[JosephM]

corinthian, on Nov 9 2006, 12:13 AM, said:

Joseph,

PS: regarding your other choices. I don't think there's any herd instinct going on. Most people I know don't really know anything about or care about or believe these things I have talked about. They're certainly not much about the prophecies in my church, unfortunately. Other than what comes from me. And I can say that, apart from what is contained in His Word, God has not revealed anything specific to me. Or if He has, I have for the most part been to dense to pick up on it. Which is not to say that he doesn't guide me in various ways, but I'm not aware of any specific messages just to me. I often wish He would just speak audibly to me, it would make things easier. And no, I have not just chosen to believe that God would not leave us here without an instruction manual. It's just that after many years of rejecting it, once I finally actually examined it (the Bible) thoroughly, and compared it to history and even science and even current events, I've found it to be overwhelmingly reliable.

Bill

Hi Bill,
On the contrary, Being an ordained Christian Minister I can tell you that in the fundamental Christian community the 'herd instinct' is very strong. Perhaps you are speaking outside that circle where the 'herd instinct' is non-christian. It works both ways...

One thing I will ask you and then close... Pray about this and ask God in Faith for yourself if he who says thou shall not kill ordered his servant to do this:

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. [18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Ask God if he is or is prone to revenge, favoritism of people, anger, hatred, violence, vanity, egotism or the need for compliments or if he changes his mind. These are all projected vanities of the ego mind of men. Yet they are painted as being of God in the Old Testament. The God I know is beyond all these conceptions. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and not vunerable to these things. God is all-loving, all-meriful, complete, changeless, self-revealing and does not direct floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms etc.. All these things were present before their were living societies. God does not get mad and trash cities and civilizations. God condems no one. These are creations of men. That which is love and absolute perfection has no lack or need for such things. Just some thoughts for you to contemplate and pray about.

Love in Christ,
JM

[corinthian]

MOW, on Nov 7 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

Hi Joseph:

Glad you enjoyed the anecdote . Its bounced around my family for years.

The concept of Biblical inerrancy has many problems. One of them is that it leaves believers vunerable to attacks from atheists and skeptics. All they have to do is find one error and the whole concept falls. Its like a large math problem that goes on for pages. It doesn't matter how brilliant it is ,if there is one miscalculation anywhere the solution will be wrong. For example Deuteronomy says "thou shall not kill",Ecclesiates says "there is a time to kill " ."Aha! , gotcha!", they would say . Now progressives know there is all the difference in the world between these two books. If anything the books of Job and Ecclesiates refute the Deuteronomists philosophy.MOW

Hi MOW,

Though I'm sure you have other examples of finding error in the book, the one you have provided, it seems to me, does not present a problem. It's simply a matter of translation. Some translations of course say "thou shall not kill" while many other translations say "thou shall not murder". There is a world of difference between "kill" and "murder". Although, to "murder" would naturally include killing, although killing does not necessarily include murder. Either a translation could reasonably be used in this verse, but context determines the correct one to be "murder", it seems to me.

Now what of the context where this is used? It clearly rules out the translation "kill" if that is meant to exclude any and all killing. Because the same God who is giving that command has already given other commands requiring execution, and indeed it immediately follows that command with multiple examples of sin that must be punished by execution. Of course, it could still be argued I suppose that the command is to the individual who is to never "kill" in the sense of acting in anger or taking revenge. This must be left to the appointed authorities, who are commanded by God to take a life under certain circumstances.

Ex 20:13Thou shalt not kill
Ex 21:12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death

Now, an atheist would be free to argue that the above is an example of error in the Bible. They are commanded not to kill in one verse followed by a command to kill just a few verses later, all by the same God. It is not necessary to go all the way over to Ecclesiastes. You just have to go a couple of pages. Though it seems to me that if they were correct that this means error, the Bible would be useless, just a bunch of gibberish that nobody could make any sense out of. But instead it seems rather obvious to me that "kill" in 20:13 is simply a rather poor translation, a translation that is only partially correct best, and is totally out of context with the rest of the book that it appears in. Partially correct in the sense that "murder" includes "killing".

When I look to the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), I see that the word that has been translated in verse 20:13 is the Hebrew word "ratsach". The first definition given in bold letters is "murder", followed by "kill, take the life of another...... ( note: this action can refer to an accident, manslaughter, premeditation, or governmental execution)

When I look in the NASB be dictionary, once again the first meaning listed is "murder". Looking in Strong's lexicon, I see 1: to murder, slay, kill.

However, in verse 21:12, when I look at the Hebrew for "surely be put to death", I see that is another word: Hebrew transliteration "mut", for which the DBL Hebrews shows first definition: die, be dead, be killed and so in a state of physical absence of life. The use of "murderer" for this word is way down the list. Looking to the NAS be dictionary, there is a long list of translations/definitions, but "murder" is not even on the list. It's the same thing with Strong's, no mention of murder , with the primary definition being " to die, kill, have one executed".

So to me this is no example of error at all, but more an example of a translation that is not specific enough in the choice of the several shades of "killing" that could have been chosen for the translation. And indeed, many other translations -- maybe most -- use the word "murder" rather than "kill".

As far as I'm concerned, most so-called "errors" in the word of God turn out not to be "errors" when examined closely enough. But to a believer like me, it doesn't matter if one can find a few examples that I am unable to explain. Because once I have become convinced, from the many examples I have already provided, of the miraculous and supernatural aspect of the book, then I don't really worry about a few minor areas that I cannot explain. These "errors" are dwarfed by the other evidence, and therefore to me would just be examples of my small human mind as yet being unable to understand. Indeed, there are many difficult areas in the Bible that caused me a great deal of problem for a lot of years, of the type you are pointing to. But the vast majority of them disappeared with further study, because the problem was with me and my lack of understanding and lack of study, rather than with the book itself.

But that's only one way of looking at it, I realize!

Bill

[corinthian]

JosephM, on Nov 9 2006, 08:32 AM, said:

Hi Bill,
On the contrary, Being an ordained Christian Minister I can tell you that in the fundamental Christian community the 'herd instinct' is very strong. Perhaps you are speaking outside that circle where the 'herd instinct' is non-christian. It works both ways...

