Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Did you want me to add Good GOD?

 

How about Good GOD Jesus Lives?

 

I wouldn't say that I have turned my back on GOD nor has GOD turned away from me, my faith might just be stronger than you think...

 

In which case, that means something very profound...

 

I wouldn't want to be standing on shakey ground...

 

I would look all around,

 

Listening to different sounds,

 

For what I hear and what I see and what I say, could be heard and seen from far away...

[davidk]

Did you want me to add Good GOD?

 

How about Good GOD Jesus Lives?

 

I wouldn't say that I have turned my back on GOD nor has GOD turned away from me, my faith might just be stronger than you think...

 

In which case, that means something very profound...

 

I wouldn't want to be standing on shakey ground...

 

I would look all around,

 

Listening to different sounds,

 

For what I hear and what I see and what I say, could be heard and seen from far away...

 

The existence of the universe, itself, depends on a God that is personal and infinite, who made man in His image. There is no other way.

-

Every human problem arises from man's trying to make something autonomous from God.

 

Man's attempted autonomy has robbed him of any certain reality.

-

I wasn't aware we were speaking particularly of you as having turned your back on God or not. But when we so turn, that would be evil. We are who turn. We aren't perfect. We need perfection to speak in our behalf. Jesus Christ is this perfect relationship.

-

Faith is not generated by our self, it is a gift from God.

-

If this personal-infinite God is a good God, should it be surprising that this personal God could or would communicate to man on the basis of a verbalized, propositional, factual way, that he should tell us the truth in all areas concerning which he communicates?

-

As a Christian, I have the epistmology that enables me not to get confused between what I think and what is objectively real.

The Christian may have imagination and fantasy without being threatened.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

A real Christian can have imagination, but should also tell the truth in a court of law, a real Christian should not bear false witness...

 

The leadership of the Church and America has lied to the world...

 

There is no accountability...

 

I have been so accused by liars...

 

There is no accountability...

 

I have needs to attend to...

[Quaker Way]

I find conversations like this a bit amusing because it presupposes that a 'correctness' exists within our intellectual constructions. Even the Bible is second-hand information, passed down from one century to the next, re-written, re-interpreted, and re-translated. But what can any one of us say of our own experiences with God in our own lives? Enough of the theories and books, proofs and definitions. Have any of us ever experienced God first hand? Or is our experience with the Divine based upon what someone else said or what someone else wrote? God is an experience that can be had by all of us, not some theory to be proven or point to be made. The Divine defies our puny intellects the way the open sea eclipses all descriptions...it must be experienced. There are connections that are made within us and from without us that defy our understanding as well. We may suspect or sense something More...we may feel or sense something Deeper. How do we follow such urges? By relying on someone else's interpretations and definitions? Or do we face the direction of that New Light unknown before until we sensed it in a quiet time alone? God does not come to us on a blackboard or is called down to us by some man in an expensive suit walking back and forth in front of a TV camera telling us what God wants and what God says. If we are too busy telling each other what God is, how can God ever speak to us? We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word.

[minsocal]

I find conversations like this a bit amusing because it presupposes that a 'correctness' exists within our intellectual constructions. Even the Bible is second-hand information, passed down from one century to the next, re-written, re-interpreted, and re-translated. But what can any one of us say of our own experiences with God in our own lives? Enough of the theories and books, proofs and definitions. Have any of us ever experienced God first hand? Or is our experience with the Divine based upon what someone else said or what someone else wrote? God is an experience that can be had by all of us, not some theory to be proven or point to be made. The Divine defies our puny intellects the way the open sea eclipses all descriptions...it must be experienced. There are connections that are made within us and from without us that defy our understanding as well. We may suspect or sense something More...we may feel or sense something Deeper. How do we follow such urges? By relying on someone else's interpretations and definitions? Or do we face the direction of that New Light unknown before until we sensed it in a quiet time alone? God does not come to us on a blackboard or is called down to us by some man in an expensive suit walking back and forth in front of a TV camera telling us what God wants and what God says. If we are too busy telling each other what God is, how can God ever speak to us? We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word.

 

Have to admit, I'm with you on this.

