I mean that you reject my arguments on the basis of some irrelevant inference that you are making about me personally. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious. The claims I have made stand or fall based on their correspondence to the truth regardless of me or what is important to me. Let's stay on topic.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

That was great bro Igzy, and clearly expressed.

Brother Harold, You are always so gracious. It is appreciated and it speaks well of you.

God is Spirit. And, yes, he is A spirit. This means he is like a person without a body. Like a ghost. In the realm of spirit the only thing that can be really real is what is true and good. Do you understand? What has true substance there is what has moral integrity. What has the most substance is what has the most moral integrity. In that realm to have strength is to have moral strength. Physical strength that we experience is supposed to be a picture of that moral strength. That is, we should use our strength for good. We are so focused on the physical that we have gotten to the point that we think the physical is what is dependable. But that is backward. What is dependable is the integrity of what is true and good.

What is true and good? Well, you have to figure that out yourself. I can tell you what I think, but you'd be a fool to base your life on anything other than what you believe in your heart. That's part of the fun and privilege of the journey. Relish that privilege and honor it, as God has honored us by letting us seek and find truth! How freaking amazing is that!? It's sort of like Easter morning, where you get to hunt for eggs. It's more fun to find them than just have them handed to you. So go find the eggs! And when you do share them with others and compare what you've found. God is the big Egg. He's the egg that is the model for all the other eggs.

But I digress. Here's the thing. What is important is what is moral and true, not what just looks good. That might sound obvious but that's what God is. He is what is most moral and true. That's why he's worthy of worship. Find what is most moral and true and you've found God. And the cool thing is you won't have found a thing, you'll have found a person. And when that person smiles at you, that's the coolest thing ever.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The claims I have made stand or fall based on their correspondence to the truth regardless of me or what is important to me.

What is important to you affects the way you see things and the way you argue. It also affects the way you regard the opinions of others.

I don't like it when people play dumb to try to look smart.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is perhaps one of your most insightful observations about the ministry of Witness Lee. Over the past several years, this thought has helped me to rethink my own Christian walk, after leaving the LCM.

Thanks Ohio! Much appreciated!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think zeek has a point concerning the personal aspects of God. Yes, God is personal, but not just personal. Some aspects of the "personal" side of modern theology are derived from our desires for relationships rather than from sound understanding of scripture.

I'm sorry, OBW. But I really did not not understand your post.

When I say God is always personal, I did not mean that we should always expect to "feel" his presence. What I meant was that whenever we encounter God we are always encountering a person first. Even if it seems like we are experiencing living water, or breath, or some other "thing," what we are really experiencing is a Person who seems like those things to us. God is always a person. He never lays aside his personhood to be a thing. He is always a person experienced in some way that may seem like a thing. That was my point.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What is important to you affects the way you see things and the way you argue. It also affects the way you regard the opinions of others.

I'll grant you that. But, if that principle operates on all of us all of the time, then it is hardly worth pointing out. And if what we consider important always outweighs objective judgment than none of us will ever reach the whole truth about anything.

I don't like it when people play dumb to try to look smart.

How is what you like relevant to the pursuit of Truth? Are your likes and dislikes divinely inspired, based on your presumably Christian ethical values or mere matters of aesthetic taste?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you know that? Do you have some quantitative psychological data to back that up? Or is it just your opinion based on your limited experience of the world?

It gets tedious and frankly kind of rude when you constantly question other people's common sense.

If you don't know what common sense is, then sit back and observe the world for a while and learn what it is. But please don't act like everyone else is unjustifiably presumptuous and shallow for having it and employing it.

Thank you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It gets tedious and frankly kind of rude when you constantly question other people's common sense.

If you don't know what common sense is, then sit back and observe the world for a while and learn what it is. But please don't act like everyone else is unjustifiably presumptuous and shallow for having it and employing it.

Thank you.

What is called common sense is often found to be no more than opinion when the issue is studied under controlled experimental conditions. I actually still follow those studies as well as developments in neuroscience. Besides, if what is important to a person always impedes their perception of the truth as you proposed then, unless our 'importance' bias can be factored out somehow, we will always misperceive the truth. If the latter is the case, then anyone who thinks that they perceive the truth, must erroneously suppose themself to be an exception to the general rule.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

What is called common sense is often no more than opinion.

Now if I were you I would probably ask of the above "how do you know this?" That's what you often do when someone says something you don't want to hear. You throw a philosophical monkey wrench into the discussion to deflect an idea you don't like.

But I'm not you, so I'll simply say that your above statement is an example of common sense.


I've noticed you never ask "how do you know" of something you like. It's always something you don't like. You assume all kinds of things that you want to be true. You only question what you don't want to be true. I mean, I could ask "how do you know" of every declarative statement you ever make. That would make for a real interesting conversation, now wouldn't it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now if I were you I would probably ask of the above "how do you know this?" That's what you often do when someone says something you don't want to hear. You throw a philosophical monkey wrench into the discussion to deflect an idea you don't like.

But I'm not you, so I'll simply say that your above statement is an example of common sense.


I've noticed you never ask "how do you know" of something you like. It's always something you don't like. You assume all kinds of things that you want to be true. You only question what you don't want to be true. I mean, I could ask "how do you know" of every declarative statement you ever make. That would make for a real interesting conversation, now wouldn't it?

I know it only to the extent that I have seen many commonly supposed truths shot down when the issues were studied scientifically. I can provide numerous examples if you're interested. To start with, Quantum physics blows common sense apart.

But, you are simply assuming that I want things to be the way I suppose them to be. No, I question what I don't understand. I don't usually question what I think I understand though I could do that as well since I might be wrong about it too. I ask "how do you know" because I want to know the basis of your claim. I assume you have basis that you haven't told me and I'm curious to know what it is.

More and more my thinking is based on the recognition of what I don't know rather than what I think I do. For every truth revealed it seems there is one concealed. Revelation is balanced by concealment. "We see in part" as Paul said. Such seems to be an epistemological condition of existence in this life.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Such seems to be an epistemological condition of existence in this life.

Which implies that we have no choice but to go with our best guess or go through life with complete paralysis by analysis. Which is again common sense. What irked me is when you started acting like you don't know what common words like "person" and "metaphor" mean in common usage. It's common sense to go with the common usage of words until you have a compelling reason to think the person using those words has a different definition of them. Doing so helps the conversation along. Otherwise it becomes like a conversation with a four-year-old.

Daddy what's that?
It's a star.
What's a star?
It's like a big light in space.
What's space?
It's where all the stars and planets are.
What's a planet?


I mean, the constant deconstruction of everything might make us feel really sage and philosophical, but like anything else it can be over done.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Which implies that we have no choice but to go with our best guess or go through life with complete paralysis by analysis.

Now that's a deep realization.

But back to topic .... please.

We're talking fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was born from proclaiming the the fundamentals from scripture of the minimums of being a Christian.

The Princeton boys cleared it up from "going with our best guess," or, "paralysis by analysis." They took the guess work out of what being a Christians really means, and nailed down the bottom line requirements ; no guess work.

Why? Because it was pretty obvious that, Christianity, and the Bible, were under attack by science.

So to buttress the attack, they proclaimed the basics: the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the atonement, and the resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

Understanding the very nature of God was not included. Maybe because, as I pointed out, the scripture is ambiguous on that matter, and leaves us "to go with our best guess, or go through life with complete paralysis by analysis" of God.

That's a smart move on their part. Cuz, trying to explain God would have denigrated their effort, as is exemplified here now on AltVs.

Personally, I've really enjoyed this discussion. And found a kind of joy watching zeek and Igzy go toe to toe. But, perhaps out of frustration, we've gotten down to pointing at personal proclivities. So far it's been done with niceties. However, it seems to be getting rather heated and personal.

So please, for the sake of this forum, let's get back to the topic at hand, and better tolerate one another, and our personal ways, that none of us can help.

I know we can't help catching on to each others methods and approaches, but none of us should become the topic.

Y'all all seem very smart. So that shouldn't be too difficult to avoid.

[Cal]

To me the fundamentals are just the essentials. The ones identified by the Fundamentalists represent one group's version of the baseline. It is helpful, but not required, at least not in the sense of that group having authority over the rest of us to adopt them.

Matters in the church seemed to be reached by consensus. There really is no other way other than the model that the LCM put forth, the word of a contemporary apostle. I think it is extreme to constantly be suspicious of the insights of other believers because that seems to contradict the idea that the church is the pillar and base of the truth--that is that the church (the people) collectively have the truth in some manner.

We each have to decide what our baseline is. And we'd be fools not to consider the insights of godly people from the past. Obviously we need mercy and grace to choose wisely, because we all tend to believe what we want to rather than what we ought to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To me the fundamentals are just the essentials. The ones identified by the Fundamentalists represent one group's version of the baseline. It is helpful, but not required, at least not in the sense of that group having authority over the rest of us to adopt them.

Matters in the church seemed to be reached by consensus. There really is no other way other than the model that the LCM put forth, the word of a contemporary apostle. I think it is extreme to constantly be suspicious of the insights of other believers because that seems to contradict the idea that the church is the pillar and base of the truth--that is that the church (the people) collectively have the truth in some manner.

We each have to decide what our baseline is. And we'd be fools not to consider the insights of godly people from the past. Obviously we need mercy and grace to choose wisely, because we all tend to believe what we want to rather than what we ought to.

Or maybe we believe whatever works.

This brings me back to God as a person. Will that work for us, for me? And from where do we get the idea that God is a person? What's a person? Well Igzy is a person. Can I define Igzy? No. But I can point at Igzy. What's a person? Well right there is a person (pointing at Igzy).

Can we do that with God?

Godly people from the past have claimed God is a person. The Bible, in fact, depicts God as a person. But can we relate to God as a person like we relate to each other as a person?

This is important. In fact, I can't think of anything that's more important than this question.

Somebody, anybody, please help this idiot out. Can I actually relate to God as a person, like I relate to everybody else as a person? Where's the evidence for it, and can it actually work for us/me?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe we believe whatever works.

This brings me back to God as a person. Will that work for us, for me? And from where do we get the idea that God is a person? What's a person? Well Igzy is a person. Can I define Igzy? No. But I can point at Igzy. What's a person? Well right there is a person (pointing at Igzy).

Can we do that with God?

Godly people from the past have claimed God is a person. The Bible, in fact, depicts God as a person. But can we relate to God as a person like we relate to each other as a person?

This is important. In fact, I can't think of anything that's more important than this question.

Somebody, anybody, please help this idiot out. Can I actually relate to God as a person, like I relate to everybody else as a person? Where's the evidence for it, and can it actually work for us/me?

There's no evidence that can be proven with respect to God, that is, unless He physically returns to earth, and like Thomas, you will be able to see Him and touch Him. Apart from that, anything and everything one might say to help you answer these questions has long been shot down on this thread.

I would suggest going back to your early days when you would speak to others about Jesus. Was He near to you then? Did He seem like a person you could talk to or relate to? Was there a time when you knew Jesus was real even though you could not completely understand Him?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe we believe whatever works.

Somebody, anybody, please help this idiot out. Can I actually relate to God as a person, like I relate to everybody else as a person? Where's the evidence for it, and can it actually work for us/me?

Go find out for yourself. Talk to him.

See, your problem is not lack of understanding. Your problem is lack of faith. I've always felt like there was something you aren't telling us. Some reason you lost faith in God. Now instead of being content with faith you want proof. You're not going to get it. Sorry. God's too great to have to prove himself to you. Your going to end up like those who are "ever seeking but never coming to the knowledge of the truth" if you aren't careful.

Here's another thought. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. How long now have you been trying to "find truth" in the manner you do? Maybe it's time to admit the way you go about things doesn't work.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's no evidence that can be proven with respect to God, that is, unless He physically returns to earth, and like Thomas, you will be able to see Him and touch Him. Apart from that, anything and everything one might say to help you answer these questions has long been shot down on this thread.

Excellent point. Faith got gunned down here a long time ago. "Proof" has taken its place in the minds of some. Good luck with that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that's a deep realization.