One thing I will ask you and then close... Pray about this and ask God in Faith for yourself if he who says thou shall not kill ordered his servant to do this:

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. [18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Ask God if he is or is prone to revenge, favoritism of people, anger, hatred, violence, vanity, egotism or the need for compliments or if he changes his mind. These are all projected vanities of the ego mind of men. Yet they are painted as being of God in the Old Testament. The God I know is beyond all these conceptions. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and not vunerable to these things. God is all-loving, all-meriful, complete, changeless, self-revealing and does not direct floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms etc.. All these things were present before their were living societies. God does not get mad and trash cities and civilizations. God condems no one. These are creations of men. That which is love and absolute perfection has no lack or need for such things. Just some thoughts for you to contemplate and pray about.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hello Joseph,

When I said "no herd mentality" I was just saying that I don't believe that provides a reason for the judgments I have come up with. I'm only talking about my specific case. I'm sure there is much "herd mentality" many places and in many churches. And not just in the so-called fundamentalist churches, as you indicate. I'm sure there is also a fair share of herd mentality and the so-called progressive, liberal churches. People are influenced by the thoughts of other people, particularly people they admire, such as pastors. But they would be better off paying closer atention to the Word of God rather than the words of men.

I certainly believe, having prayed about these matters a lot in the past, that God asked his servant to do the things they you quoted. I certainly believe God punishes individuals and nations for their sin, in the past and presently. God has said "vengeance is mine". This is what He says about Himself, and Jesus did not contradict this. As I said already, Jesus himself said "you will fall by the sword and be taken prisoner to all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled under the feet of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are complete". (Perhaps a paraphrase, but pretty close).

It seems to me that we have two choices. We can believe what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. Or we can hold God to our standards of what we think is appropriate. Even though He has said "my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways" (paraphrase?) Which leaves us throwing out at least half of the Bible, probably more like three quarters of it. If we choose the latter, then as far as I'm concerned the entire book needs to be thrown out as far as any kind of divine Revelation goes. It simply comes down to the words of fallible men, and we pick and choose the parts we like and toss out that we don't like. Once again, going by the judgments of fallible men ( ourselves).

Since everything that I have read in the Bible pretty much corresponds to what I observe in the world -- at least regarding things that can be observed (according to the examples I have already provided and many other examples I have not provided) -- then I will stick with believing the whole word of God, and not just the parts I prefer.

But again, that's just me! Please pray about the God who said regarding ancient Israel that, because of their sin, He would destroy their temple and their city and chase them through the farthest nations of the earth. Where they would be hated by all of these nations where He has chased them. Where they would constantly fear for their lives. But yet, because they were His chosen, that he would not allow them to be destroyed completely. But then finally He would gather them from these far away nations, and bring them back, and give them the land of Israel again. And that he would use these other nations to accomplish this. There is chapter after chapter after chapter on this very subject throughout the entire Old Testament. There is even some of it in the NT. Please read those words, think in terms of world history culminating with Nazi Germany, nuclear weapons, and the rebirth of Israel in 1948. Think of the hatred for Jews that all nations, whether Christian or Muslim or any others, have had all of these centuries. And yet they have survived, and finally come to exist again as a nation just as the Bible said. Has there ever been any other ancient people that, after having suffered such destruction and deportation -- did not simply disappear? That was not simply assimilated into the nations where they were sent or where they escaped for survival? But God said this would not happen to the Jews, and it didn't.

Luke 21:5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? ...............
20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.........................
21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled...................23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

These prophecies simply echoed the Old Testament prophecies. They were fulfilled within 40 years of Jesus's death. Whose vengeance was it that Jesus spoke about in verse 22? Was it not Gods?

Of course, we can choose to insist that Jesus did not actually say that. Along with many other hard teachings attributed to Jesus. But somebody said it. Just as somebody said it from the Old Testament. So is it that whoever said these things was not God, but just an extremely lucky fortuneteller? Also, if God does not do things like "trash cities", and yet these things happen continuously throughout history, does God not have the power to stop it? Is He powerless, or is it that He just doesn't care that these things happen? I think it is as the Bible says it is, that God will punish sin.

In the case of Jerusalem, God warned for centuries through the Old Testament prophets that He would destroy Jerusalem and scatter the people through the nations. But He also foretold the restoration of the nation. He foretold that they would live in Jerusalem again as a sovereign people. You may feel that punishment such as this is a humanlike attribute being given to God to whom it does not belong. Nonetheless, the Bible quotes God is saying these things and these things have happened in exactly the way that the Bible claims that God said it. To me that makes the Bible believable, including all the attributes the Bible gives to God.

As you have said, not a debate to be won. But discussion to be shared.
I appreciate your thoughts!

Bill

This post has been edited by corinthian: 09 November 2006 - 04:02 PM

[JosephM]

Thanks Bill for your very civil discussion. I have respect for your point of view and am confident God will reveal to you all that is required on your journey as you allow him.

I see you addressed Mow's perceived error but did you address any on the sites I mentioned? Perhaps you missed that post? You are correct that the Bible, especially the Old Testament contradicts what God has shown me and I have shared with you. You see God as that which I see as the ego projections of men. This would toss out most of the OT as you said. You see me as picking and choosing but I do not use the Bible as authority for my words, only sometimes so as not to put a stumbling block before those who require such so as not to reject before giving consideration. I could just as well use any book that has true sayings.

Jesus is recorded in the book you believe as letting a woman go who by rights should have been stoned to death for adultery. He did not condemn her for such an act and they were still under the law at the time. I think that says much. God is no respecter of persons yet it appears respect was shown if you buy he must punish according to his law. But regardless, when one experiences the essence of love, one finds no room for condemnation or punishment. These things you attribute to God have been shown to me to me as nothing more than the natural spiritual laws of sowing and reaping. We punish ourselves. God hates no one. There is no room in love for hate. It is an opposite created only in and by the mind of man.

You say... "It seems to me that we have two choices. We can believe what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. Or we can hold God to our standards of what we think is appropriate."

Can you see the error in the choices you have spoken? It is not an either this or that. You have made the assumption up front in your mind that all of the Bible is innerent, therefore you cannot see that there is another alternative. I do not hold God to my standards and neither do I believe God has revealed himself in general in the OT and parts of the NT. I have not limited myself to those beliefs as options. But rather God has revealed his nature as self-evident truth within me not by study and reading but by direct experience which is available to all once the barriers to truth are removed. One of those barriers are man's rigid belief systems and flawed perception from a limited mind. His truth is in all for the viewing when the clouds are rolled back. These clouds include a mind that has been blinded by its own faith in its limited view and perceptions. These clouds (to mention a few) include a belief in the reality of opposites, having opinions on every subject with incomplete knowledge, unforgiveness in ones heart, condemnation of others and a belief in God based on other men and attributed to him without direct knowlege.

