Are we so small in the universe?

[Steven]

but heres the thing Brass - I aint God.

I'm just some guy.

What should and should not be is not up to me to decide - I did not create the universe and my checkbook barely balances.

your asking me to answer a question I am not qualified to answer.

I accept - what I beleive a higher authority has handed down.

I accept - that there is a power greater than myself.

I accept that my "understanding" is not always tantamount to acceptance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't really address the real question, which is: "If God denies people the entrance to heaven based solely on difference of opinion, God is a douchebag. Why worship a douchebag just to get to heaven?"

It's like kissing some vice president's ass to get a promotion...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[phee]

No.....

you have copies made within 200 years of the originals.

you have copies made much later.

you have the ability to compare the copies spanning vast periods of time, empires, and history.

and when you compare them - you find continuity.  Explore it - do the homework - the continuity is incredible. 

And as far as research of ancient manuscripts goes - 200 years is pretty damn close and accurate - this is acceptable for all ancient manuscripts be they religeous or otherwise.  Only biblical manuscripts get chastized this way.

Actually Steven "Yes" and I have studied it... a lot, I have a degree in History from EMU and I had several classes and focuses on the History of Western religion, as well as scruteny on other religious texts... and the Bible has in and of itself been edited, thousands upon thousands of times... you quote Jesus's words, when we literally have no idea what his words were... these are the words of men Steven....

I am reading (as in the quote above) and interesting book called "Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" as even with my degree I never want to stop learning...

And 200 years are only certain documents which were copied at least 4 times before we had any survivable copies... plus a lot of the letters from Paul that became canonized were infact people writing as Paul... Most biblical documents came in to play 500 to 600 years later...

If you do some research into this you may find what I have found.

[sinmantyx]

Actually Steven "Yes" and I have studied it... a lot, I have a degree in History from EMU and I had several classes and focuses on the History of Western religion, as well as scruteny on other religious texts... and the Bible has in and of itself been edited, thousands upon thousands of times... you quote Jesus's words, when we literally have no idea what his words were... these are the words of men Steven....

I am reading (as in the quote above) and interesting book called "Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" as even with my degree I never want to stop learning...

And 200 years are only certain documents which were copied at least 4 times before we had any survivable copies... plus a lot of the letters from Paul that became canonized were infact people writing as Paul... Most biblical documents came in to play 500 to 600 years later...

If you do some research into this you may find what I have found.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh my...I hadn't been following this thread. It sure has "gone" to an interesting place. I think I'll just put in the 2 cents that: Biblical literalists scare me. I truly think they are insane. That however, doesn't mean that the Bible is not a very powerful and meaningful book, it just means that it can certainly be used for (what I would personally call) EVIL.

I think I'll start a new thread on a related topic.

[BrassFusion]

because you asked a question based in ignorance on what i beleive God wants.

thats like asking" why wont Steven be your friend just because your farts are stinky?"

and to be honest - I dont care if your farts are stinky - you can still be my friend - just take your stinky ass outside.

I cannot answer a question  that does not apply to the situation Brass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then what DOES God want from you, and what will happen to you if you don't honor him? Answer that, then if your answer is what I'd been led to believe thus far, answer its corrollary!

[phee]

To clarify something....

I am not trying to say the Bible is "bad" or "wrong"...

But assuming that there is a Spiritual realm... and assuming it contains gods/god.... and assuming that these beings are sentient.... and assuming that in the vastness of the universe they actually give a shit about us.... and assuming that it is one god.... and assuming that this one god created the universe.... and assuming that this god is an active participant in our earthly lives.... and assuming it is actually beneveloent by human standards... and assuming that it reproduced with a human and produced an offspring of somesort.... and assuming that said offspring was a male named Jesus (or Josia Ben Joseph if you want to get technical).... and assuming that this creature was endowed with supernatural qualities.....

(The rest of this actually begins to get out of assumptions for the moment as history has actually proven that Jesus existed and was a Rabi, and taught/preached to people)

... so with all these assumptions (which btw I cannot, as a thinking person swallow just because) and a bit of historical fact....

Then through 2 millenia of politics and editing, with ALL of the original documents lost and only copies showing up later.... (2 or more centuries to be exact)... and thousands of translations

How would we know what (with all these assumptions in place, but to give the benefit of a very large doubt) this person said actually? How can we as intelligent beings even begin to even have an educated guess as to what "Jesus Said"? .... um not even a little bit....