But back to topic .... please.

We're talking fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was born from proclaiming the the fundamentals from scripture of the minimums of being a Christian.

The Princeton boys cleared it up from "going with our best guess," or, "paralysis by analysis." They took the guess work out of what being a Christians really means, and nailed down the bottom line requirements ; no guess work.

Why? Because it was pretty obvious that, Christianity, and the Bible, were under attack by science.

So to buttress the attack, they proclaimed the basics: the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the atonement, and the resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

Okay back to this. The "Princeton boys" just offered a baseline. They didn't remove all the guesswork, OR FAITH, from the equation--unless you think that the Fundamentals answer every question any human being might have about life and God.

There is nothing about science that is incompatible with the Bible or a Creator. Nothing. If "science" was attacking faith it was because some "scientists" were malicious. It wasn't because the Bible and God as defined by essential Christianity were in any way actually vulnerable to attacks by science.

Now maybe some Christians were intimidated by so-called "science" and the furtive heathens that wielded it like a club to eliminate the Christian message that bugged their consciences and made them worry about going to hell. Maybe these Christians flinched and tried to steady the ark with their own hand. We know that happens.

But to gather that because some Christians lost their nerve in the face of bogus threats of SCIENCE!, to imply that the Bible and the faith were actually vulnerable to this scurrilous assault, is opportunistic and disingenuous.

They weren't and still aren't. Like the colors at Fort M'Henry the Bible and the faith endure. The unscrupulous efforts of the "scientific" goon squad notwithstanding.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Which implies that we have no choice but to go with our best guess or go through life with complete paralysis by analysis. Which is again common sense. What irked me is when you started acting like you don't know what common words like "person" and "metaphor" mean in common usage. It's common sense to go with the common usage of words until you have a compelling reason to think the person using those words has a different definition of them. Doing so helps the conversation along. Otherwise it becomes like a conversation with a four-year-old.

Daddy what's that?
It's a star.
What's a star?
It's like a big light in space.
What's space?
It's where all the stars and planets are.
What's a planet?


I mean, the constant deconstruction of everything might make us feel really sage and philosophical, but like anything else it can be over done.

Why so resistant to defining your terms? Definitions are important because without them it is very easy to argue at cross-purposes or to commit fallacies involving equivocation. Much of our everyday "common sense" language is vague and ambiguous so terms must be defined if we are going to discuss matters in as precise a way as possible. To do this we must remove as much vagueness and ambiguity as we can. Adequate definitions are the perfect tool for helping us do that. The word person, for example, has multiple meanings, and so, at the very least would require definition in order to specify which meaning we are discussing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why so resistant to defining your terms? Definitions are important because without them it is very easy to argue at cross-purposes or to commit fallacies involving equivocation. Much of our everyday "common sense" language is vague and ambiguous so terms must be defined if we are going to discuss matters in as precise a way as possible. To do this we must remove as much vagueness and ambiguity as we can. Adequate definitions are the perfect tool for helping us do that. The word person, for example, has multiple meanings, and so, at the very least would require definition in order to specify which meaning we are discussing.

Two reasons:

(1) I know almost certainly that you know what a person is. I do not think that anyone on this board is going to submit a definition of "person" that fundamentally changes your concept of that thing. So asking what "person" means really seems to me to be simply a way to kick the can down the road and not address the point at hand.

(2) Staring more closely at things does not necessarily make them clearer. In fact, they can become less clear, much in the way a image that is zoomed into too closely does when pixelation occurs. Asking what "person" means is begging for a pixelated image. You know what a person is. Go with it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Two reasons:

(1) I know almost certainly that you know what a person is. I do not think that anyone on this board is going to submit a definition of "person" that fundamentally changes your concept of that thing. So asking what "person" means really seems to me to be simply a way to kick the can down the road and not address the point at hand.

(2) Staring more closely at things does not necessarily make them clearer. In fact, they can become less clear, much in the way a image that is zoomed into too closely does when pixelation occurs. Asking what "person" means is begging for a pixelated image. You know what a person is. Go with it.

Those are poor arguments. You're beating around the bush. I have my idea what a person is and presumably so do you. But we won't know if we are discussing the same thing unless we define the word. Since you won't supply a definition, I'll take a shot at it. A person is an individual subject characterized by consciousness, rationality, a moral sense, and the power to act intentionally. Is this anything like you have in mind when you use the word?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your unwillingness or inability to define person a term which is central to your belief system is unreasonable. I have my idea what a person is and presumably so do you. But we won't know if we are discussing the same thing unless we define the word. Since you won't supply a definition, I'll take a shot at it. A person is an individual subject characterized by consciousness, rationality, a moral sense, and the power to act intentionally. Is this anything like you have in mind when you use the word person?

Surprise! I think that is a good enough definition. The only thing I would add is that a person can have complex intellectual, emotional and spiritual relationships with other persons, which I'm sure you believe, too.

Like I said, I knew you knew what a person was. So now that we established what I already knew, can we continue? Or shall we also define words like metaphor, house, fish, book, etc?

[Cal]

Let me say something real quick, zeek. I haven't been putting you down, I've just been having fun with you. I think you tend to over-analyze things. And to me asking what "person" means when everyone probably pretty much agrees on what it means is overdoing it a bit. I just have a different way of looking at things. So it's funny when you say I'm beating around the bush when to me holding up the conversation while insisting I define a word everyone knows the definition of is beating around the bush.

But I can see your point of view. So can we get back to it? What was the original question? Was it something like how can we know God is a person, or something like that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's no evidence that can be proven with respect to God, that is, unless He physically returns to earth, and like Thomas, you will be able to see Him and touch Him.

Thomas the skeptic would fit right in here on AltVs.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would suggest going back to your early days when you would speak to others about Jesus. Was He near to you then? Did He seem like a person you could talk to or relate to? Was there a time when you knew Jesus was real even though you could not completely understand Him?

Since LC days I always had the habit of talking to the Lord.

I think I've shared that at one point I got angry because it was always a monologue, and not a dialogue. So I went around for about a year saying God must be deaf, dumb, and mute.

But I got over that, and so still talk to my invisible friend daily today.

But it's not like I can relate to God as a person like I relate to everyone else as a person. That's why I have a problem with "God is a person."

Not to mention that I find it hard to think of a omnipresent being, that's eternal and a spirit, can be a person like everyone else.

So the God is a person thing is hard for me to get or understand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Those are poor arguments. You're beating around the bush. I have my idea what a person is and presumably so do you. But we won't know if we are discussing the same thing unless we define the word. Since you won't supply a definition, I'll take a shot at it. A person is an individual subject characterized by consciousness, rationality, a moral sense, and the power to act intentionally. Is this anything like you have in mind when you use the word?

So if a person is unconscious is he or she no longer a person?

Who defines what is rational? By your standards I don't consider any liberal to be a person. As they say, liberalism is a mental disorder.

When morality is in the eyes of the beholder, then how do we define moral sense?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I got over that, and so still talk to my invisible friend daily today.


So the God is a person thing is hard for me to get or understand.

These statements seem contradictory.

It's funny. I hear God all the time. Not verbally, but I hear him. But you have to really focus on hearing him. You can't do drive-by prayers. Draw close to God and he will draw close to you. He expect us to be desperate for him. You can't hear God's speaking if you are talking to him on your terms.

It doesn't make sense to me that God is anything but a person. What would he be? If God created he must have a mind to plan and a will to execute. If he created beings with emotions then he must have them, too. Look at the innate values most people have. We value, ideally anyway, love, friendship, loyalty, sacrifice, commitment, bravery, integrity, etc. Doesn't it make sense that there is a Source of us that values these things as well? What would that thing be if not a person? A book? A computer? I can intellectually consider that God might be something "more" or "higher" than a person. But I can't imagine what that would be, so it's really a moot idea.

Note that the values I cited all have to do with relating to other persons. Life is about relationships--with God, others and even ourselves. It's all about persons and how we relate to each other. There's really nothing else going on.

To me a person is the only thing God can be. Not the least of reasons being we are supposed to be in his image. What a cruel joke it would be if we got to the ultimate Truth of the universe and it was just some "force" or "principle." How do you have a relationship with that? Ugh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thomas the skeptic would fit right in here on AltVs.


Since LC days I always had the habit of talking to the Lord.

I think I've shared that at one point I got angry because it was always a monologue, and not a dialogue. So I went around for about a year saying God must be deaf, dumb, and mute.

But I got over that, and so still talk to my invisible friend daily today.

But it's not like I can relate to God as a person like I relate to everyone else as a person. That's why I have a problem with "God is a person."

Not to mention that I find it hard to think of a omnipresent being, that's eternal and a spirit, can be a person like everyone else.

So the God is a person thing is hard for me to get or understand.

Thomas the skeptic became Thomas the believing apostle to India. I think Alt-Views would have a difficult time with him.

Wasn't your "monologue" time when you were upset at how life "happened" to you? That's how life is. Things happen that hurt us. None of us is exempt. But being angry doesn't help dialog. What does help is humility. Coming to our Heavenly Father as a little child seems to get His attention more quickly. Relating to God as a person is different than relating to the person down the road.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thomas the skeptic became Thomas the believing apostle to India. I think Alt-Views would have a difficult time with him.

Wasn't your "monologue" time when you were upset at how life "happened" to you? That's how life is. Things happen that hurt us. None of us is exempt. But being angry doesn't help dialog. What does help is humility. Coming to our Heavenly Father as a little child seems to get His attention more quickly. Relating to God as a person is different than relating to the person down the road.

Yes. God is a friend, but not a peer.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes. God is a friend, but not a peer.

I believe our upbringing strongly shapes our psychological views of relationships and friendships. For example, my own father was a strict disciplinarian (former army drill sergeant) who saw little need for constructive conversation with any of his many children. Consequently it has been a long struggle for me to view my Heavenly Father in a loving way filled with honest conversation.

Until we can begin to understand the basic assurances of unconditional love, trusting another person, especially an unseen Father in heaven, proves difficult for us and consequently our relationship with Him suffers as a result.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe our upbringing strongly shapes our psychological views of relationships and friendships. For example, my own father was a strict disciplinarian (former army drill sergeant) who saw little need for constructive conversation with any of his many children. Consequently it has been a long struggle for me to view my Heavenly Father in a loving way filled with honest conversation.

Until we can begin to understand the basic assurances of unconditional love, trusting another person, especially an unseen Father in heaven, proves difficult for us and consequently our relationship with Him suffers as a result.

I never really knew my father, and by the time I got a stepfather my view of the world from a fatherless perspective was set. It took me a long time to begin to see God as a father. (In the LCM he was always "the Lord" and that was what I was used to.) Now as a father I'm conscious of modeling fatherhood so that my kids see God as loving, accepting and supportive--someone they can go to and talk to. I want them to feel they can "jump in his lap," even though I still have difficulty seeing it that way myself.

One reason the devil targets families, and men in particular. is he doesn't want us to have a good model of fatherhood that we can project onto God. The one commandment in the NT about parenting is "fathers don't be harsh." There's a reason beyond just the human aspect.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It took me a long time to begin to see God as a father. (In the LCM he was always "the Lord" and that was what I was used to.) Now as a father I'm conscious of modeling fatherhood so that my kids see God as loving, accepting and supportive--someone they can go to and talk to. I want them to feel they can "jump in his lap," even though I still have difficulty seeing it that way myself.

Interesting. We kind of looked down on others who prayed to "Father God," rather than "Lord Jesus."

I grew up an unhappy child, constantly thinking everyone was "picking on me." Consequently, I used drugs and alcohol to escape my empty heart and give me some false confidence. My initial experiences of salvation were more about the dynamic infilling of the joy of the Spirit, and not as much about a personal relationship with my Heavenly Father. God met me where I was at, and with what I needed most -- a clean conscience, abundant joy, and the infilling of an empty soul.

aron often speaks of "charismatic" experiences in the LCM. Many of us from dysfunctional homes found these to be life-changing. So the LCM met our urgent need, once supplied by drugs or alcohol, and we found a new "home," along with others who were "relationship-challenged" Christians from childhood. What was great for a season eventually caught up with us. Demands like "being one with the ministry" brought out the worst in us. Once our excitement dried up, it was like God was no longer real. Many tossed the "baby" out with the filthy "bathwater" we were surrounded with in the LCM. And that truly saddens my heart.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Interesting. We kind of looked down on others who prayed to "Father God," rather than "Lord Jesus."