Even your Bible speaks a mighty truth when it says .... 1 John 2:27
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.

Its the annointing .... not the book... the letter killeth.... but the spirit maketh alive...


So you see. We have a large gap in the flesh. Your beliefs say I am deceived and possibly in possesion of a devil and that if I don't change I am headed to hell. Mine, on the otherhand is in love with you and all of God's creation and most of the time operates in the heaven that you wait for. My heaven has room for all regardless of beliefs because all are in reality an inseparable part of the One except for the illusion that exists in some minds and says otherwise. (believers/nonbelievers us/them saved/lost Jews/Gentiles the elect/the n-ondeseving etc. etc.

Thanks for your patience and wishing you peace beyond all understanding.

[soma]

Quote

What is it that would cause a man to do such a thing? [quote]

I would say the ego causes man to do such a thing because it wants to be right in what it sees as multiplicity and division. It does not see the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as one unit. The son denotes that which is born of pure consciousness, where the spring of the Holy Ghost shows the love of the Father. Unsophisticated people, not aware of pure consciousness separate, divide and judge others with what they hear or read in the Scriptures. They don’t understand the words of unity in the Scriptures because they are not moved by pure consciousness whereas the people who wrote the Scriptures were in contact with Christ consciousness. The tragedy is that not all people are creative and constructive thinkers and can see the unity of the whole. These people need to engage their minds in intellectual and rigorous practice to break the boundaries between their minds and other dualities. This differentiation is within ourselves so we need to understand our own unit consciousness to be able to see Christ consciousness expressing to us One Power, One Principle, One Cause and One Source of Love. By visualizing Christ in contemplation or meditation is one way to experience the non-dual through the images of the dual. We can’t change love, but must understand and bring ourselves into harmony with it to let pure consciousness work with us, through us and for us.

This was not written to offend anyone because I respect both arguesments on this thread and the thoughful presentations.

[corinthian]

JosephM, on Nov 9 2006, 04:33 PM, said:

Thanks Bill for your very civil discussion. I have respect for your point of view and am confident God will reveal to you all that is required on your journey as you allow him.

I see you addressed Mow's perceived error but did you address any on the sites I mentioned? Perhaps you missed that post? You are correct that the Bible, especially the Old Testament contradicts what God has shown me and I have shared with you. You see God as that which I see as the ego projections of men. This would toss out most of the OT as you said. You see me as picking and choosing but I do not use the Bible as authority for my words, only sometimes so as not to put a stumbling block before those who require such so as not to reject before giving consideration. I could just as well use any book that has true sayings.

Jesus is recorded in the book you believe as letting a woman go who by rights should have been stoned to death for adultery. He did not condemn her for such an act and they were still under the law at the time. I think that says much. God is no respecter of persons yet it appears respect was shown if you buy he must punish according to his law. But regardless, when one experiences the essence of love, one finds no room for condemnation or punishment. These things you attribute to God have been shown to me to me as nothing more than the natural spiritual laws of sowing and reaping. We punish ourselves. God hates no one. There is no room in love for hate. It is an opposite created only in and by the mind of man.

You say... "It seems to me that we have two choices. We can believe what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. Or we can hold God to our standards of what we think is appropriate."

Can you see the error in the choices you have spoken? It is not an either this or that. You have made the assumption up front in your mind that all of the Bible is innerent, therefore you cannot see that there is another alternative. I do not hold God to my standards and neither do I believe God has revealed himself in general in the OT and parts of the NT. I have not limited myself to those beliefs as options. But rather God has revealed his nature as self-evident truth within me not by study and reading but by direct experience which is available to all once the barriers to truth are removed. One of those barriers are man's rigid belief systems and flawed perception from a limited mind. His truth is in all for the viewing when the clouds are rolled back. These clouds include a mind that has been blinded by its own faith in its limited view and perceptions. These clouds (to mention a few) include a belief in the reality of opposites, having opinions on every subject with incomplete knowledge, unforgiveness in ones heart, condemnation of others and a belief in God based on other men and attributed to him without direct knowlege.

Even your Bible speaks a mighty truth when it says .... 1 John 2:27
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.

Its the annointing .... not the book... the letter killeth.... but the spirit maketh alive...


So you see. We have a large gap in the flesh. Your beliefs say I am deceived and possibly in possesion of a devil and that if I don't change I am headed to hell. Mine, on the otherhand is in love with you and all of God's creation and most of the time operates in the heaven that you wait for. My heaven has room for all regardless of beliefs because all are in reality an inseparable part of the One except for the illusion that exists in some minds and says otherwise. (believers/nonbelievers us/them saved/lost Jews/Gentiles the elect/the n-ondeseving etc. etc.

Thanks for your patience and wishing you peace beyond all understanding.

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for hanging with me. You make many good points that could provide many long discussions! I'm going to try for change a response that is not quite so long winded on my part.

You give a very interesting example: with Jesus and the adulterous woman. Now I'm not saying that the way you look at this is totally incorrect. But do you notice when you read this, that Jesus actually keeps the law, that is to say the Old Testament law? The law (which I believe Jesus dictated to Moses, because the NT says that Jesus is the creator) required the death penalty of an adulterer upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. It required the death penalty of both the man and the woman caught in adultery. I can't help but believe that the men who dragged this woman before Jesus either knew who the adulterous man was, or were adulterers themselves or possibly even that one of them was the man who committed adultery with this woman. All for the purpose of trapping Jesus. I have often wondered what it was that Jesus was writing in the sand -- perhaps somebody's name? Maybe an accusation of His own? Well, we'll probably never know in this life.

So what was Jesus's response? Was it to go against the law and tell these men that adultery should not be punished and this woman should be set free? No, He simply obeyed the law and instructed the one without sin to cast the stone. And what did Jesus say say to the woman as the men walked away, heads hung in shame? Don't worry about it, the law is way too harsh? No, first he asked her where her accusers were. She said they were gone away. Then He said, following the law, "then neither do I condemn you". You see, by the law, He could not condemn her with out the testimony of two or three witnesses. So, He just told her to go in sin no more.