[October's Autumn]

I find conversations like this a bit amusing because it presupposes that a 'correctness' exists within our intellectual constructions. Even the Bible is second-hand information, passed down from one century to the next, re-written, re-interpreted, and re-translated. But what can any one of us say of our own experiences with God in our own lives? Enough of the theories and books, proofs and definitions. Have any of us ever experienced God first hand? Or is our experience with the Divine based upon what someone else said or what someone else wrote? God is an experience that can be had by all of us, not some theory to be proven or point to be made. The Divine defies our puny intellects the way the open sea eclipses all descriptions...it must be experienced. There are connections that are made within us and from without us that defy our understanding as well. We may suspect or sense something More...we may feel or sense something Deeper. How do we follow such urges? By relying on someone else's interpretations and definitions? Or do we face the direction of that New Light unknown before until we sensed it in a quiet time alone? God does not come to us on a blackboard or is called down to us by some man in an expensive suit walking back and forth in front of a TV camera telling us what God wants and what God says. If we are too busy telling each other what God is, how can God ever speak to us? We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word.

 

Very well said.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

I find conversations like this a bit amusing because it presupposes that a 'correctness' exists within our intellectual constructions. Even the Bible is second-hand information, passed down from one century to the next, re-written, re-interpreted, and re-translated. But what can any one of us say of our own experiences with God in our own lives? Enough of the theories and books, proofs and definitions. Have any of us ever experienced God first hand? Or is our experience with the Divine based upon what someone else said or what someone else wrote? God is an experience that can be had by all of us, not some theory to be proven or point to be made. The Divine defies our puny intellects the way the open sea eclipses all descriptions...it must be experienced. There are connections that are made within us and from without us that defy our understanding as well. We may suspect or sense something More...we may feel or sense something Deeper. How do we follow such urges? By relying on someone else's interpretations and definitions? Or do we face the direction of that New Light unknown before until we sensed it in a quiet time alone? God does not come to us on a blackboard or is called down to us by some man in an expensive suit walking back and forth in front of a TV camera telling us what God wants and what God says. If we are too busy telling each other what God is, how can God ever speak to us? We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word.

 

When the future is revealed in a vision during a busy or quiet time you will know your GOD is communicating with the created.

 

When the vision comes in a time of an injustice you will know that your GOD loves justice...

 

When the vision comes at the midnight hour in a time of peace to reveal true peace in Heaven as it should be on Earth you will know your GOD...

 

Your GOD should be and is good, pro-life and pro-creation, evolving in a world of life and love...

[davidk]

... But what can any one of us say of our own experiences with God in our own lives? Enough of the theories and books, proofs and definitions. Have any of us ever experienced God first hand? Or is our experience with the Divine based upon what someone else said or what someone else wrote? God is an experience that can be had by all of us, not some theory to be proven or point to be made. The Divine defies our puny intellects the way the open sea eclipses all descriptions...it must be experienced.

On one point I understand and agree. And that is; ("God...is not some theory to be proven or point to be made.") that GOD exists.

The rest is, how did you say it, quite amusing; because no 'GOD' experience, under your premise, can be communicated to any one. "The Divine defies our puny intellects... eclipses all descriptions..."

 

If GOD is real, He is reasonably understandable, and we can communicate this with others, and He with us. He doesn't defy our intellect, He gave it to us for a purpose! You even allude to your agreement by your last sentence. "We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word."

-

So, is following Jesus Christ compatable with Christianty?

-

TGWB

"To follow Christ, means that you are following the path of a man considered to be GOD and that means you have found a very narrow path and yes it would be a parallel path that comes together as the same path a line drawn in the sand against that which is truly evil."

If I understand this, following Jesus Christ is the good and narrow path, to which another path runs parallel but with 'its back toward God'. This evil path is never able to join Jesus narrow path into righteousness.

-

October's Autumn Apr 5 2008, 12:37 AM Post #208

 

Then conservative philosophy is caught in the false assumption that it knows everything.

This is an absurd statement. Simply because it tells me you didn't read mine! I didn't say what you seem to imply I said, that liberals don't know anything.

What I said was, what you know relies on that of which you are uncertain. "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything." Liberal philosophy floats on an ocean of uncertainty and ambiguity.