I grew up an unhappy child, constantly thinking everyone was "picking on me." Consequently, I used drugs and alcohol to escape my empty heart and give me some false confidence. My initial experiences of salvation were more about the dynamic infilling of the joy of the Spirit, and not as much about a personal relationship with my Heavenly Father. God met me where I was at, and with what I needed most -- a clean conscience, abundant joy, and the infilling of an empty soul.

aron often speaks of "charismatic" experiences in the LCM. Many of us from dysfunctional homes found these to be life-changing. So the LCM met our urgent need, once supplied by drugs or alcohol, and we found a new "home," along with others who were "relationship-challenged" Christians from childhood. What was great for a season eventually caught up with us. Demands like "being one with the ministry" brought out the worst in us. Once our excitement dried up, it was like God was no longer real. Many tossed the "baby" out with the filthy "bathwater" we were surrounded with in the LCM. And that truly saddens my heart.

Sounds much like my story. Though I haven't thought about it that. Yes, I was an empty teenager with a low self-esteem who needed to be filled up with something. But a relationship with God never really came of it. What I had was a relationship with "the Church." And it was a weird one. The Church couldn't love me back. It could just expect me to live up to a certain standard.

Again, relationship with our Father is what we really needed. The Father hears, listens, understands, supports. He is Someone on the other end who we can talk to.

I understand the urge to define God so abstractly that the need for personal relationship with him is eliminated. Relationships are bothersome. They limit us. People follow that urge because they think they will have their cake and eat it, too. They think they can get God as a cosmic power source or vending machine, but with no personal responsibility attached. Yippee! But it's really a trap. Because you can't have a relationship with a "force." And a God so unlike you that you can't understand him at all cannot be someone you can relate to. Freedom from relationship comes at the terrible price of existential loneliness. It's just you and your understanding of "Truth" to keep you warm at night. Ugh.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me say something real quick, zeek. I haven't been putting you down, I've just been having fun with you. I think you tend to over-analyze things. And to me asking what "person" means when everyone probably pretty much agrees on what it means is overdoing it a bit. I just have a different way of looking at things. So it's funny when you say I'm beating around the bush when to me holding up the conversation while insisting I define a word everyone knows the definition of is beating around the bush.

But I can see your point of view. So can we get back to it? What was the original question? Was it something like how can we know God is a person, or something like that?

No? You weren't putting me down? So stating that I was playing dumb wasn't a put down? Or when you said I was tedious and rude? Or that I lacked common sense. Or that I was dragging the conversation down to a 4- year-old level? That was just your idea of boyish fun? No problem, bro. I expect this kind of stuff from you. But, what it does do is undermine your claim that you have a personal relationship with the God of the universe. Because, if you did, I would think He would elevate your level of discourse above coarse bullying of this kind. I've observed you treat other people on this website similarly. You probably thought that was fun too. What does your God say to you about this behavior? Does He approve?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

No? You weren't putting me down? So stating that I was playing dumb wasn't a put down? Or when you said I was tedious and rude? Or that I lacked common sense. Or that I was dragging the conversation down to a 4- year-old level? That was just your idea of boyish fun? No problem, bro. I expect this kind of stuff from you. But, what it does do is undermine your claim that you have a personal relationship with the God of the universe. Because, if you did, I would think He would elevate your level of discourse above coarse bullying of this kind. I've observed you treat other people on this website similarly. You probably thought that was fun too. What does your God say to you about this behavior? Does He approve?

I wasn't bullying, I was calling your bluff. I've seen you get tough with people yourself. You're doing it right now. So the holier-than-thou routine doesn't really wash.

Again the problem I have with you, zeek, is that you tend to hide behind this kind of thing. You accuse people of not being logical, or of putting out bad arguments, or, yes, of being meanies, as a way of deflecting the points they are trying to make. Your righteous indignation now is a sign of somebody who feels threatened.

Yes, the God of the universe knows my heart. My discourse with you is fun to the extent of how much I know he loves you and can see him chasing you around this board while you try all kinds of typical ways to avoid him. So when I point out one of your dodges, yeah it's fun, not because I'm mean, but because I know it's all part of God trying to shine light on you. He's going to catch you, you know. All your strongholds and barriers are going to give way eventually.

So go ahead and accuse me of being "mean." My kids do that when they don't get what they want either, so I'm used to it.

Shall we continue the conversation now?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I wasn't bullying, I was calling your bluff. I've seen you get tough with people yourself. You're doing it right now. So the holier-than-thou routine doesn't really wash.

Again the problem I have with you, zeek, is that you tend to hide behind this kind of thing. You accuse people of not being logical, or of putting out bad arguments, or, yes, of being meanies, as a way of deflecting the points they are trying to make. Your righteous indignation now is a sign of somebody who feels threatened.

Yes, the God of the universe knows my heart. My discourse with you is fun to the extent of how much I know he loves you and can see him chasing you around this board while you try all kinds of typical ways to avoid him. So when I point out one of your dodges, yeah it's fun, not because I'm mean, but because I know it's all part of God trying to shine light on you. He's going to catch you, you know. All your strongholds and barriers are going to give way eventually.

So go ahead and accuse me of being "mean." My kids do that when they don't get what they want either, so I'm used to it.

Shall we continue the conversation now?

I was just having a little fun with you there Igzy. The strongholds and barriers are in your mind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was just having a little fun with you there Igzy. The strongholds and barriers are in your mind.

I don't think so.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think so.

The barriers are in your mind too. Your natural fathers put them there by being over-strict in your case and by abandonment in Igzy's. You still think everyone is picking on you. We all need healing bro. Where's the humility you were talking about? Looks like an unrealized theory of yours from my point of view. What I see coming from you is mainly anger. It's understandable though. I've known fathers who believed that it was their duty to break their son's will. My relationship with my father was not as close as I would have liked, but at least it wasn't like that. If God doesn't accept the unacceptable, who among us stands a chance?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If God doesn't accept the unacceptable, who among us stands a chance?

Because God is gracious, and sent his Son to die for our sins he can accept us. Do you believe that? If you don't then that's the biggest barrier.

The truth is simple. God created us, he wants to be in relationship with us, our sin separates us from him, he provided the way back to him for us. Grace.

Why complicate it with all the peripheral philosophizing? I mean, if it gets you closer to God then fine, but it doesn't seem to be doing that. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems. Your major factor seems to be doubt, not faith.

[awareness]

Okay tough guys, now that we've got that out of our system can we move on? My hope is that this thread hasn't become paralyzed because we've removed credibility from one or more of each other.

I have to say, ever since bro Ohio opened up about how his relationship with his natural father affected his relationship with his heavenly father my thoughts have been spinning, from looking back on my relationship with my folks.

There's no point in pointing out that I've got problems with my heavenly father, I think I've made the pretty clear. I think I'm inclined to bring God down because that's what my father did to me. God made a pretty big sacrifice when He came to me. He has to come down to a pretty low level; my level. Poor God. He's really quite a guy for doing that. Maybe we should try that with each other.

When I look back, here's my problem in a nutshell:

My Dad was a grease monkey. He owned his own auto repair shops; both mechanical and body work. Growing up with that I picked up on it. But it was ugly to me and I swore I'd never be a grease monkey.

My mother was a staunch, judge everybody, Baptist fundamentalist. It too was ugly to me. I swore I'd never be that too.

Then I ended up in the local church, where I worked on saints cars (even body work), and was a fundamentalist's fundamentalist.

And I guess my rebellion to my natural father bleed into my relationship with Witness Lee, and Mel Porter, the lead elder in my locality. And Lee's claim to be the one and only apostle on the earth was a trigger of my failed relationship with my dad.

So now, after all that became ugly to me, where does that leave me in my relationship with my heavenly father?

You guys have been really tough with each other. Okay, we shouldn't allow our forum to come down to that level (kudos - at least we haven't gotten down to the level of : "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

However y'all haven't gotten close to how tough I now am with my heavenly father, as a result of my crazy folks, and the local church.

I now feel that God will be as real with me (us) as I (we) are with Him.

So I keep it real, in all sorts of ways. And since being disappointed in my serious pursuits, now I am open to consider all sorts of points of views. I don't just accept the pat answers, like bro Igzy posted in post #1446. I mean I consider it, but don't just blindly accept it. (I've got reasons I won't discuss right now.)

In short, I'm a hopeless mess. There's only one cure for me. My only hope is in God. Surely He understands my upbringing, and LC experience. If He let's me down I'm screwed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The barriers are in your mind too. Your natural fathers put them there by being over-strict in your case and by abandonment in Igzy's. You still think everyone is picking on you. We all need healing bro. Where's the humility you were talking about? Looks like an unrealized theory of yours from my point of view. What I see coming from you is mainly anger. It's understandable though. I've known fathers who believed that it was their duty to break their son's will. My relationship with my father was not as close as I would have liked, but at least it wasn't like that. If God doesn't accept the unacceptable, who among us stands a chance?

I don't see that Ohio is angry you. if anything he's angry there are things that seem to be keeping you from God.

That's not resentment or lack of humility, that's love.

Now my question to you is are the things you're sharing with us motivated by love? Are you truly trying to lead us to the truth? Or are you simply fighting for something you wish were true? The reason the Pharisees rejected Jesus was because he wasn't packaged the way they expected. At least that was their excuse, if you catch my point.
Even he would get angry at people who he felt were unjustifiably hard headed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because God is gracious, and sent his Son to die for our sins he can accept us. Do you believe that? If you don't then that's the biggest barrier.

The Son who died was God. Do you believe that? He already accepted people who were unacceptable before he was crucified. Do you believe that? The barriers are in your mind.

The truth is simple. God created us, he wants to be in relationship with us, our sin separates us from him, he provided the way back to him for us. Grace.

Right. I don't see a barrier there. So, if you see one, it must be in your mind.

Why complicate it with all the peripheral philosophizing? I mean, if it gets you closer to God then fine, but it doesn't seem to be doing that. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems. Your major factor seems to be doubt, not faith.

You raised basic philosophical questions: "The basic questions are: is there Truth and can it be known. and if it can how does one know it?" in post 1297 that got us started on this course of discussion. I have been just been asking you to clarify what you mean.

Faith and doubt go together. They imply each other. Without doubt there would be no need for faith. Without faith there would be nothing to doubt. Think about it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So I keep it real, in all sorts of ways. And since being disappointed in my serious pursuits, now I am open to consider all sorts of points of views. I don't just accept the pat answers, like bro Igzy posted in post #1446. I mean I consider it, but don't just blindly accept it. (I've got reasons I won't discuss right now.)

See Harold, why do you categorize what I said as "pat," and then turn around and not consider the following statement of yours as "pat."

There's only one cure for me. My only hope is in God.

That's even more simple that what I said. So why is my statement of faith "pat," and yours isn't?


So what I see going on here, over and over, is an ongoing effort to dismiss orthodox beliefs because for some reason you don't like them. Perhaps the reason you don't like them is that you associate them with negative experiences in your life, or people you don't like, but not that the ideas have really failed you.

I hold my beliefs because they work for me--because they bring me closer to God. I don't hold them because I like them or because they give me a ego boost. I hold them because they deliver the goods for me. If you don't believe that, then fine. You can consider me a liar or deluded. But you haven't offered me a better alternative, even to delusion, that I can see.


But here is what I think is the fundamental difference with us. I don't hear you guys claiming to have a good relationship with God, or that your beliefs help you get closer to God. All I hear you saying is you don't believe anyone else really has a good relationship with God or that their beliefs really work. You guys don't point the way to God so much as you try to point people away from certain beliefs you don't like, even the idea that God can be known.