I don't think Jesus was teaching here that adultery was no big deal and not deserving of punishment, do you?

Re: "Your beliefs say I am deceived and possibly in possesion of a devil and that if I don't change I am headed to hell. Mine, on the otherhand is in love with you ". Well, I hope it's not that bad in your case! LOL! Could you not simply be somebody who loves Jesus and belongs to Jesus and has salvation but who has been deceived or at least confused on a few matters? Surely, despite your acceptance of me (and I do appreciate that) you consider me at the very least confused on these matters without thinking I am heading for hell necessarily? I mean clearly, since I believe opposite of you regarding how much truth is in the Bible, either you are confused or I am confused. Hopefully neither one of us is possessed of a demon. Let me say this: if you love Jesus and you love me and I don't see how you could have a demon. But I do think one can be confused on some matters regarding the God of the Bible/God of the universe, even if they do love Jesus. Even Peter was confronted to his face by Paul when he was in error. Okay -- let me stop now before I write too much in my usual long-winded fashion.

Thanks Again for your time
Love
Bill

[JosephM]

corinthian, on Nov 9 2006, 07:11 PM, said:

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for hanging with me. You make many good points that could provide many long discussions! I'm going to try for change a response that is not quite so long winded on my part.

You give a very interesting example: with Jesus and the adulterous woman. Now I'm not saying that the way you look at this is totally incorrect. But do you notice when you read this, that Jesus actually keeps the law, that is to say the Old Testament law? The law (which I believe Jesus dictated to Moses, because the NT says that Jesus is the creator) required the death penalty of an adulterer upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. It required the death penalty of both the man and the woman caught in adultery. I can't help but believe that the men who dragged this woman before Jesus either knew who the adulterous man was, or were adulterers themselves or possibly even that one of them was the man who committed adultery with this woman. All for the purpose of trapping Jesus. I have often wondered what it was that Jesus was writing in the sand -- perhaps somebody's name? Maybe an accusation of His own? Well, we'll probably never know in this life.

So what was Jesus's response? Was it to go against the law and tell these men that adultery should not be punished and this woman should be set free? No, He simply obeyed the law and instructed the one without sin to cast the stone. And what did Jesus say say to the woman as the men walked away, heads hung in shame? Don't worry about it, the law is way too harsh? No, first he asked her where her accusers were. She said they were gone away. Then He said, following the law, "then neither do I condemn you". You see, by the law, He could not condemn her with out the testimony of two or three witnesses. So, He just told her to go in sin no more.

I don't think Jesus was teaching here that adultery was no big deal and not deserving of punishment, do you?

Well, I think that the divinity in Jesus could not condemn her. It was not possible. All actions have consequences but only in the mind of men does it require condemnation or judgment. She had already judged herself and was about to be stoned and his divinity could not condemn her. I must admit you do have a point and are correct in that where there are no accusers there can be no violation or trespass. (has nothing to do with OT) However, God NEVER accuses his son. By the way you are his son and so are all females. (right Soma? lol) Only man can accuse man. God does not accuse and neither did Jesus therefore she was free to go. If you leave judgment to God only forgiveness is possible on your part which leaves no accusers. A law without accusers is dead. That whose essence is love cannot condemn that which he created because it is in his image and there no no room for judgment, condemnation, or vengeance in Him. Please don't quote the Bible to the contrary, I prefer you reason for yourself and respond.

Bill said:

Re: "Your beliefs say I am deceived and possibly in possession of a devil and that if I don't change I am headed to hell. Mine, on the otherhand is in love with you ". Well, I hope it's not that bad in your case! LOL! Could you not simply be somebody who loves Jesus and belongs to Jesus and has salvation but who has been deceived or at least confused on a few matters? Surely, despite your acceptance of me (and I do appreciate that) you consider me at the very least confused on these matters without thinking I am heading for hell necessarily? I mean clearly, since I believe opposite of you regarding how much truth is in the Bible, either you are confused or I am confused. Hopefully neither one of us is possessed of a demon. Let me say this: if you love Jesus and you love me and I don't see how you could have a demon. But I do think one can be confused on some matters regarding the God of the Bible/God of the universe, even if they do love Jesus. Even Peter was confronted to his face by Paul when he was in error. Okay -- let me stop now before I write too much in my usual long-winded fashion.

It is not that bad. I have the earnest of my inheritance already.
No I could not be simply somebody who loves Jesus and has salvation but who has been deceived because I am no longer confused and have left deception behind. You do not believe opposite me because I do not believe the whole Bible is in error and yet you believe it is all true. I said it contains many truths but also many errors. There is a difference in perception but not an opposite view. I also do not think you are confused. I think you genuinely believe what you believe and having been there I recognize it. You are not to blame for what you believe. Your mind is innocent in nature and God sees you as perfect. You merely, IN MY VIEW, have not been awakened to the point of seeing this. I am no 'better' or 'worse' than you for this. One cannot awaken oneself. One can only give ones consent. I am confident that you and I will be One even as Jesus and the father are One. There is no doubt in my mind nor proof required by a book. It is not possible that hell can hold you nor more than it can hold me. I know hell because I have been there and have memory and so have many others on this forum.

Thank you for your patience in reading and consideration. I have tried to thoroughly read your post with understanding and appreciate your level of temperament in discussing such things. You have a genuine beautiful spirit about you that is quite familiar. As long as we do not allow beliefs to get in the way we can let it encompass us.

[corinthian]

Quote

That whose essence is love cannot condemn that which he created because it is in his image and there no no room for judgment, condemnation, or vengeance in Him. Please don't quote the Bible to the contrary, I prefer you reason for yourself and respond.

Sorry, Brother. Quoting the Holy Scripture ( OT ) was the only thing Jesus found neccesary for defeating Satan during His initial tmptation, and certainley I can do no better.

Quote

It is not that bad. I have the earnest of my inheritance already.

Amen to that, Brother ( and Sisters )

Quote

No I could not be simply somebody who loves Jesus and has salvation but who has been deceived because I am no longer confused and have left deception behind.

That was kind of a rhetorical question. I was just asking: could I NOT VIEW YOU THAT WAY , as opposed to viewing you as demon possessed/hell bound just because you see the Bible as less inerrent than I do?