-

[minsocal]

What I said was, what you know relies on that of which you are uncertain. "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything." Liberal philosophy floats on an ocean of uncertainty and ambiguity.

 

For those following other threads, davidk makes this statment over and over. The problem is in the inference of "anything". Davidk thinks this is something new. He cites Plato and ignores Plato's recounts of Socrates who claimed to know nothing but have convictions nonetheless.

[soma]

Looking at the finger, you know nothing of the moon.

 

Liberal philosophy is an activity directed towards the gaining of an experience with God and self.

 

Jesus spoke in parables that had multiple meanings, not one of the meanings was preferred, because all of them were balanced so an individual would gain insight from his unique position. Some might say this approach is liberal because it brings a momentary experience beyond knowledge and rationality. The parable gives insight, it exhilarates and affirms what a person holds to be true. Parables rely on their own authority. They support was is true from the inside.

[minsocal]

Looking at the finger, you know nothing of the moon.

 

Liberal philosophy is an activity directed towards the gaining of an experience with God and self.

 

Jesus spoke in parables that had multiple meanings, not one of the meanings was preferred, because all of them were balanced so an individual would gain insight from his unique position. Some might say this approach is liberal because it brings a momentary experience beyond knowledge and rationality. The parable gives insight, it exhilarates and affirms what a person holds to be true. Parables rely on their own authority. They support was is true from the inside.

 

And one can return to a parable numerous times in the course of life and gain new insight.

 

Thank you soma.

[davidk]

If you believe Socrates knew nothing, why would you continue to enlist him into the conversation. In addition, did you not read my message; I wrote of the Greeks, which would have included Socrates, grappling with their philosophical problems, ie; mulitple gods. I wrote, starting with Plato, because not only was he Socrates' prize student, but Socrates never wrote any philophical texts.

 

There are considered to be discrepancies in APOLOGY when compared to Xenophon's account of the same trial.

-

For those following other threads, davidk makes this statment over and over. The problem is in the inference of "anything". Davidk thinks this is something new. He cites Plato and ignores Plato's recounts of Socrates who claimed to know nothing but have convictions nonetheless.

"...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

There doesn't seem to be anyone here that can decifer basic English grammar. My comment is clear, and it does not say nor imply in any form that liberals don't know anything or that 'fundamentalists' know everything. It states that in what we know, liberals are caught in an uncertainty. If there is any inference in the word 'anything' beyond what I explicitly said, it is by your hand, not mine.

 

The difference is: the Christian has a reason and a purpose for his moral motions, ie; 'feeding the hungry'. The liberal/progressive knows he should but is not certain why. The Christian has to answer for why he did not. The liberal/progressive has no answer for why he did, because he has no basis for right or wrong.

 

You listen but you do not hear!

-

Some previous 'Progressive' quotes:

 

- " One of the most frustrating aspects of trying to communicate with 'inerrantists' their insistance on 'reliable knowledge.' "

- "...reliable knowledge. That is not what religion is about... for progressives."

- ".... and so is Science - which you must likewise reject because of the uncertainity of... knowing."

- "Jesus was a progressive Jew"

- "Jesus was the most traditional of Jews"

- "The stories of Jesus are not historical."

- "I don't think there are essential beliefs"

- "There is nothing I can say for sure I know about Jesus"

- "I can infer some things about Jesus based what I read in the four gospels (Bible)."

- "the Bible does have internal contradictions ."

- "the 'story' of Jesus does not need a Jesus."

- "Being a Christian has nothing to do with what one believes"

- "what one believes... is completely irrelevant."

- "The liberal “way of knowing” will always be open to new things...but not sufficient."

- "all potential is actualized on this earthly plane " This is also the liberal view that the earth is flat.

- "There is no test in terms of belief that I accept."; "You,... have beliefs that are clearly at odds with my own."

 

If you believe the Bible is unreliable, from where do you get your knowledge of God and/or Jesus?

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

On one point I understand and agree. And that is; ("God...is not some theory to be proven or point to be made.") that GOD exists.