It's interesting but you never boldly claim that essential orthodox Christianity flat doesn't work. What you do is try to introduce doubt about it. You don't even seem to care whether it actually works or not. It just seems you don't like it. So in order to hold this position you have to assume the role of the skeptic, which requires questioning everything, which is quite tedious because it just leads to more questions. It certainly doesn't seem to lead to a peaceful or joyful life.

It just seems to lead to an empty place and why you'd want to live there is something you guys might want to explain. I mean, I suppose you can get an ego boost from thinking you are more "rational" than other people. But besides that I'm not sure what it does for you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Son who died was God. Do you believe that? He already accepted people who were unacceptable before he was crucified. Do you believe that? The barriers are in your mind.

Sorry, which barrier are you talking about? And what is it a barrier to?

Faith and doubt go together. They imply each other. Without doubt there would be no need for faith. Without faith there would be nothing to doubt. Think about it.

I agree. Remember I said that once there is no possibility of doubt it's too late to have faith. But God expects us to have faith in him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't see that Ohio is angry you. if anything he's angry there are things that seem to be keeping you from God. That's not resentment or lack of humility, that's love.

I don't think he is angry at me. I think he sees the world in black and white terms. The problems of the world are all due to someone else. That eliminates him from any responsibility. He is persecuted by the liberals, the "mooslims", uppity women and gays pushing their agenda on him. Such a hostile world it is outside the cocoon of the Local Church. But, yes, on some level I think he is motivated by love too.

Now my question to you is are the things you're sharing with us motivated by love? Are you truly trying to lead us to the truth?

Yes I am most definitely motivated by love. I'm seeking truth through dialogue. I don't think I have a monopoly on it. So it's not like I suppose I can just lead you to it or vice versa. If it weren't for love or if I thought I had the whole truth, I wouldn't be here conversing.

Or are you simply fighting for something you wish were true? The reason the Pharisees rejected Jesus was because he wasn't packaged the way they expected. At least that was their excuse, if you catch my point.
Even he would get angry at people who he felt were unjustifiably hard headed.

So in this scenario you're in the role of Jesus and I'm in the role of the Pharisees? Or is it the other way around? Or maybe neither of us is really in the role of either. Maybe we're just two more guys arguing about opinions on an internet forum.

Whoever is in the role of Jesus gets a boost to his self-esteem. He can feel good about himself standing up for God and all and feel righteous indignation toward the guy who is in the place of the Pharisees. Shame on that guy.

The problem is, how do we stand back and get perspective on who is who? Everybody on this forum including the moderator already is bias one way or another. A coin toss won't help.

The only alternative I can think of at the moment, apart from giving up the whole endeavor, is to keep on sharing our thoughts, considering thoughts of others and weighing the relative probative value of each without determining who are the winners and losers. It's not like I expect that we will arrive at a total consensus.

I think it would be progress if we would stop casting each other into stereotypical roles. From my perspective, what you have is a caricature of my position not an actual understanding. So you make me out to be a doubter or an unbeliever with strongholds and barriers against God. From my POV that's a mischaracterization. You seem to think you are closer to God than me. But, I don't know. And, really, who but God is to say?

Now Awareness on the other hand is a libertine who needs to be adjusted and straightened out by the better Christians on the board. But, then so was Martin Luther and he was the father of Protestantism so where would we be without him? Things are not always as they appear to be, Igzy. That's why I analyze so much. I find that when I break things down and take a closer look there is usually more to things then I initially thought.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, which barrier are you talking about? And what is it a barrier to?

You said there were barriers. I didn't see any. So, if there are no barriers in your mind, then, there are no barriers.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't think he is angry at me. I think he sees the world in black and white terms. The problems of the world are all due to someone else. That eliminates him from any responsibility.

I don't think this is fair at all. I've seen Ohio admit his faults and accept personal responsibility many times. I think you are way out of line here.

You sound pretty certain about the limited level of certainty anyone should be able to have. Which is a contradiction. Again, the continued tendency to characterize someone else's stated clarity as some kind of failing ("pat answers" "black and white thinking") is to me troubling. It just shows a bias.

Again, why don't you tell me how to know God, instead of just telling me how not to know God. Why not tell what does work, instead of what you think doesn't work or shouldn't work. (Note I'm talking about knowing God, just some abstract intellectual "truth.") How do you personally get to know God?

And if you don't know how to know God yourself how can you claim someone else's way doesn't work? Isn't that simply saying that you don't think you can know God so nobody else can either?

Sounds pretty black and white to me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now Awareness on the other hand is a libertine

I've overlooked a lot of ad hominems, but that one went tooooo far. Primary cuz I resent, er mean, resemble that remark.

Thanks zeek, for revealing that I'm the Marquis De Sade of the forum ... and for dragging me into this squabble.

Now I'll get back to my pornographic blasphemy.

But first I've got to work on an alter call.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've overlooked a lot of ad hominems, but that one went tooooo far. Primary cuz I resent, er mean, resemble that remark.

Thanks zeek, for revealing that I'm the Marquis De Sade of the forum ... and for dragging me into this squabble.

Oh, you were already in it.

Tougher being a moderator than it looks, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The barriers are in your mind too. Your natural fathers put them there by being over-strict in your case and by abandonment in Igzy's. You still think everyone is picking on you. We all need healing bro. Where's the humility you were talking about? Looks like an unrealized theory of yours from my point of view. What I see coming from you is mainly anger. It's understandable though.

This is crazy. I remember one time I confronted some of your posts with scripture, and you just went off on me, firing close to a dozen PM's at me. I had to shut the thing down. And you say I am angry?!?

Whatever buddy, whatever you say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't think he is angry at me. I think he sees the world in black and white terms. The problems of the world are all due to someone else. That eliminates him from any responsibility. He is persecuted by the liberals, the "mooslims", uppity women and gays pushing their agenda on him. Such a hostile world it is outside the cocoon of the Local Church. But, yes, on some level I think he is motivated by love too.

Thanks for the wise counsel. I'll take it into consideration.

But what's with "uppity women?" Where did that come from?
__________________________________________________ _______

Anyways, I thought awareness, Igzy, and I were having some decent discussion, that is, until you launched into your nasty one-liners.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think it would be progress if we would stop casting each other into stereotypical roles. From my perspective, what you have is a caricature of my position not an actual understanding. So you make me out to be a doubter or an unbeliever with strongholds and barriers against God. From my POV that's a mischaracterization. You seem to think you are closer to God than me. But, I don't know. And, really, who but God is to say?

You wrote this and then you turned around and stereotyped Ohio as a black and white conservative.


I don't necessarily think I'm closer to God than you. But I do know I have a relationship with God that is real and rich. You on the other hand don't talk much about having a relationship with God or convey much information about him that seems to be won from personal encounters with him. You say you don't know whether he has a personality or not, or you wonder if your apprehension of him as a person is simply an illusion. So with that information I have to think you don't know him as well as you could. Because all my experience tells me that knowing God means realizing him more and more as a person, because you experience his personality.

So, I don't know, seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You seem to want to be skeptical about just about everything, but then get bothered if someone sees you as a skeptic. You seem to want to live in doubt about everything about God, and yet get bothered when someone sees you as someone who lacks faith. At some point you have to decide to fish or cut bait.


I guess to me a person of faith talks more about their positive beliefs than their negative doubts. We all have doubts, but I think majoring in them is a mistake. The Bible says without faith it's impossible to please God. It never says without doubt it's impossible to please God. You and Harold seem to have elevated doubt to some kind of virtue. You seem to think it makes you more rational or intellectual or sincere than those hayseeds who are full of faith. I don't have a problem with you doubting religious culture. But you've taken it beyond that to doubting just about everything. Where do you think that is going to lead? How is majoring in doubt going to turn you into anything other than Oscar Wilde's cynic: A person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think this is fair at all. I've seen Ohio admit his faults and accept personal responsibility many times. I think you are way out of line here.

That isn't how I see it. But, I based my impression on his interaction with me, so maybe I missed when he did that good stuff in relation to someone else.

You sound pretty certain about the limited level of certainty anyone should be able to have. Which is a contradiction. Again, the continued tendency to characterize someone else's stated clarity as some kind of failing ("pat answers" "black and white thinking") is to me troubling. It just shows a bias.

Neither my certainty nor my uncertainty are absolute nor have I ever claimed they were. Perhaps you're just "bothered" because I don't see things your way. You seem unaccustomed to entertaining perspectives unlike your own.

Again, why don't you tell me how to know God, instead of just telling me how not to know God. Why not tell what does work, instead of what you think doesn't work or shouldn't work. (Note I'm talking about knowing God, just some abstract intellectual "truth.") How do you personally get to know God?

Does anyone really know God? It requires a leap to faith to suppose that one does. How it occurs is a mystery. As Jesus said "The wind blows where it listeth."

And if you don't know how to know God yourself how can you claim someone else's way doesn't work? Isn't that simply saying that you don't think you can know God so nobody else can either?

All I know of what others claim here is what they present as evidence or argument. They may know all kinds of things that they are unable to demonstrate or express. My certainty and uncertainty is based on my experience and reason.

Now Jesus said "Ye shall know them by their fruit." There are plenty of instances of people claiming to know God who nevertheless treat people badly. So the test of whether they love their neighbor as themselves is probably the best one. I think people who do that know God even if they don't know that they know God. Whereas people who think they know God who don't do that don't know God even if they think they do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyways, I thought awareness, Igzy, and I were having some decent discussion, that is, until you launched into your nasty one-liners.

Those darn troublesome one liners.

And yes, I am interested in continuing our conversations, on the person and father aspects of God, and how our relation to them are affected by our past life experiences and trauma.

I'm also interested in any barriers in my head. They don't sound like any thing I'd like if'n I've got any of 'em.

Originally Posted by Igzy

some kind of failing ("pat answers" . . . . .

I'm so sorry for that remark. I wasn't intending to disparage you personally bro Igzy. I guess I was being glib. I should have worded it more precisely. Like: 'I don't just accept the traditional answers, like bro Igzy posted in post #1446.' So Mea Culpa bro Igzy.

Actually bro Igzy, I don't know if I just readily accept any Christian traditions any more. Take the five fundamentals. I flat out reject inerrancy. I don't believe Jesus was God. The virgin birth seems silly to me. I question the atonement. I'm not certain about the resurrection. I'm not certain that he died.

Originally Posted by Igzy to zeek

Again, why don't you tell me how to know God, instead of just telling me how not to know God. Why not tell what does work, instead of what you think doesn't work or shouldn't work.

Well since I'm already in the middle of this squabble I'll declare God to everyone, as I see it/Him now:

I don't think anyone can be separated from God; even those making their bed in Sheol. As far as I'm concerned God is closer to us than fingers and toes. Some of us realize it and some don't.

So I say, if you want God, open your eyes and your mind; you've already got Him. That you're separated from God is a delusion. You couldn't take your next breath without God being very intimate with you every second. God's breath is the life within us, and what makes us a living soul, or the awareness reading these words right this moment.

And that's my present alter call : Come to where you've never been separated from ... accept in the delusion of your mind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You wrote this and then you turned around and stereotyped Ohio as a black and white conservative.

He often characterizes things in black and white terms. Like when he demonizes all liberals. Whereas, I see people on both sides do good and bad things. But, I recognize that he is more than the stereotype and more than what appears on the page here.

You on the other hand don't talk much about having a relationship with God or convey much information about him that seems to be won from personal encounters with him.

I actually do think I have a relationship with God. I call that faith. I keep it private for the most rather than boast about it. It trivializes God when people do that IMO. That happened frequently in the LCM testimonies.

You say you don't know whether he has a personality or not,

I didn't say that. I said God may have personal and impersonal aspects. But, God's "personality" is revealed through religious faith which involves subjective interpretation not objectively. Otherwise everyone would agree about it.

or you wonder if your apprehension of him as a person is simply an illusion.

I didn't say that either though I suppose it's possible. Life could be an illusion.

So with that information I have to think you don't know him as well as you could. Because all my experience tells me that knowing God means realizing him more and more as a person, because you experience his personality.

That I don't know God as well as I could is a truism that could be said of anybody.Do you mean to say you couldn't possibly know God better than you do?