Quote

You do not believe opposite me because I do not believe the whole Bible is in error and yet you believe it is all true. I said it contains many truths but also many errors. There is a difference in perception but not an opposite view.

OK, good point. My mistake. Not opposite, but quite dif.

Quote

It is not possible that hell can hold you nor more than it can hold me.

Amen again, Brother. Though maybe for different reasons. I'm Southern Baptist and agree with much that that SB's believe. In particular, once saved, always saved.

Quote

I know hell because I have been there and have memory and so have many others on this forum.

Well, there is not much I can say to that. As you might suspect, I doubt that you have been to hell as described in the Bible by Jesus. But I'll just have to take you at your word that you believe you have.
Later
Bill

[JosephM]

JosephM said:

That whose essence is love cannot condemn that which he created because it is in his image and there no no room for judgment, condemnation, or vengeance in Him. Please don't quote the Bible to the contrary, I prefer you reason for yourself and respond.

corinthian, on Nov 9 2006, 10:08 PM, said:

Sorry, Brother. Quoting the Holy Scripture ( OT ) was the only thing Jesus found neccesary for defeating Satan during His initial tmptation, and certainley I can do no better.

Greetings again Bill,

So do you now see the parodox that was presented in the first post 'Blinded by Belief'? The paradox is that since you have instructed your mind to believe that the Bible is the inerrent word of God you have locked yourself into non-reason in that you refused to reason as a response to my statement when requested to do so and merely quote scripture to justify your non-reasoning. (This is not a criticism evn though it may sound that way) It seems to me it is just a good example of the parodox I have addressed in the first post. It is okay if you do not see it the same way. I have enjoyed sharing with you and trying to understand your position better.

May God richly bless you is my prayer,
JM

This post has been edited by JosephM: 09 November 2006 - 10:40 PM

[JosephM]

Bill,

Since you believe without further question Scripture is true, I will quote two that I have found to be without error.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

This is the highest truth on this plane of existence. God is Love. God = Love. God is the essence of love. This love is not an emotion or passion as commonly defined in the dictionary or by men but rather a 'way of being' or 'seeing things' as God sees them. To man it may be accompanied by warm 'feelings and emotions' but love is not either one.

God is Light. God = Light. In light there is no darkness. It is just not possible. Light makes manifest love. This is reality.

Hate is darkness, Judgment is darkness, Jealousy is darkness, Anger is darkness, revenge is darkness, killing is darkness, unforgiveness is darkness, condemnation is darkness, separation is darkness, etc etc. None of these things can exist in love. They have no reality in the presence of God. They are mere illusions created and projected in the mind of men as an attempt to separate themselves from God and create their own kingdom. That is why Jesus said John 18:36 "my kingdom is not of this world". Any scripture that contradicts this is erroneous.

In Jesus was light and the light was the light of divinity (God). Jesus could not condemn as long as he was in the light because no condemning (judgment) is possible in it. If you are in love/light you cannot say but "forgive them father for they know not what they do" even if they crucify you without cause. And the father answers... There is nothing to forgive. Why? Because he does not see sin because in reality it doesn't exist in light/love. All conflicting scripture is erroneous. God is infinite mercy, grace and peace. These are at one with love. Any scripture that paints God with less than this is founded only in the ego mind of men. God can no more order a killing than stop loving. God can no more condemn you than to create darkness because in Him is no darkness possible. Any scripture to the contrary is created only in the mind of men and projected on God. Darkness is non-existent in God. God does not partake of it and cannot. Only man can in his projection of opposites created in his mind. God did not create hell. It is darkness and cannot exist in Him. Only light. Heaven is a natural state. Hell can only be created by the mind of men and can only have reality to him that creates it. God is not there because it has no reality in Him to be present. It is illusory. Any scripture to the contrary is erroneous.

So how do I explain why things appear as they are if what I am saying is true? One answer will only create two more questions in your mind therefore I can only say, "Experience God fully and all questions will disappear". Pursue love above all things and you will awake to reality. Who am I that says these things? Just a man like you but at this time I'm speaking not my own words.

Love in Christ,
JM
edited with spell check

This post has been edited by JosephM: 10 November 2006 - 05:33 AM

[corinthian]

Hello Joseph,

You say:

Quote

The paradox is that since you have instructed your mind to believe that the Bible is the inerrent word of God you have locked yourself into non-reason in that you refused to reason as a response to my statement when requested to do so and merely quote scripture to justify your non-reasoning.

But I don't believe that is quite a correct description of of what I am doing. I believe you asked me to answer you without any reference to scripture -- that is just going by my own mind. Now if you will look back at what I have been doing, I think I've been doing quite a bit of reasoning. I have not simply been answering questions at this post or in others with no words of my own, and just answering with a quote scripture. However, I have backed up a lot of what I had to say with scripture. You might say I had been reasoning FROM the Scriptures.

So it's not just a matter of me saying that the book says it and that's the end of discussion. I have been saying that the book says such and such, and let us look at how things are relative to what the book has said. In order to see whether or not we can trust the book. What do our observations show as compared to what the book says? In other words, what can we reasonably conclude from this?

Now you ask me to reason with you without any reference to what scripture might have to say, more or less. And I had declined to do that. Because you see, I don't trust the minds of men. To me it is easy to observe -- going by personal experiences as well as from studying history -- that the mind of natural man can not be trusted. It is corrupt. Of course, this is also what the Bible says. But whether the Bible says it or not, it is what I have observed. My natural mind falls into that category just as much is your natural mind would. (No offense) At least that's how I feel about it if we are discussing strictly spiritual matters.

I believe I've responded to a post over on a political thread without any reference to scripture at all. Just my personal opinions and observations. But those are worth about as much as anybody else's opinion is. You know what they say about opinions and what they are like.