The rest is, how did you say it, quite amusing; because no 'GOD' experience, under your premise, can be communicated to any one. "The Divine defies our puny intellects... eclipses all descriptions..."

 

If GOD is real, He is reasonably understandable, and we can communicate this with others, and He with us. He doesn't defy our intellect, He gave it to us for a purpose! You even allude to your agreement by your last sentence. "We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word."

-

So, is following Jesus Christ compatable with Christianty?

-

 

TGWB

"To follow Christ, means that you are following the path of a man considered to be GOD and that means you have found a very narrow path and yes it would be a parallel path that comes together as the same path a line drawn in the sand against that which is truly evil."

If I understand this, following Jesus Christ is the good and narrow path, to which another path runs parallel but with 'its back toward God'. This evil path is never able to join Jesus narrow path into righteousness.

 

This evil path is never able to join Jesus narrow path into righteousness.

-

 

This is an absurd statement. Simply because it tells me you didn't read mine! I didn't say what you seem to imply I said, that liberals don't know anything.

What I said was, what you know relies on that of which you are uncertain. "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything." Liberal philosophy floats on an ocean of uncertainty and ambiguity.

-

 

DavidK, What is absurd is trying to communicate with people that twist what is written, A Parallel path that joins another path is one and the same path or they could not run together, you attributed evil to the good path - GOD has spoken and continues to speak, you must learn to know the truth especially in universal law.

 

What I wrote is that there is only one path to GOD and all others will lead you away from GOD no matter which direction you walk facing, sideways, or backwards as long as you move toward GOD you are on the path to GOD in truth.

 

And yet you do not know me.

 

I have not turned my back on GOD and I am not on an evil path or a path of evil, I am good.

[Wayseer]

If you believe the Bible is unreliable, from where do you get your knowledge of God and/or Jesus?

 

Of course the use of the word 'unreliable' perhaps says more about Davidk than it does about the Bible - and I don't mean Davidk is 'unreliable'. What I am suggesting is that by using such a term to decribe what others may, or may not think, is an assumption at best.

 

Crossan's words 'Emmaus never happen; Emmaus always happens' appears a contradiction to those who look for shallow and easy answers. But for those who look beyond the mundane and simplified world the Bible can contain contradiction along side truth. In fact, often the truth is contained in the contradiction. For example, 'Let the dead bury the dead'. And, even if this is not considered an original saying of Jesus the truth of the statement is obvious to those with 'ears to hear'.

 

No Davidk, I do not get my knowledge of God from what others might write. That does not mean what others write is of no value. As has already been note, 'the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon'.

 

I don't know about others but I've had a couple of confontations with God. Such does not mean I 'know' God - but I do know of Him/Her/It. I also gain my knowledge of God from experience - I see God operating through others. In fact, if I all I had was the Bible to utilise as my knowledge base of God I dare say I would end up a very warped human. All of which leads me to believe that all those who claim the Bible as their sole source of knowledge have no real personal knowledge of God - they are too frightened to step outside and meet Him face to face.

 

While I have some reservations about the idea of PC I see the movement as any attempt to 'step outside' and to experience God at first hand rather than relying on what others have told us what and how to think about God.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Of course the use of the word 'unreliable' perhaps says more about Davidk than it does about the Bible - and I don't mean Davidk is 'unreliable'. What I am suggesting is that by using such a term to decribe what others may, or may not think, is an assumption at best.

 

Crossan's words 'Emmaus never happen; Emmaus always happens' appears a contradiction to those who look for shallow and easy answers. But for those who look beyond the mundane and simplified world the Bible can contain contradiction along side truth. In fact, often the truth is contained in the contradiction. For example, 'Let the dead bury the dead'. And, even if this is not considered an original saying of Jesus the truth of the statement is obvious to those with 'ears to hear'.

 

No Davidk, I do not get my knowledge of God from what others might write. That does not mean what others write is of no value. As has already been note, 'the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon'.

 

I don't know about others but I've had a couple of confontations with God. Such does not mean I 'know' God - but I do know of Him/Her/It. I also gain my knowledge of God from experience - I see God operating through others. In fact, if I all I had was the Bible to utilise as my knowledge base of God I dare say I would end up a very warped human. All of which leads me to believe that all those who claim the Bible as their sole source of knowledge have no real personal knowledge of God - they are too frightened to step outside and meet Him face to face.