So, I don't know, seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You seem to want to be skeptical about just about everything, but then get bothered if someone sees you as a skeptic. You seem to want to live in doubt about everything about God, and yet get bothered when someone sees you as someone who lacks faith. At some point you have to decide to fish or cut bait.

Do we decide to believe what we believe? Or is belief a spontaneous response to seeing the evidence or the persuasiveness of an argument? Anyway, you're going to see me as you see me. I'm not going to try to control your impression of me. And I'm not going to conform to labels.

I guess to me a person of faith talks more about their positive beliefs than their negative doubts. We all have doubts, but I think majoring in them is a mistake. The Bible says without faith it's impossible to please God. It never says without doubt it's impossible to please God. You and Harold seem to have elevated doubt to some kind of virtue. You seem to think it makes you more rational or intellectual or sincere than those hayseeds who are full of faith.

I use doubt as a method to clear the path to truth. I seek the Unshakable Foundation of everything.

I don't have a problem with you doubting religious culture. But you've taken it beyond that to doubting just about everything. Where do you think that is going to lead? How is majoring in doubt going to turn you into anything other than Oscar Wilde's cynic: A person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Ultimate reality is a mystery beyond human comprehension as far as I can tell. The Bible symbolizes it. God symbolizes it. Science scratches the surface of it. I believe in It/Him by which I mean I have a connection to It/Him which I call "faith". "Faith" is just my recognition that I a being with finite freedom, am connected to the Ultimate, the eternal. The mystery there is why anybody doesn't realize they have this. We call that mystery "the Fall." And I'm subject to it myself. God isn't merely a person and neither are you nor I. We are more than that more than we know really. We don't even understand ourselves let alone God. You seem to want to put everything in a nice neat box. But, life is way messier than that. It's out of our control really.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I actually do think I have a relationship with God. I call that faith. I keep it private for the most rather than boast about it. It trivializes God when people do that IMO. That happened frequently in the LCM testimonies.

Seems like you like to talk about your doubt more than your faith.

That I don't know God as well as I could is a truism that could be said of anybody.Do you mean to say you couldn't possibly know God better than you do?

It isn't about a comparison with me. It's about trying to figure out whether you really believe in anything. Because like I said, you seem to want to talk about what you doubt more than what you positively believe. In my experience persons of faith are filled with believing, not doubts. Doesn't mean they don't have doubts, they just don't major in them, like you seem to do.

Do we decide to believe what we believe? Or is belief a spontaneous response to seeing the evidence or the persuasiveness of an argument?

Faith has elements of both reaction and decision. Like in marriage, you love your spouse spontaneously, but sometimes you have to decide to love her when you don't feel like it.

I use doubt as a method to clear the path to truth. I seek the Unshakable Foundation of everything.

How's that working for you? What I've seen is that you are trying to reach the point where you have absolutely no doubt, and so you can say "Now I know." But as we discussed, though we have strong evidence in this life, it is always possible to doubt. That is where the decision to have faith should step in.

Ultimate reality is a mystery beyond human comprehension as far as I can tell.

The above statement is self-contradicting, because you can't make it without comprehending that reality is incomprehensible. So obviously you can comprehend it some. So it's probably better to say that there are aspects of it that we may not be able to understand. But to say it is totally beyond comprehension is something you can't say for everyone and if you say it for yourself you've engaged in self-contradiction.

God isn't merely a person and neither are you nor I. We are more than that more than we know really.

How do you know this? If we are more than a person, what is that? If you have no idea then I can't see how you can make such a declaration. And if a "person" is how we define ourselves, shouldn't you be saying we need a better definition of person, rather than say we are more than a person. How do you know there is anything that is "more" than a person, anyway? Describe something that is "more" than a person.

We don't even understand ourselves let alone God. You seem to want to put everything in a nice neat box. But, life is way messier than that. It's out of our control really.

You say you are seeking truth, but when someone else says they know some truth and try to explain it, you accuse them of "putting things in a box." When you, zeek, find truth you've found truth. But when I find it it means I put something in a box. Seems like a pretty dismissive attitude for someone who claims to be so open-minded.

It seems you are saying you get to put in a box precisely how specifically everyone else should define truth, including how they shouldn't put things in boxes. That's pretty funny.

Anyway, you're going to see me as you see me. I'm not going to try to control your impression of me. And I'm not going to conform to labels.

Sounds quite noble. However, at some point you have to know something, or you can hardly say you've found any truth. One would think that would include a definition of yourself. So rather than resisting labels about yourself, you probably should be looking for ones that apply. Like I said, focus on the positive, not the negative.

[awareness]

If we can know God as a person then why do we need the Bible?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we can know God as a person then why do we need the Bible?

If people can ride bikes why do they need training wheels?

It takes a whole lifetime to learn to communicate spiritually with an invisible, non-physical person. The Bible helps us along.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If people can ride bikes why do they need training wheels?

It takes a whole lifetime to learn to communicate spiritually with an invisible, non-physical person. The Bible helps us along.

Good answer. But you get my point, right?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good answer. But you get my point, right?

Not sure. Explain.

[Cal]

***********

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we can know God as a person then why do we need the Bible?

We need the Bible both to know God and to know what He has done for us. It is one thing to never have known the scriptures, and still believe in God the Creator (as in Romans 1.19-20) of heaven and earth, and it is all together another matter to reject what you once knew to be true.

If you reject the record of the Gospels, then do you also reject the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Then I would ask what kind of God could you possibly know? If you reject the God of the Christians, then is your God neither the Creator nor the Savior?

If you reject the Bible, then you have to reject every other book of every other religion for the same reasons. Now you are forced to know God in a vacuum, since you cannot reject the Bible, and then accept other ancient books (like the Vedas or the Quran). All ancient books are suspect to error, are they not?

Dear brother awareness, in such a vacuum are you not left with what may be an imaginary god? I would go further to say that you may be vulnerable to some evil spirit deciding to fill such a void. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

Was the message of the Gospel really that bad for you?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we can know God as a person then why do we need the Bible?

Another way of answering this is to ask you how your search for God has gone since you discounted the Bible? Not too good as far as I can tell.

My experience is this: It wasn't until I started reading the Bible as the unique speaking of God to humanity that my relationship with Him really took off. Before that, when I was just steeped in LCM doctrine, I was pretty lost, even as a Christian.

My testimony is the more I seek God and his speaking in the Bible, the more peaceful, free, confident and purposeful my life becomes.

That's my testimony. I find the personal God through the Bible. And I seriously doubt I could have found him so powerfully without the Bible. In fact I can pretty much say I know I could not have because I've never met or heard tell of anyone who has found him that way. So I have to think if it were possible people would be yelling about it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not sure. Explain.

Yer playing with me now. But that's okay. Cuz I'm still very intrigued by this God as a person thing.

But to answer your question, if we know God as a person we've come to the horse's mouth so to speak. For example, did Abraham need a Bible?

That said. Of course we need the Bible, because knowing God as a person can lead us off the rails.

I've seen believers take it way too far. I'm close with a sister that has allowed God as a person to pretty much destroy her life. She claims that God speaks to her in an audible voice. He also speaks to her in panoramic visions in the sky, she tells me.

When I first got to know her I only knew things about her and God, and how she's pretty much been following the Spirit since a little girl. But when I eventually learned about what a catastrophe her life has become, I told her, I'd run the other way from the Spirit.

The funny thing is, that even the Bible doesn't keep her grounded. Why? Because it's obvious to her that God is a person that relates with people in the Bible, and she wants the same. So she wants God to be fantastical to her too, like in the Bible.

Her training wheels became a Harley ... or one of those blistering fast rice burners. At any rate, she got too carried away with God as a person.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yer playing with me now. But that's okay. Cuz I'm still very intrigued by this God as a person thing.

But to answer your question, if we know God as a person we've come to the horse's mouth so to speak. For example, did Abraham need a Bible?

That said. Of course we need the Bible, because knowing God as a person can lead us off the rails.

I've seen believers take it way too far. I'm close with a sister that has allowed God as a person to pretty much destroy her life. She claims that God speaks to her in an audible voice. He also speaks to her in panoramic visions in the sky, she tells me.

When I first got to know her I only knew things about her and God, and how she's pretty much been following the Spirit since a little girl. But when I eventually learned about what a catastrophe her life has become, I told her, I'd run the other way from the Spirit.

The funny thing is, that even the Bible doesn't keep her grounded. Why? Because it's obvious to her that God is a person that relates with people in the Bible, and she wants the same. So she wants God to be fantastical to her too, like in the Bible.

Her training wheels became a Harley ... or one of those blistering fast rice burners. At any rate, she got too carried away with God as a person.

Knowing God as a person means that we can relate to and have a personal relationship with Him. He takes an active interest in us and in our life. God as an energy, a force, or a power cannot know us personally. The New Covenant clearly says that "all shall know Me, from the little one to the great." (Jeremiah 31.34; Hebrews 8.11)

Yet knowing Him as a "person" never meant that we do not need what He has given to us to help our relationship with Him. God's word and His people can help to keep us on course. It's obvious that your friend doesn't listen to the Bible or to others.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've seen believers take it way too far.

I've seen people take money, food, sex, success, sports, learning and many other things "too far." Does that make those things bad? I've seen a lot of other people use those things to greatly enrich their lives. Why do you always point out the mental weirdos who went off the deep end? Why don't you start hanging around with some successful people instead of getting all your clues from the clueless fringe cases who stuff firecrackers up their noses and now wonder why they can't smell anything.

Who is playing with whom? "Intrigued by this God as a person thing?" As if the idea is all fresh and new to you.

Yes, God is a person! He thinks, feels, decides and has values. He communicates to us. We can have a personal relationship with him with the help of the Bible. Trust me, we can. The sooner you get started the better. At least give it a shot. What do you have to lose except more years of moaning?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Seems like you like to talk about your doubt more than your faith.

Ironically, when I do talk about my faith, as I did in the comment that you are responding to, you talk about my doubt.

It isn't about a comparison with me. It's about trying to figure out whether you really believe in anything. Because like I said, you seem to want to talk about what you doubt more than what you positively believe. In my experience persons of faith are filled with believing, not doubts. Doesn't mean they don't have doubts, they just don't major in them, like you seem to do.

You don't want to compare me with yourself but rather with "persons of faith." What's your point? I am happy to acknowledge that there are people who are better than me or at least I certainly hope there are.

How's that working for you? What I've seen is that you are trying to reach the point where you have absolutely no doubt, and so you can say "Now I know." But as we discussed, though we have strong evidence in this life, it is always possible to doubt. That is where the decision to have faith should step in.

It's working well. It enables me to see through a lot of bull**** and focus on that which has authentic and enduring value.

The above statement is self-contradicting, because you can't make it without comprehending that reality is incomprehensible. So obviously you can comprehend it some. So it's probably better to say that there are aspects of it that we may not be able to understand. But to say it is totally beyond comprehension is something you can't say for everyone and if you say it for yourself you've engaged in self-contradiction.

It's not self-contradicting because I included the caveat "as far as I can tell" Thus, it is a statement of how it seems to me. It doesn't claim to be absolute truth. When I tell you how it seems to me, such statement is irrefutable. I didn't claim what you're saying I did.

How do you know this? If we are more than a person, what is that? If you have no idea then I can't see how you can make such a declaration. And if a "person" is how we define ourselves, shouldn't you be saying we need a better definition of person, rather than say we are more than a person. How do you know there is anything that is "more" than a person, anyway? Describe something that is "more" than a person.

It sometimes seems to me that the best we can do is is describe what God is not. You can name any attribute of God— any image of God you can find, even in the Bible— and then ask, “Okay, God is a father, but how is he not a father? God is a king, but how is he not a king? God is a person, but how is he not a person?” This is a good exercise, because it cautions us against taking these human metaphors too far. It reminds us that our image of God is just that: an image, a picture. God is bigger than any of these pictures. God is far more than wind or light or water, even though these elements are used to describe to him. The eagle, the hen, the lion and the lamb signify some aspect of God’s character, yet God is obviously not a bird or animal. I think we make a mistake when we totalize any of these symbols. Doing so makes them into an idol that can displace our apprehension God.