Also, I must confess that I probably really did not want to try to answer your post. Forgive me for that, but it was really deep stuff and I knew that any answer I can come up with -- with or without the scripture for backup -- was going to be very lengthy and a whole lot of work. Forgive me for my laziness! But as I look back over your question, really there is not much I can say without going to scripture. Why? Well you have some opinions stated there, and they seem to conflict with scripture. Without referring to scripture I cannot make this point. And once again, to me it is irrelevant what my opinion is upon what you said there -- it's just the opinion of a fallible man. You seem to be saying -- and in follow-up post also -- that because God is love there is no condemnation or accusation for his son -- and we are all his sons? Therefore there can be no accusation for any of us? Well what can I say without referring to scripture -- maybe you're right and maybe you're not. If I think you are right, it's just an opinion based on some feeling I might have down inside of me. It certainly can't be based on any observation. But unless by "sons" you mean all men and women who have come to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone, then I cannot agree with you . (And I don't think this is what you mean since you say "so are ALL females"). I absolutely agree with you that for those who have been washed by the sacrificial blood of Jesus, that God will never accuse us or condemn us. If we do not belong to the Son, then we are condemned already. But of course I could not know anything in any way about that other than what God has revealed to me in the scripture. Someone might say that God has talked to them and told them something different. But Jim Jones said the same thing. Many a crazy man has had a so-called "word from God" through the centuries. Or were they crazy? Since we are speaking a spiritual matters, the only trustworthy way I have of knowing one way or the other is my reference to the Scriptures. Anything else I just consider opinions of fallible, sinful man.

Joseph:

Quote

(This is not a criticism evn though it may sound that way)

Yes, I know. I'm not taking it as criticism. You are very loving in your responses, even though we see things quite differently.

Joseph said:
"

Quote

Since you believe without further question Scripture is true, I will quote two that I have found to be without error

.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love....................
unforgiveness is darkness, condemnation is darkness, separation is darkness, etc etc. None of these things can exist in love. They have no reality in the presence of God. They are mere illusions created and projected in the mind of men as an attempt to separate themselves from God and create their own kingdom. That is why Jesus said John 18:36 "my kingdom is not of this world". Any scripture that contradicts this is erroneous...................
And the father answers...

Quote

There is nothing to forgive. Why? Because he does not see sin because in reality it doesn't exist in light/love. All conflicting scripture is erroneous

."

Well Joseph, my friend -- we could not disagree more. You seem to believe in a supernatural being -- a creator God -- Jesus Christ. Is that correct? Yet I can't help but wonder how you know about this person. You are judging one scripture to be correct and the very next scripture to be incorrect. You can only be using your fallible human judgment to make this call. Above, you say that in reality no sin exists and there is nothing to forgive. You make this statement partially based upon 1 John 1:5, which you say is a scripture you have found to be without error. Immediately following the scripture, just a couple of sentences later, we have 1 John 1:8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Now, this scripture contradicts -- it seems to me -- what you have said. But you have made the statement that any scripture that contradicts the fact that there is no sin or the fact that there is nothing to forgive -- is erroneous. If I am reading you correctly. Now even though we are at this point debating about scripture, let's just stop for a minute and let me try to do what it was you you first wanted me to do -- that is reason just from normal human reasoning without me having to call upon a piece of scripture to back me up.

I don't understand how you can think that you have found 1 John 1:5 and 4:8 to be without error, when you are quoting from a book where the author of the book presents a scripture within one or two sentences of the scripture that you know to be truthful, that completely contradicts whether there is sin or not and whether forgiveness is needed or not? So you seem to be going through here and picking one sentence as truthful and the following sentence from the same author as erroneous.

Now here's my question about that: in what form of human reasoning and rationality would you ever make this judgment about any author? If you found that half of the words of a given author were erroneous, would it make any sense to claim that the rest of his thinking was very useful and truthful? wouldn't it just show this author to be schizophrenic or at least very stupid? Or will immediately show that the record that you have this persons writings are completely untrustworthy? Or a person might say that you don't have a reliable copy of what the author said. But just from a simple logic approach -- reasoning without any reference to the Bible -- how are you going to make a judgment that some of what he says is very reliable if you don't even know if the record you have of what he said is reliable? How are you going to make the judgment that 2000 years ago he said sentence A but did not say he sentence B?

If you are looking at any other book other than the Bible, if the book was so full of error wouldn't you just throw the whole book out as unreliable or irrational gibberish? It seems at the very least that anything useful to be gained from this source that is so full of errors would really not have anything to do with the source itself. In other words, a person would simply have their own opinion about what is right or wrong. Then they would look in the book and see what agrees with there opinion and then say: okay sentence number one is correct, but sentence number two is incorrect -- is erroneous. It seems to me then that sentence A would be just as worthless as sentence B as far as anything "inspired" coming from that author.

Can you imagine doing an intense study on the mathematics book where the author said in sentence number 1: two divided by two equals one, but then in the very next sentence said four divided by four equals 2033? Who would study such a book? But by saying that you have found 1:5 to be very truthful, but then 1:8, since it contradicts what you believe to be true , is erroneous -- it's almost like you have a math book described in the last sentence. Who would have their child study such a book? I think any of us here would just quickly get rid of such a book and find a book that we could rely how for useful truths, without having to know all of the answers first before we read the book. Already know all the answers so that we can judge what is right in that math book (or Bible) and what is in error.

Oh well, that's probably about as far as I should go with my fallible human reasoning! I better fall back on scripture before I get into trouble! LOL!
From the same author you have quoted above, the author you occasionally find so truthful:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Joseph said: "Hell can only be created by the mind of men and can only have reality to him that creates it. God is not there because it has no reality in Him to be present. It is illusory. Any scripture to the contrary is erroneous.

So how do I explain why things appear as they are if what I am saying is true? One answer will only create two more questions in your mind therefore I can only say, "Experience God fully and all questions will disappear". Pursue love above all things and you will awake to reality. Who am I that says these things? Just a man like you but at this time I'm speaking not my own words ."

Well Joseph, may I ask exactly whose words you are speaking? Are you still talking about "reason" here, and me having myself locked in "non-reason" mode? Unless you are quoting some author? Or are you speaking about some spiritual guidance you're getting?



Joseph, you have made me work my weak brain far too hard!

Discussing in the love of Christ!
Bill

[JosephM]

Bill,

Yes you have worked very hard. I didn't expect quite that much of a response. Its okay though. You do not see the paradox I speak of though you do admit you don't trust the mind and perhaps on that basis you in a way substitute your belief in the Bible over future reasoning once you have reasoned with your untrustful mind that the Bible is inerrant. That is the way I view it. That is a true paradox to me. But I have no more to say as my first post has said it all and all I have done is make it more complicated with off subject comments. Thanks for your patience, politeness and time spent. Perhaps someone else here might be interested in engaging you in dialog. I have already spoken enough.