 

While I have some reservations about the idea of PC I see the movement as any attempt to 'step outside' and to experience God at first hand rather than relying on what others have told us what and how to think about God.

 

 

Very Well Said, The inverse and the converse can move in the right direction from outside the confines of oppression free of restriction, this doesn't give permission to be offensive or possessive we certainly need to be accountable for our actions. Certain actions require a price to be paid and that price isn't death in all cases. You can make amends to the victim of your crimes, and victims certainly need judicial support to be empowered against individual and corporate attacks. We need to be victims advocates and we need to stop the fabrication of false information presented in court as false accounts or reports, when ever and where ever we find people in contradiction and we need to allow innocent victims a chance to defend themselves or to present a proper case anything short of fair would be an injustice.

[davidk]

What I wrote is that there is only one path to GOD and all others will lead you away from GOD no matter which direction you walk facing, sideways, or backwards as long as you move toward GOD you are on the path to GOD in truth.

 

And yet you do not know me.

 

I have not turned my back on GOD and I am not on an evil path or a path of evil, I am good.

Well, there are a couple of things here. First, thanks for "clearing up" what I figured was my not having a proper undestanding of your earlier post. Second, where on earth did you get that I have said you turned your back on God?

 

I'm having a little trouble understanding some of your posts, so be patient with me.

[davidk]

... But for those who look beyond the mundane and simplified world the Bible can contain contradiction along side truth. In fact, often the truth is contained in the contradiction. For example, 'Let the dead bury the dead'. And, even if this is not considered an original saying of Jesus the truth of the statement is obvious to those with 'ears to hear'.

...

No Davidk, I do not get my knowledge of God from what others might write. That does not mean what others write is of no value.

...

I also gain my knowledge of God from experience - I see God operating through others.

...

While I have some reservations about the idea of PC I see the movement as any attempt to 'step outside' and to experience God at first hand rather than relying on what others have told us what and how to think about God.

By what you and others have said, I am confident the Bible is not considered to be completely reliable in Liberal/Progressive circles due to its 'errors and contradictions'. Since Liberal theology views the Bible as being contradictory, that does essentially render it unreliable.

 

My only assumption, here is, you have gained 'reliable' knowledge of God from somewhere else. You and others have been adamant about it. It is just that no one has provided a source or a particular experience in response to my question.

 

I simply ask what your source is and by what evidence may you call it dependable? I'm not making any assumptions about anyone's writings or any thoughts or experiences you may have had.

-

Biblical Christianity accepts the Bible as true. Are there quotes, statements, metaphors, parables in regard to the cosmos, spirituality, and history; yes. Is it exhaustive information, no. But whatever subject the Bible addresses, it is true, whether history, spirituality, or the cosmos.

 

There is also a real expectation to have experiences with God. His operating through us and others is His witness to Christians as well as non-believers of His truth.

 

"If you believe the Bible is unreliable, from where do you get your knowledge of God and/or Jesus?"

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Biblical Christianity accepts the Bible as true. Are there quotes, statements, metaphors, parables in regard to the cosmos, spirituality, and history; yes. Is it exhaustive information, no. But whatever subject the Bible addresses, it is true, whether history, spirituality, or the cosmos.

 

There is also a real expectation to have experiences with God. His operating through us and others is His witness to Christians as well as non-believers of His truth.

 

"If you believe the Bible is unreliable, from where do you get your knowledge of God and/or Jesus?"

 

I personally believe the Holy Spirit is within each of us, and God gave each of us a mind and a heart by which to know God. I know God and Jesus through love and forgiveness. I find some of what the Bible says to be true about God, but I think the people writing the Bible were living in a time of competing gods, when God's anger could be seen in disease or natural disasters. I see much truth in the Bible of how humans should treat each other today, but I believe much of the Bible was intended to be storytelling and some of of it is culturally outdated(not wearing buttons, for example). I read the Bible to get knowledge of what was thought about God and Jesus when the writers were writing it. Unfortunately, then the Biblical canon was closed, and more recent sacred writings and events are not held in as high regard by Biblical Christians. I think we have learned much as a culture since that time on issues such as slavery and civil rights (including sex and sexual orientation) in addition to medical and scientific knowledge. I don't think any of us "know" our information about God is reliable. We all have to have faith in that.