You say you are seeking truth, but when someone else says they know some truth and try to explain it, you accuse them of "putting things in a box." When you, zeek, find truth you've found truth. But when I find it it means I put something in a box. Seems like a pretty dismissive attitude for someone who claims to be so open-minded.It seems you are saying you get to put in a box precisely how specifically everyone else should define truth, including how they shouldn't put things in boxes. That's pretty funny.

I could be wrong. But, I haven't seen you acknowledge that God is a mystery that exceeds whatever our conception of Him is. Whatever truths I've found, God is more. However I symbolize God, God is more. If I don't acknowledge that, it seems I have put God in a box. Do you acknowledge it?

Sounds quite noble. However, at some point you have to know something, or you can hardly say you've found any truth. One would think that would include a definition of yourself. So rather than resisting labels about yourself, you probably should be looking for ones that apply. Like I said, focus on the positive, not the negative.

To try to 'define' an individual is a fool's errand. Whatever you think of yourself, you are more than that. What you think is an object--an image in your mind. You can't capture the mind in which the image of yourself appears. So you are always greater than your self-concept or how you or anyone else "defines" you. That negative is a great positive. Your potential self exceeds your actual self including your self-image. If you accept this, you'll be thinking positively.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ironically, when I do talk about my faith, as I did in the comment that you are responding to, you talk about my doubt.

You mentioned faith, but you didn't say what you believed in. What do you believe in? What do you believe God is to you and does for you? You talk about God so impersonally that sometimes it seems like you are arguing against his existence. Like I said, you talk more about what you don't believe in than what you do. At some level you have to know something or else the rest doesn't mean anything. So tell me what you know.

Surely knowing God can't be primarily about living in doubt.

It's not self-contradicting because I included the caveat "as far as I can tell"

Okay, understood. It wasn't just that statement though, it was your general tendency to see people who define things more specifically and clearly than you as "putting things in boxes" or "thinking in black and white." You tend to resist sharper definitions of things than you are comfortable with. That's your prerogative, but if your position is based in not knowing, why the demeaning characterizations of people who claim to know? Almost seems like you think the point is to remain as ignorant as possible.

It's definitely a liberal tendency to resist clear and plain definitions of things, especially moral things. I see this springing not so much from a bedrock belief that these things are undefinable, but rather from a desire to keep one's options open. Liberals are all about being free from constraints. So when someone defines things too clearly for them in a way that might threaten their freedom, they resist. Their reasoning is that, well, such things are "beyond our comprehension" and that the other person is trying to "put everything in a box," or worse is "a neanderthal." Anything but concede that perhaps, maybe, the other person is on to something.

It sometimes seems to me that the best we can do is is describe what God is not. You can name any attribute of God— any image of God you can find, even in the Bible— and then ask, “Okay, God is a father, but how is he not a father? God is a king, but how is he not a king? God is a person, but how is he not a person?” This is a good exercise, because it cautions us against taking these human metaphors too far. It reminds us that our image of God is just that: an image, a picture. God is bigger than any of these pictures. God is far more than wind or light or water, even though these elements are used to describe to him. The eagle, the hen, the lion and the lamb signify some aspect of God’s character, yet God is obviously not a bird or animal. I think we make a mistake when we totalize any of these symbols. Doing so makes them into an idol that can displace our apprehension God.

This is weird because that was pretty much what I said earlier, when I said God is Light, Water, Breath, etc, were just metaphors and that God is always personal. You came back and said the following:

"Really? Then why is God called a "mighty wind" which is impersonal instead of simply a "holy breath" which is personal? Why is he called "Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, none of which are persons?" Why, indeed did you refer to God as "The Truth" which is not literally a personal symbol? It seems as if, on some level, you recognize an impersonal aspects of God as well as a persona ones like Father and Son. "

Seems like now you are agreeing with me.

I could be wrong. But, I haven't seen you acknowledge that God is a mystery that exceeds whatever our conception of Him is. Whatever truths I've found, God is more. However I symbolize God, God is more. If I don't acknowledge that, it seems I have put God in a box. Do you acknowledge it?


To try to 'define' an individual is a fool's errand. Whatever you think of yourself, you are more than that.

If you mean by "defining" to absolutely define the limits of potential of what we are I agree. But to try to define our characteristics to understand ourselves better is certainly not a fool's errand.

Same goes for God. We can understand some things about him, but certainly not everything. For one God is infinite. How can we ever understand infinity? But to say because God or we or whatever are not completely definable so we should not attempt to define them at all seems the real fool's errand. Seems like an unnecessarily defeatist attitude.

But again it is consistent with the skeptics' wont to wrap themselves in pessimism like a security blanket. Like I said, at some level you have to know something, or everything else you say is meaningless.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've seen people take money, food, sex, success, sports, learning and many other things "too far." Does that make those things bad? I've seen a lot of other people use those things to greatly enrich their lives. Why do you always point out the mental weirdos who went off the deep end? Why don't you start hanging around with some successful people instead of getting all your clues from the clueless fringe cases who stuff firecrackers up their noses and now wonder why they can't smell anything.

Who is playing with whom? "Intrigued by this God as a person thing?" As if the idea is all fresh and new to you.

Yes, God is a person! He thinks, feels, decides and has values. He communicates to us. We can have a personal relationship with him with the help of the Bible. Trust me, we can. The sooner you get started the better. At least give it a shot. What do you have to lose except more years of moaning?

Thanks for your care and concern bro Igzy. It's a testimony to your personal relationship with God. And you are right that this "God is a person thing" is not new to me. I've been living with my invisible friend since the local church. But what does that say about God? > That He's a invisible friend for adults?

Since the dawn of time man has personified just about everything; even the sun and stars. The Hebrews even personified a golden calf. Witness Lee personified all kinds of things. What makes us think we're any different?

That's why I'm so intrigued with this God is a person. Yes, I love my invisible friend. But am I, we, just personifying what's in my, our, imagination ... based upon what we read in the Bible? Are we maybe just personifying what we find in the Bible?

You say, for example, "He thinks, feels, decides and has values. He communicates to us." I wonder, are these just personifications from the Bible? Is my invisible friend just infused in my imagination and compiled from growing up with the Bible?

I'm intrigued with this subject because I want more than just that. I want more than just my imagination.

You say, the sooner you get started the better. How do I get started? My motor has been running in that regard for as long as I can remember. Yet I don't know what God thinks, feels, decides and values. I don't know about your invisible friend, but my invisible friend seems to be playing hide-and-go-seek.

So I'm hoping to learn something from this discussion.

You ask:

"Why do you always point out the mental weirdos who went off the deep end? Why don't you start hanging around with some successful people instead of getting all your clues from the clueless fringe cases . . ."

I'm trying. Why do you think I'm here? I'll tell you when I find such ones.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Since the dawn of time man has personified just about everything; even the sun and stars. The Hebrews even personified a golden calf. Witness Lee personified all kinds of things. What makes us think we're any different?

That's why I'm so intrigued with this God is a person. Yes, I love my invisible friend. But am I, we, just personifying what's in my, our, imagination ... based upon what we read in the Bible? Are we maybe just personifying what we find in the Bible?

Yes, awareness, man has "personified" everything. You are right about that. But, what is that called? Idolatry. Just because "everyone else has done it" since the dawn of time sure doesn't make it right, or a practice we should emulate. Look at what Psalm 115 says ...

3 Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.
4 But their idols are silver and gold, the works of human hands.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see.
6 They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell.
7 They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk,
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them

How much better is an "invisible friend," if His name is Jesus, than anything we could touch or see. Today He is invisible, but one day He can be seen face to face. The way today is faith. Faith is not really deaf, dumb, or blind to our hearts and spirit, rather only to our physical senses. Faith really substantiates and validates the unseen God, in a way that rivals our physical senses, and that's why I like to call faith our sixth sense.

Those who dismiss faith really miss everything of eternal value. They try to make the best of the here and now, clothing the future in uncertainty, "we cannot not know anything for sure," so why worry about it. Such is 21st century life with a world full of agnostics.

I for one would rather put my hope in Jesus Christ than in climate change legislation or the many "visions" of those running for president. I'm not a betting man, but this is one bet I am willing to make. Like Pascal's Wager, this one promises a maximum jackpot for a minimum ante.

[Cal]

Harold, I like you. But I am not going to go around and around with you answering questions that have already been answered and discussing things you've already discussed a million times.

Your "invisible friend" is not playing hide-and-seek. You are. You are the one hiding. So stop hiding and start getting serious about life. Please don't tell me you've been seeking truth all these years. You've been hiding from it. Maybe you figured out that the LCM was bad. Well good. But now you need to get on with your relationship with God. So do it. Stop all the whining and excuse-making. You are making God look like an insipid fool, and he's just liable to hold you accountable for that.

When I said get around some successful people I meant stop listening to losers. If you want a good relationship with God, find a good church with people that know God and start listening to them and modeling them. That's all you have to do. It isn't that complicated unless you want it to be and I'm beginning to think you do.

These are words of love, believe or not. I really see you as a good person in whom the devil has entrenched a stronghold of unbelief. Get back to the basics, God, Jesus, salvation, faith, walking with God, living in fellowship with other Christians. The devil is ripping you off and your joking about it is not going to help.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio quoting Psalm 115

:
3 Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.
4 But their idols are silver and gold, the works of human hands.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see.
6 They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell.
7 They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk,
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them

This must be just one example of Biblical support for the attributes of the personhood of God Igzy is speaking of.

If these idols can't speak, see, hear, smell, feel, walk, or make a sound, then, that must mean the real God can do all of those things.

My faith then must fall too short to see such things from God. But then, it does say God is in heaven, and can maybe do all those things up there ... for all we know. There, "He does whatever He pleases."

We don't have to personify God. The Bible does it for us.

[awareness]

Igzy, I like you too. You strike me as a no nonsense kinda guy. But get off your high horse. You're no closer to God than I am. Your "person" of God is no better than my "invisible friend" God.

Now I realize that it's likely that your "Person" can't possibly be to you just a figment of your imagination. That the person you speak of is to you the same person that walked in the garden with Adam and Eve; the same person that met with Abraham, and that Abraham battered down; the same person that wrestled with Jacob, and who renamed him Israel; the same person that spoke to the prophets, and told Hosea to marry a whore; the same person that spoke from on high, when Jesus was baptized; and the same person that's gonna pour out bowls of wrath in the end days. Am I wrong?

And btw, I could just as easily say that you are running from truth by running into your Bible based imagination, as you say I'm running by playing hide and seek with the truth.

And I could no more do what you tell me I should, like find a church, and hang with the successful, than I could go back into the local church.

What I hear you possibly saying is that whoever doesn't know God as a person, like He is to you, they are just running from God, and playing hide and seek with Him.

And, believe it or not, like you, I'm saying this with love.

[Cal]

See, Harold, you have a fundamental problem here. If you want to find truth, then you have to believe truth can be known. And you don't. Because anytime anyone makes a claim that messes with your comfort zone, you say things like "well, we can't really know" or "I could as easily say this as that" or some other hedge that basically shuts the door to the possibility of identifying anything other than what you want to be true. "Truth" in your case being more or less what happens to appeal to your taste.

So I don't really understand why you hang out here. You don't think truth can be identified. You think it's all a matter of opinion. You think one theory of God is as good as any. So why mess around with a place like this? If anyone shares some truth with you are just going to find a way to brush it off. Unless it happens to agree with you, that is it's something you already believe. But you certainly are not going to make the tough decision to change what you believe. It's not in your nature. Your whole belief system is built around plausible deniability.

The good news is you are a pleasant soul, which almost makes up for the annoying way you dodge everything, but not quite.

[Cal]

See, the skeptics--of which there are two main representatives on this board--are always falling back on “we can’t know for sure” or “I could just as easily say this as that” or “one opinion is as good as another” or some such to the point of nausea, the intent of which is accountability cop-out. These are boring arguments. They aren’t even arguments at all. They are just ways of saying “I’m going to take my ball and go home” or “you can’t make me.”