As far as the source of the words I spoke, it doesn't really matter as you didn't recognize the words and going any farther, you would surely think I was crazy if you don't already. So again thanks for listening and re-read the posts from the beginning if you have any specific questions unanswered concerning the original post.

Love in Christ,
JM

[corinthian]

I thank you, Joseph, for your comments and thoughts.
Bill

[mystictrek]

rivanna, on Nov 2 2006, 03:30 PM, said:

The way I've learned to see the bible, from reading progressive theologians, is as a human response to the experience of God--written by two groups, the ancient Hebrews and the early Christian community. It's part history and part metaphor; a collection of stories, prayers, religious practices, etc. It tells us how they saw the relationship between God and humanity. It doesn't tell us "this is the way God says things should be for all time," but "this is how we understood God in those days." The idea is not to ask "is this narrative factual, did it actually happen?" but "why was this story preserved for so many hundreds of years? what does it say to me?" The stories are true because they show us something about human nature, our search for meaning in life, our need to feel connected to the ground of being.

You put it so well here. Thanks. I am copying and pasting this into my Notes & Quotes because I need all the wisdom I can get on this important topic. Thanks again.

I love wisdom from so many sources. I have already said here at this forum that I think we should be adding the wisdom of other wisdom traditions to our Bible. This includes the QUR'AN, the TAO TE CHING; a lot of Buddhist Sutras and Zen sayings; some of Plato's stuff; Sufi stuff; Martin Luther King; Thich Nhat Hanh; Walter Wink; ACIM; Bishop Tutu; the TCPC points; so much more!

The Bible is a Library of many books not just one book by one or two faith communities seeking and finding wisdom. People are adding to it all the time.

[joyfulseeker]

JosephM, on Nov 1 2006, 10:47 PM, said:

Man is a wondrous creature. Even the very thought that we are conscious at all is enough to baffle the most intelligent of men. Yet it is even more amazing that this wondrous creature we call man that has been mysteriously endowed with a mind and reason will voluntarily give it up rather than use these faculties. He gives it up to have a book he can believe in with all the answers spelled out for him and then attributes this book he knows was written by men to the divine creator.

What is it that would cause a man to do such a thing?

Inevitably a man will come to the place where the entertainment of this world no longer holds his interest and the questions of life come foremost before his mind. In his sincere search for his creator he reaches out and cries out for meaning. And when this desire reaches to his very core, something happens. He has a revelation or communications with the very essence of life itself. This he instinctively and understandingly recognizes as God. And it is revealed to him that this God loves and has been with him always and is not far away. Many Christians call this the new birth experience but it is in no way an experience that is limited to a particular religion.

From this point the man "knows" that He has a spirit and connection to the unknown questions of life itself. What he does from this point is most paramount in his journey. He usually has this burning desire to know more of this phenomena and connection that resembles finding a lost treasure. He becomes renewed and excited in purpose to know more and live in this experience he has just had. Not having all the answers, in his impatience he searches the data of his mind and recall teachings about a book of answers to his questions whose author he was taught is God. And if that knowledge was missing he shares his experience with others having had the same experience and is passed on to this same conclusion. His focus now is placed on a book. In it he seeks to find more of his experience and inevitably makes a decision of mind to accept this conclusion as a fact and through it he continues his search.

Though many things in this book neither go well with his mind nor reason he makes a decision to believe the book by a concept he is told is faith. He then uses his intellect to make it fit within that concept and puts the reason and mind as inferior to the book itself. After all, he has made a conscious decision to believe the author is God. In essence he gives up his right to doubt, question or otherwise disagree with the book whose words reinforces his decision as being correct. He believes he is in the process of learning yet his learning is always made subject to the premises of the book he has made a decision to believe in. His thinking process must always be made limited to the revelations of the book which he no longer separates from God.

To the outsider, this seems absurd, ridiculous and foolish. Yet to the believer the book speaks of itself as foolishness to the mind and therefore justifies the mind=s belief in this newfound faith. Because of the words in the book the believer sees others as blinded and lost. He sees himself as special and to be rewarded in a future life for his belief in this newfound faith concept. The book is purpose driven and gives him purpose by its command to make more disciples of the book or his newfound God. He will be so daring as to refer to his book as the Word of God as though that were the same essence of life that he connected with in the beginning. And thus starts a vicious cycle.

Reason cannot deliver him from this cycle because his decision to believe has negated its use. History, contradictions or errors in the book have no power over his belief as he is trapped within the confines of the book which declares all others to be blinded. It declares the understanding of all the concepts or premises of the book to be foolishness to the natural mind and beyond its comprehension. Yet the fact that he is blinded by this belief is hidden from him.

What can be done for him? Nothing! He must make his own choices and decisions. Those on the outside can only continue in love to include him as one on a journey and an equal partner of God's wondrous creation.

Hi, JM--I picked up an insight in my wanderings--this from a guy I know in thirteenth-century Paris--that might be interesting to you. He said there are TWO "books" that reveal God. The first one, the most important, is the whole of creation. Unfortunately, humankind forgot the language it was written in. Hence the need for the second one, the Bible, which is supposed to serve as a dictionary for understanding the first book!

I figure from that, the Bible ought to OPEN minds and hearts to the whole created world. If it has the effect you describe, it's because some dern fool is reading a dictionary the wrong way.

peace and good from joyfulseeker

[JosephM]

joyfulseeker, on Nov 18 2006, 05:38 PM, said:

Hi, JM--I picked up an insight in my wanderings--this from a guy I know in thirteenth-century Paris--that might be interesting to you. He said there are TWO "books" that reveal God. The first one, the most important, is the whole of creation. Unfortunately, humankind forgot the language it was written in. Hence the need for the second one, the Bible, which is supposed to serve as a dictionary for understanding the first book!

I figure from that, the Bible ought to OPEN minds and hearts to the whole created world. If it has the effect you describe, it's because some dern fool is reading a dictionary the wrong way.

peace and good from joyfulseeker

Hello joyfulseeker and welcome,

Thanks for sharing your perspective on the matter.

[JosephM]

Here it is 2 years later and as I re-read this thread, this is still an interesting topic to me because it is so basic to the understanding of a riddle that in my view Progressive Christians have discovered and broken free of yet many who visit this site to debate seem to be trapped in. The riddle is well said by corinthian in his post.