[October's Autumn]

I remember that when I was studying Psychology as an undergraduate learning that how confident someone is about being sure about something is not in any way correlated to how right or wrong they are.

[Wayseer]

Since Liberal theology views the Bible as being contradictory, that does essentially render it unreliable.

 

Well, No - I said that. I don't know what liberal theology might say on the subject.

 

But, yet again, you conflate two words to mean one. If something is contradictory it does not follow that it is therefore unreliable - the contradiction, to hold true, is reliable - otherwise there would be no contradicton.

 

My only assumption, here is, you have gained 'reliable' knowledge of God from somewhere else. You and others have been adamant about it. It is just that no one has provided a source or a particular experience in response to my question.

 

I don't propose to divulge that source or particular experience. From your numerous postings I gain a sense that you would only use such information in you own way and to further your own rather narrow view.

[soma]

Wayseer, I like what you wrote about contradiction and would like to add: Truth, Love and Peace may be considered theoretical because no one can see them, but we can see their results. Because of their manifestations we can conclude that their reality exists, but we cannot give a reason why Truth is true. At the same time the scientist can't give a good explanation for the action of the atom. A physicist may study the atom and learn something about its nature and how it operates, but he can't give a reason for its action, only a theory. One does not make universal laws and principles; one only discovers and makes use of them. To understand this one needs to experience the law or principle, otherwise it is just a theory.

No one has ever encompassed the depths of God because God reaches out to Infinity, and no one can encompass Infinity. One only enlarges one's capacity to know and to experience it.

 

The many never contradicts the Unity of God unless our limited minds put a limit on God. The worlds of multiplicity are entirely supported in a Universe of Unity. God is unity, but in God is duality, a contradiction of the limited mind that wants to draw lines and make boundaries, but God has no boundaries. Those boundaries are only man made.

[davidk]

... how confident someone is about being sure about something is not in any way correlated to how right or wrong they are.

Are you certain about that?

[davidk]

Well, No - I said that. I don't know what liberal theology might say on the subject.

You subscribe to the narrow liberal/progressive theology of Biblical error and contradiction.

 

But, yet again, you conflate two words to mean one. If something is contradictory it does not follow that it is therefore unreliable - the contradiction, to hold true, is reliable - otherwise there would be no contradicton.

You are being absurd. A contradiction is two (or more) opposing views claiming to be correct. While it may reliably remain a contradiction, if your source declares the two opposing views are correct, your source would be contradictory and unreliable. Both statements could be false, or one may be true. Both cannot be true. Since Liberal/progressive theology narrowly views the Bible as being contradictory, that essentially renders the Bible unreliable.

 

I don't propose to divulge that source or particular experience. From your numerous postings I gain a sense that you would only use such information in you own way and to further your own rather narrow view.

Me thinkest thou doest flatter me too much.

[Wayseer]

Both statements could be false, or one may be true. Both cannot be true.

 

I guess then you would find Jesus' saying 'Let the dead bury the dead' as therefore an unreliable truth as it is obviously contradictory.

[minsocal]

tolerance for contradiction, defined as a mode of thinking that accepts and even thrives on apparent bivalent logical contradictions.

 

Contradiction \Con`tra*dic"tion\, n. [L. contradictio answer, objection: cf. F. contradiction.]

 

1. An assertion of the contrary to what has been said or affirmed; denial of the truth of a statement or assertion; contrary declaration; gainsaying.

 

His fair demands Shall be accomplished without contradiction. --Shak.

 

2. Direct opposition or repugnancy; inconsistency; incongruity or contrariety; one who, or that which, is inconsistent.

 

can be make deathless death? That were to make Strange contradiction. --Milton.

 

We state our experience and then we come to a manly resolution of acting in contradiction to it. --Burke.

 

Both parts of a contradiction can not possibly be true. --Hobbes.

 

Of contradictions infinite the slave. --Wordsworth.