I myself have made the case that we really can’t know anything for sure, that all knowledge is based fundamentally on some form of faith. However, my point wasn’t that we truly can’t know anything. But that we can’t know it in the way skeptics insist things be known--that being in a way of absolutely no question or need of faith. Because experience tells us that reality does not give us that kind of knowledge, even about the natural world. We can know, but it’s always a knowing of a kind different than the skeptics want, one that includes at least some leap of faith.

So the issue is not whether we take things on faith, because everyone takes some things on faith. The issue is what do we take on faith and why. In other words, the choices of what to believe in are character tests. They say as much about us as they do about the objects of belief themselves. There are two ways to deal with this: One, take it seriously and use your innate ability to know what cannot be proven to choose what you believe as best you can. Or continue to use the nature of knowledge as an excuse to defer accountability and kick the can down the road, as the skeptics do.

Either one of two things is true. Assuming there is a God and understanding the nature of knowledge as we do, either God does NOT expect us to know or act on anything about him at all, or he does. If he doesn’t then there nothing to discuss, we are all off the hook and we can all go elsewhere and use our typing skills in more useful ways. If God does expect us to know and act on things about him, then that implies, given the uncertain nature of knowledge, that we keep the whiny “we can’t know for sure” excuses to a bare minimum. That is, stop using uncertainty as a standing excuse, act in good faith on our best guesses, continue to refine our best guesses as we go on, and look to God for mercy.

In other words, cut the BS--unless you want your life to be an adult version of that kid who said "you can't make me" and took his ball and went home.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You mentioned faith, but you didn't say what you believed in. What do you believe in? What do you believe God is to you and does for you? You talk about God so impersonally that sometimes it seems like you are arguing against his existence.

Faith to me isn't about believing in a bunch of stuff intellectually. It's my connection to Ultimate Reality which I call God.

Okay, understood. It wasn't just that statement though, it was your general tendency to see people who define things more specifically and clearly than you as "putting things in boxes" or "thinking in black and white." You tend to resist sharper definitions of things than you are comfortable with. That's your prerogative, but if your position is based in not knowing, why the demeaning characterizations of people who claim to know? Almost seems like you think the point is to remain as ignorant as possible.

If by "people" you are referring to yourself, I think your statements are false. I don't know how you define things and so far you haven't given definitions that I can recall. You even refused to define the one word I asked you to define. The only exception I can recall was when you added a clause to my definition of the word "person", a word with multiple meanings in the dictionary and about which there is great legal debate.

I don't wish to demean anyone. The problem is, if people claim to know something, I can't verify it unless they back it up with argument or evidence.

It's definitely a liberal tendency to resist clear and plain definitions of things, especially moral things. I see this springing not so much from a bedrock belief that these things are undefinable, but rather from a desire to keep one's options open. Liberals are all about being free from constraints. So when someone defines things too clearly for them in a way that might threaten their freedom, they resist. Their reasoning is that, well, such things are "beyond our comprehension" and that the other person is trying to "put everything in a box," or worse is "a neanderthal." Anything but concede that perhaps, maybe, the other person is on to something.

Interesting hypothesis. How do you define "liberal"? There are numerous definitions in use. Do you have evidence to back up your observation or is it just an anecdote? Show me one of those "clear and plain" definitions you claim to have. You haven't done that yet.

This is weird because that was pretty much what I said earlier, when I said God is Light, Water, Breath, etc, were just metaphors and that God is always personal. You came back and said the following:

"Really? Then why is God called a "mighty wind" which is impersonal instead of simply a "holy breath" which is personal? Why is he called "Light, Life, the Way, Bread, Water, the True Vine, the Rock, none of which are persons?" Why, indeed did you refer to God as "The Truth" which is not literally a personal symbol? It seems as if, on some level, you recognize an impersonal aspects of God as well as a persona ones like Father and Son. "

Seems like now you are agreeing with me.

I think it's a mistake to say they are "just" metaphors, because that suggests metaphors are meaningless which they aren't. Also I included the word person on the list of metaphors. When person is applied to God, it is used as an analogy to human person. After all, according to orthodox Christian theology God is a uniquely triple person. So He is not just a person as we usually understand the term. He is not anything as we usually understand any term. When I comes to talking about God, metaphors are pretty much all we have. The metaphors we used are Biblical so they have weight. They are sacred symbols. But, insofar as they can be intellectually understood, they work by analogy so they don't capture the essence of what God is. There is always something over.

If you mean by "defining" to absolutely define the limits of potential of what we are I agree. But to try to define our characteristics to understand ourselves better is certainly not a fool's errand.

OK then we agree. Yes, self-understanding is good.

Same goes for God. We can understand some things about him, but certainly not everything. For one God is infinite. How can we ever understand infinity? But to say because God or we or whatever are not completely definable so we should not attempt to define them at all seems the real fool's errand. Seems like an unnecessarily defeatist attitude.

I agree again. That might worry you. Maybe you're becoming a "liberal skeptic."

But again it is consistent with the skeptics' wont to wrap themselves in pessimism like a security blanket. Like I said, at some level you have to know something, or everything else you say is meaningless.

Now that you claim to like to define things, it would be a good time for you to define what you mean by know here because, like the word person the word know has many definitions and an entire branch of philosophy known as epistemology. We're just getting started here.

[zeek]

This refreshing little article contains all the Anti-Sharia Christian fundamentalist needs to know about how to discipline his wife :

http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/...ine-your-wife/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

See, Harold, you have a fundamental problem here. If you want to find truth, then you have to believe truth can be known. And you don't. Because anytime anyone makes a claim that messes with your comfort zone, you say things like "well, we can't really know" or "I could as easily say this as that" or some other hedge that basically shuts the door to the possibility of identifying anything other than what you want to be true. "Truth" in your case being more or less what happens to appeal to your taste.

So I don't really understand why you hang out here. You don't think truth can be identified. You think it's all a matter of opinion. You think one theory of God is as good as any. So why mess around with a place like this? If anyone shares some truth with you are just going to find a way to brush it off. Unless it happens to agree with you, that is it's something you already believe. But you certainly are not going to make the tough decision to change what you believe. It's not in your nature. Your whole belief system is built around plausible deniability.

The good news is you are a pleasant soul, which almost makes up for the annoying way you dodge everything, but not quite.

If I dodge this rude post does it mean I'm running from your divine person?

At any rate, you sure do have a strange way of making a feller feel welcomed out here. I need to know. Is it coming from your divine person?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Faith to me isn't about believing in a bunch of stuff intellectually. It's my connection to Ultimate Reality which I call God.

The faith you describe is not the faith described in the Bible, not even close, which is probably why you and Igzy are going round and round here. Faith is the fundamental “currency” of the Kingdom of God. In the Old Testament, God expected his people to exercise abject faith - in the case of Abraham, to the point of sacrificing his son. God expected the Hebrews to exercise such faith in crossing the Red Sea. They received their rewards for exercising such faith in their lifetimes. To God's latter day followers - Christians - faith is still the currency of the Kingdom, however there is a difference insomuch as the rewards we receive for exercising such faith are, for the most part, received in the age to come. As an example, I would point you to Jesus' word to “doubting Thomas” - “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”. (John 20:29) There are many, many other scriptural references to give, but this one will have to due for now, and besides this hits hard upon the main point anyway; to wit - Faith, specifically the salvific faith of the Christian Faith, of which Witness Lee claimed to be a minister and an apostle of, is one of fully imbibing in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as the words of the Living God of Heaven and Earth. Apart from the Faith that is described and attested to in these Scriptures, any definitions and/or descriptions are somewhat irrelevant to our discussions, even here on Alt Views.

I think it's a mistake to say they are "just" metaphors, because that suggests metaphors are meaningless which they aren't. Also I included the word person on the list of metaphors. When person is applied to God, it is used as an analogy to human person. After all, according to orthodox Christian theology God is a triple person. So He is not just a person as we usually understand the term. He is not anything as we usually understand any term. When I comes to talking about God, metaphors are pretty much all we have. The metaphors we used are Biblical so they have weight. But, they only work by analogy so they don't capture the essence of what God is. There is always something over.

Very interesting observation. I don't think Igzy or anyone else has claimed that “metaphors are meaningless”, so the rest of your claims fall flat. What you are missing here, zeek, is that many of the metaphors, at least the most important ones, are metaphors that were given directly by God himself, and not from the imaginations of mere men. Most of the relevant Old Testament metaphors were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus. To name just a few – the water from the cleft rock becomes the Living Water offered to the woman at the well. The manna given to the Children of Israel becomes The Bread of Life in the Gospel of John. “Behold the Lamb of God!” proclaimed by John the Baptist becomes the Lamb sitting upon “the throne of God and of the Lamb” in Revelation 13:8. These are not the mere metaphors of created beings, but those given by the Creator himself. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

Of course this all brings us around full circle again. To the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures. EVERYTHING starts and ends with the Bible being the words of the Living God of Heaven and Earth. And just as the title God, Father, Son and Spirit have SPECIFIC, KNOWABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE definitions within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, so does the term “Faith”.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

If I dodge this rude post does it mean I'm running from your divine person?

Probably.

As for the rude part:

"Open criticism is better than hidden love. You can trust what your friend says, even when it hurts. But your enemies want to hurt you, even when they act nice." Proverbs 27:5-6 (ERV)

At any rate, you sure do have a strange way of making a feller feel welcomed out here. I need to know. Is it coming from your divine person?

You're always welcome. I just don't understand why you bother. If your response to everything is "we can't know for sure," then what's the point?

I do my best to speak from the heart according to what I think needs to be said. As far as I can tell, God wanted me to tell that to you. And I wouldn't dare hide behind "but I can't know for sure."

[Cal]

zeek,

I'll try to address your two questions about definitions:

Liberal: A liberal is a person who values personal freedom to the point of questioning traditional beliefs so that he/she can be liberated from them. Liberals prefer new ideas to old ones, mostly because they hope the new ideas will not place as much of a moral burden on them. They are always looking for ways to be morally liberated, and sympathize with "alternative" lifestyles which seek to do the same. Thus they take great relish in catching conservatives in some hypocrisy because they feel this discredits the conservative's traditional values and thus furthers their emancipation from those values. That's basically what's going on here on this alternative forum.

Know: That's a tough one. Basically there are two kinds of knowing. Natural and spiritual. Both have elements of faith because both are based on first principle assumptions. An example of natural knowledge is my knowing my lawn is green. I've seen it with my own eyes, so I know for sure. But do I? Perhaps I'm dreaming, or delusional or colorblind? Can't really know for sure. But I have a certain faith that I do know.

Spiritual knowing is similar yet different. We know, but there is faith involved. Basically, I think real spiritual knowing is revelation from God. We know that we know that we know. But we can't really explain how. This drives philosophers and skeptics crazy, which is some comfort.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Probably.

As for the rude part:

"Open criticism is better than hidden love. You can trust what your friend says, even when it hurts. But your enemies want to hurt you, even when they act nice." Proverbs 27:5-6 (ERV)

So a snake in the open is better than a snake in the grass.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You're always welcome. I just don't understand why you bother. If your response to everything is "we can't know for sure," then what's the point?

I do my best to speak from the heart according to what I think needs to be said. As far as I can tell, God wanted me to tell that to you. And I wouldn't dare hide behind "but I can't know for sure."

At the risk of being accused of hiding again I say: Thanks bro Igzy ... I don't know why you bother.

But really, what makes us bother? I don't know. Why'd we bother with Witness Lee, and the local church?

I just don't know. Why do I bother with continuing to learn about the Bible? I just don't know. Maybe I like hide and seek.

My present bathroom book is a book about the religion of our founding fathers. After reading for awhile I put the book down and asked myself, why do I bother?

I guess I'm hiding from the answer because, I don't know. Why do I even have this computer? Why bother?

And what good is my pleasant soul, when it seems to make me a doormat? Not that I don't deserve it ... the Bible says I'm just a worm.

So I guess the really big question is: Why does God bother?