Corinthian from post #31 said:

Now you ask me to reason with you without any reference to what scripture might have to say, more or less. And I had declined to do that. Because you see, I don't trust the minds of men. To me it is easy to observe -- going by personal experiences as well as from studying history -- that the mind of natural man can not be trusted. It is corrupt. Of course, this is also what the Bible says. But whether the Bible says it or not, it is what I have observed. My natural mind falls into that category just as much is your natural mind would. (No offense) At least that's how I feel about it if we are discussing strictly spiritual matters.

Yet is this same mind the one that refuses to reason because of lack of trust in itself on a small point that through that lack of trust surrenders reason to accept and trust on a larger point such as a book as the final word for truth? Go figure that.

Now, on a deeper level, I too observe the thinking mind and view its limitations which can be observed. And because of its dysfunctional tendencies agree that it cannot be trusted to discern truth from falsehood. So then I must ask, if I see the mind as corrupt and in a sense not to be trusted, who or what then is this “I” that sees or has determined this mind can not be trusted. Obviously the “I” is not the thinking carnal mind. The thinking mind cannot observe itself anymore than the ear can hear itself or the eye see itself. Therefore it is the “I” that sees this dysfunction of the mind and knows it cannot be trusted in this matter. At this point however, if identification with the mind is still strong as the sense of “i” and “my”, then the thinking mind which still thrives on identity equates “my” truth with “the book” which says the same thing that was revealed as truth. Yet it was not the book but the subtle “I” that made the truth self evident. Blindness has now occurred because the mind instead of releasing its identity to the subtle “I” which is the knower has sustituted it with an idol which is the book and the small “i”.

corinthian said:

Now here's my question about that: in what form of human reasoning and rationality would you ever make this judgment about any author? If you found that half of the words of a given author were erroneous, would it make any sense to claim that the rest of his thinking was very useful and truthful? wouldn't it just show this author to be schizophrenic or at least very stupid? Or will immediately show that the record that you have this persons writings are completely untrustworthy? Or a person might say that you don't have a reliable copy of what the author said. But just from a simple logic approach -- reasoning without any reference to the Bible -- how are you going to make a judgment that some of what he says is very reliable if you don't even know if the record you have of what he said is reliable? How are you going to make the judgment that 2000 years ago he said sentence A but did not say he sentence B?

If you are looking at any other book other than the Bible, if the book was so full of error wouldn't you just throw the whole book out as unreliable or irrational gibberish? It seems at the very least that anything useful to be gained from this source that is so full of errors would really not have anything to do with the source itself. In other words, a person would simply have their own opinion about what is right or wrong. Then they would look in the book and see what agrees with there opinion and then say: okay sentence number one is correct, but sentence number two is incorrect -- is erroneous. It seems to me then that sentence A would be just as worthless as sentence B as far as anything "inspired" coming from that author

This is a riddle and common reasoning by those who support the Bible as innerent and argue why it must all be true and that we cannot pick and choose. It says that something must be all true or cannot be depended upon and therefore because much is verifiably true in the Bible, it must all be true. It is a decision of mind based on the premise that there is no other thing to depend on. The mind does not want to become aware of its source of “I” that knows truth because this will mean its death. I am speaking of ego mind “i” and “my” which is what the majority of humans identify with. What the mind who identifies with “i” overlooks here is that there are true sayings along with false sayings in most all books. Some more than others but there is no need to discredit what is true in one breathe by that which is false in the next. Do we read to give weight to an author or depend on a book? Is the whole of no value because of a piece? Do we that are hungry throw away an apple because it has a bad spot? Or do we read for mind to gain whatever there is that speaks to us deeply where the “i” is at, at this moment? Is there a need to have a single book that is 100% true or 100% false? Does morality come from books? Is not truth discernible without relying on mind? Is the mind a tool or who we are? Else is there no Spirit?

Just an interesting consideration for the mind to ponder,
Joseph

[davidk]

Though they may be long gone:
Thank you, corinthian, DCJ, and joyseeker for a well reasoned, articulate, and civil discourse in soundly eroding the sandy foundations of the progressive, close minded, "higher criticism" oppositions to the concept of an infinite-personal God verbally communicating His truth to man and having this historical truth revealed to us through Scripture (AKA; Bible).

[soma]

Quote

Thank you, corinthian, DCJ, and joyseeker for a well reasoned, articulate, and civil discourse in soundly eroding the sandy foundations of the progressive, close minded, "higher criticism" oppositions to the concept of an infinite-personal God verbally communicating His truth to man and having this historical truth revealed to us through Scripture (AKA; Bible).

DavidK

DavidK, Love is the source of compassionate ideas and compassionate action. Your religion did not invent or initiate Love or an infinite-personal God. Religion and the church can be used as tools to enlighten understanding and behavior so we learn to love and live with respect for ourselves and others. Religion is not to be used to create, authorize, or discredit, the thoughts and behavior of people talking about love and or infinite-personal
God. Christian efforts on the side of Love and God will naturally diminish the tendency to repeat idle, self-destructive negative comments against people who love God to support a belief system. With an infinite-personal God, beliefs constantly improve and progress as we understand and experience the Lord working in us and our world.

We enjoyed the thread above because it viewed the Bible with spirituality, honesty and open-mindedness. If a belief system exaggerates and magnifies the superiority of a religion or church by putting down others, without appreciating the goodness, love and infinite-personal God in them than narrow interpretations are inevitable. The Infinite is infinite in all respects, it requires endless, unique and progressive study and contemplation. I enjoyed both sides of the debate and found it enlightening. No better or best, just different.

[rivanna]

DavidK,


Please don’t jump to the conclusion that an occasional quote from the bible on this board signifies a “lapse” away from open/liberal/progressive Christianity.

Have you read John Spong’s work at all? I agree with his view on this point--

“The words biblical and religious have become for me not synonyms, but antonyms…I yearn to be a spiritual man in the biblical sense. I am not at all eager to be a spiritual man in a religious sense….Biblical faith is not an act of the intellect or a matter of belief. Religiously, to have faith is to believe properly, without doubt. Biblically, to have faith is to enter life with the courageous expectation that the more deeply one lives, the more deeply one will experience the God who is revealed in life.”