I don't know. Maybe I'm a member of the elect, and I can't be snatched from the Father's hand. Maybe it's impossible to hide from God, but God can hide from me. For reason's I just don't know. Maybe there are things us worms just can't know. So why do we bother?

Answer. We just do. And so does God. Apparently.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

At the risk of being accused of hiding again I say: Thanks bro Igzy ... I don't know why you bother.

When I said I don't know why you bother, what I meant was why assume an attitude that nothing can be known when you are trying to learn something. It wasn't meant to be a put down. But to me you are sort of like a guy who only goes out at night expecting to get a sun tan. Or who goes to the auto parts store expecting to find groceries. I realize the LCM made you once burned, twice shy. But if you want God you have to learn to have faith again, like a child believes in his parents. You have to believe God is good and can find you and bring you to himself. God expects us to have faith, period.

Someone seeking God should find him. But I see you seeking in so many strange places, mixing in so much nonsense with the Bible that the truth has gotten so watered down in you that it can't do its job. What's the point of this Alternative Views thing anyway? The alternative views haven't delivered for you. That's obvious. I don't know, maybe you like the confusion. Maybe it's your comfort zone now. All I can say is there is something better. But if you want it you have to drop the ersatz replacements.

You are not a worm. I don't know where you got that idea. You are a child of the Most High God. He treasures you. If you would stop taking the words of impostors as his word you would see him work powerfully in your life. But you have to get off the drug of the "alternative" stuff. That's what hurting you, IMHO. That's my honest opinion. And as far as I can tell you haven't given that idea a chance, for whatever reason. Like I said, what do you have to lose, really? Then again, maybe you like being a victim. Who knows?

[Cal]

I'm not a perfect Christian. I have my doubts, some that keep me up at night. But the more I read and trust in the word of the Bible, the more I see that it really is something that can help us in all aspects of our lives. It's difficult to describe, but for example, one of the few words on parenting in the NT is "Fathers don't provoke your children to anger, that they not get discouraged." Turns out in my experience, if I just take care of that little bit of advice with my kids, it makes such a difference. That's life-changing stuff.

So when I see the Bible getting taken apart and so many doubts about it introduced on this board, and so many impostors presented as equivalents, I just shake my head and think, "They just don't see. They don't know. They are cutting their own throats."

Because the word of life is in the Bible, it really is. Not as legality, but as something from which the direct instruction of God can proceed. It's not in the other sources; they are not the word of God. Maybe some nice thoughts are in them, maybe even some spiritual insight. But not the God-breathed word. It's only in the Bible. And if you believe that and act on that, it will change your life for the better. Guaranteed.

[zeek]

Thanks UntoHim, I always love it when you drop in to straighten me out.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The faith you describe is not the faith described in the Bible, not even close, which is probably why you and Igzy are going round and round here. Faith is the fundamental “currency” of the Kingdom of God. In the Old Testament, God expected his people to exercise abject faith - in the case of Abraham, to the point of sacrificing his son. God expected the Hebrews to exercise such faith in crossing the Red Sea. They received their rewards for exercising such faith in their lifetimes. To God's latter day followers - Christians - faith is still the currency of the Kingdom, however there is a difference insomuch as the rewards we receive for exercising such faith are, for the most part, received in the age to come. As an example, I would point you to Jesus' word to “doubting Thomas” - “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”. (John 20:29) There are many, many other scriptural references to give, but this one will have to due for now, and besides this hits hard upon the main point anyway; to wit - Faith, specifically the salvific faith of the Christian Faith, of which Witness Lee claimed to be a minister and an apostle of, is one of fully imbibing in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as the words of the Living God of Heaven and Earth. Apart from the Faith that is described and attested to in these Scriptures, any definitions and/or descriptions are somewhat irrelevant to our discussions, even here on Alt Views.

If God isn't ultimate reality, who or what is? What does the Bible tell you about it?

Very interesting observation. I don't think Igzy or anyone else has claimed that “metaphors are meaningless”, so the rest of your claims fall flat. What you are missing here, zeek, is that many of the metaphors, at least the most important ones, are metaphors that were given directly by God himself, and not from the imaginations of mere men. Most of the relevant Old Testament metaphors were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus. To name just a few – the water from the cleft rock becomes the Living Water offered to the woman at the well. The manna given to the Children of Israel becomes The Bread of Life in the Gospel of John. “Behold the Lamb of God!” proclaimed by John the Baptist becomes the Lamb sitting upon “the throne of God and of the Lamb” in Revelation 13:8. These are not the mere metaphors of created beings, but those given by the Creator himself. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

How does that differ from my statement to Igzy that Biblical metaphors aren't "just metaphors" like he said but also "sacred symbols"?

Of course this all brings us around full circle again. To the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures. EVERYTHING starts and ends with the Bible being the words of the Living God of Heaven and Earth. And just as the title God, Father, Son and Spirit have SPECIFIC, KNOWABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE definitions within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, so does the term “Faith”.

If it's all so clear and unambiguous, why have Christian been fighting about it for 2000 years? They just need to see it your way and their problems are solved, right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are not a worm. I don't know where you got that idea. You are a child of the Most High God. He treasures you. If you would stop taking the words of impostors as his word you would see him work powerfully in your life. But you have to get off the drug of the "alternative" stuff. That's what hurting you, IMHO. That's my honest opinion. And as far as I can tell you haven't given that idea a chance, for whatever reason. Like I said, what do you have to lose, really? Then again, maybe you like being a victim. Who knows?

Well blow me down. You admit you don't know something.

No, I don't have a victim complex. I'm to ornery. The worm remark comes from two sources. One, the realization that compared to the size of the universe I'm just a speck, on a speck, in a speck of a solar system. Two, from the Bible, like I stated. You should read it sometime. Some translations translate it as 'maggot.' Take a look at Job 25:6, and Psalms 22:6. There's also some in Isaiah. It's not too flattering, is it?

The drug of "alternative" stuff? I admit I've gone off the beaten path. After the local church I tired of the beaten path. It became boring to me, and wasn't doing much for me any more. So I chose to waste my time on something else. Now I learn for learning's sake; trying to make up for wasting my brain in the local church.

And this Alternative Views thing is okay, but it scares most out here, that embrace the evangelical theme of LCD. Few have the cajones for it. Actually, compared to the old Bareans few exLCers cotton to LCD. None of the exLCers I know are interested in evangelical Christianity. You guys, and gals, are the only hangers-on I know ... that have gone back to religion.

You make a strong point about "not being able to know" and yet still seeking to learn. Actually, the more I learn to more I realize that I just don't know. It's weird. The more I learn the less I know.

So, appearances aside, I'm not evangelizing "we can't know." That's just where I find myself.

And yes I've become comfortable without certitude. It hurt a lot to get here. I like certitude as much as anyone else.

The only certitude I have now is, that it will all work out in the end. It's a kind of faith for me. Coming up I've come thru scary fire and brimstone sermons, and boogeymen under my bed, and now I have an invisible friend for adults, but don't go for a scary God any more. Maybe I'm just too soused with, once saved always saved.

Thanks bro Igzy for your honest responses.

[Cal]

Harold, Let me rephrase. Since you find yourself knowing less and less, will perfection be found when you've reached the point of complete ignorance? Just wonderin'.

I wouldn't put it that I know less and less. I would say life gets simpler the more I really know, meaning the more I know God. I think I'm clearer on some things. For example, I think end time prophecy is a lot less important that it's cracked up to be. But generally I know more because I know Him more, and so need to understand details less. Jesus (that is, God) is Truth, so if you know him better and better you know truth better and better. Whereas when I was in the LCM I needed to know all these doctrinal details, or thought I did. Now as I know him more I need that stuff less. But I wouldn't say I know less. I know more, but I just know in a different way. I understand the essence of things better.

Eventually God himself will be like daylight to us. That's what it says in Revelation. So we will see everything by the light of him. Perhaps then there will be no knowing at all apart from him. That's what it seems to imply.

So I understand the idea of what you thought you knew fading away. But it should not be replaced by nothing. We are not Buddhists (I hope). It should be replaced by Him as Truth. That's what works for me anyway.


And, Harold, I must say that despite what you think, it does not take any "cajones" to come and post on this forum. It takes cajones to go on a mission trip to the third world, to risk one's life for the gospel or to give away a big portion of one's wealth for the kingdom. Posting on a message board takes nothing that should be called cajones.

Also, your comment that you don't know very many ex-LCers who remained evangelicals reminds of the comment from that New York City Democrat after Reagan won in a landslide in 1988. "I can't believe Reagan won," she said, "Everybody I know voted for Dukakis!"

Best get out a little more.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Liberal: A liberal is a person who values personal freedom to the point of questioning traditional beliefs so that he/she can be liberated from them. Liberals prefer new ideas to old ones, mostly because they hope the new ideas will not place as much of a moral burden on them. They are always looking for ways to be morally liberated, and sympathize with "alternative" lifestyles which seek to do the same. Thus they take great relish in catching conservatives in some hypocrisy because they feel this discredits the conservative's traditional values and thus furthers their emancipation from those values. That's basically what's going on here on this alternative forum.

Why is it every time you try to get the truth out of a liberal, it has to become a "witch hunt?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, Let me rephrase. Since you find yourself knowing less and less, will perfection be found when you've reached the point of complete ignorance? Just wonderin'.

Knowing doesn't require faith. Not knowing does.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I wouldn't put it that I know less and less. I would say life gets simpler the more I really know, meaning the more I know God. I think I'm clearer on some things. For example, I think end time prophecy is a lot less important that it's cracked up to be. But generally I know more because I know Him more, and so need to understand details less. Jesus (that is, God) is Truth, so if you know him better and better you know truth better and better. Whereas when I was in the LCM I needed to know all these doctrinal details, or thought I did. Now as I know him more I need that stuff less. But I wouldn't say I know less. I know more, but I just know in a different way. I understand the essence of things better.

So you need less and less faith?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Eventually God himself will be like daylight to us. That's what it says in Revelation. So we will see everything by the light of him. Perhaps then there will be no knowing at all apart from him. That's what it seems to imply.

That's interesting speculation.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So I understand the idea of what you thought you knew fading away. But it should not be replaced by nothing.

Well truthfully, since the LC there's prolly been more unlearning than learning.

Originally Posted by Igzy

We are not Buddhists (I hope).

I think if Jesus and Buddha lived at the same time they would have had no problem with each other. The first noble truth of Buddha is that life is suffering. I think Jesus would surely have agreed.

Originally Posted by Igzy

It should be replaced by Him as Truth.

What does that mean?

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's what works for me anyway.

And I think that's great.

Originally Posted by Igzy

And, Harold, I must say that despite what you think, it does not take any "cajones" to come and post on this forum.

That's easy for you to say ... cuz you got 'em.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it every time you try to get the truth out of a liberal, it has to become a "witch hunt?"

Isn't that what Igzy says liberals do:

Igzy: "Thus they [liberals] take great relish in catching conservatives in some hypocrisy"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, your comment that you don't know very many ex-LCers who remained evangelicals reminds of the comment from that New York City Democrat after Reagan won in a landslide in 1988. "I can't believe Reagan won," she said, "Everybody I know voted for Dukakis!"

Your memory is slipping a bit. That was 1984.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Knowing doesn't require faith. Not knowing does.

So you need less and less faith?

Even faith is based on basic knowledge. You can't have faith in God without at some level knowing he is there or at least seeing the evidence he is there. Else we would see belief in leprechauns, faeries and talking cats as frequently and fervently as we see belief in God.

I think if Jesus and Buddha lived at the same time they would have had no problem with each other.

Until Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." At that point Buddha would have either become a follower of Jesus or left him.

What does that mean?

It means ultimately God is all the truth we need and in a very real sense all the truth there is. An idealized scenario would be if you put the guy who knows everything about the world but doesn't know God next to the guy who knows God like we eventually will but doesn't know anything about the world, the guy who knows God would be able to function better in the world.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your memory is slipping a bit. That was 1984.

Actually instead of Reagan I should have said George H. W. Bush.