Does this mean that the Bible is "not good" no... It is a very useful and beautiful literary work, that may contain many truths for many people in the world and with all of the above assumptions in place... who knows maybe there is still something divine lasting...

To me the bible is kind of like any inanimant object... its worth is determined ONLY by who is using it and what it is being used for...

*pant pant* done

[BrassFusion]

To clarify something....

I am not trying to say the Bible is "bad" or "wrong"...

But assuming that there is a Spiritual realm... and assuming it contains gods/god.... and assuming that these beings are sentient.... and assuming that in the vastness of the universe they actually give a shit about us.... and assuming that it is one god.... and assuming that this one god created the universe.... and assuming that this god is an active participant in our earthly lives.... and assuming it is actually beneveloent by human standards... and assuming that it reproduced with a human and produced an offspring of somesort.... and assuming that said offspring was a male named Jesus (or Josia Ben Joseph if you want to get technical).... and assuming that this creature was endowed with supernatural qualities.....

(The rest of this actually begins to get out of assumptions for the moment as history has actually proven that Jesus existed and was a Rabi, and taught/preached to people)

... so with all these assumptions (which btw I cannot, as a thinking person swallow just because) and a bit of historical fact....

Then through 2 millenia of politics and editing, with ALL of the original documents lost and only copies showing up later.... (2 or more centuries to be exact)... and thousands of translations

How would we know what (with all these assumptions in place, but to give the benefit of a very large doubt) this person said actually? How can we as intelligent beings even begin to even have an educated guess as to what "Jesus Said"? .... um not even a little bit....

Does this mean that the Bible is "not good" no... It is a very useful and beautiful literary work, that may contain many truths for many people in the world and with all of the above assumptions in place... who knows maybe there is still something divine lasting...

To me the bible is kind of like any inanimant object... its worth is determined ONLY by who is using it and what it is being used for...

*pant pant* done

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good job. You get a cookie.

OH WAIT! NO!

*snatches it back*

*whew*

[phee]

Good job. You get a cookie.

OH WAIT! NO!

*snatches it back*

*whew*

Sooo close :tear

[Steven]

Actually Steven "Yes" and I have studied it... a lot, I have a degree in History from EMU and I had several classes and focuses on the History of Western religion, as well as scruteny on other religious texts... and the Bible has in and of itself been edited, thousands upon thousands of times... you quote Jesus's words, when we literally have no idea what his words were... these are the words of men Steven....

I am reading (as in the quote above) and interesting book called "Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" as even with my degree I never want to stop learning...

And 200 years are only certain documents which were copied at least 4 times before we had any survivable copies... plus a lot of the letters from Paul that became canonized were infact people writing as Paul... Most biblical documents came in to play 500 to 600 years later...

If you do some research into this you may find what I have found.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

good answer, and yes I too have done the research.

here's a difficult crossroads - you will find - justufyable and credibel evidence on both siodes of the argument from worthwhile sources. You told me about your degree. I respect that. Should i disregard professors or those with doctorates and such, who would argue in my favor - because you also have a anducated background?

I have said several time sin severl aposts recvently -0 that you will fidn what you are searching for.

Your arguments about the possibilities of changes in text - to me - hold little credibility. Because - as I've stated before - the text itself - the message, the gospel - the God described, the inttent - does not change. Not only will you find reliabel sources that support this - but more importantly for me - I find the continuity in the effects the Gospel has on individual lives. Again I am searching for - the end result.

And heres my confusion - if you've studied the word as you say you have (objectively???) why do you ask me the questions that you do? Why do you return to issues relating to rules and behaviour? Your studies should lead you to much more than that as you peruse what the Bible really is, a collection of histories, books of major and minor prphets, letters, charters, songs, and poems.

To me your understanding of scripture seems to be (and no offense is intended) rather dry - data based - with the human element removed from the process.

[Steven]

Then what DOES God want from you, and what will happen to you if you don't honor him? Answer that, then if your answer is what I'd been led to believe thus far, answer its corrollary!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ME personally?

to humble myself and my pride in act of wilful acceptance of his mediative tool in the form of his Son.

to understand in greater depth the meaning of the word "Worship' and "Holiness" on a day to day basis as it applies to my life in the modern era.

To stand up, to stand against evil, and to stand in the gap for those who need, the poor, the fatherless, teh weak, the lost, or those who are simply searching and need a safe house to do this in.

to tell my story.

to use my past and all of its trappings as a celebration of freedom to assit others in likewise finding their way.

to give my all, all the time, my mind, will, emotiuons - over to his direction, for his purposes.

to be myself - as I have been created - as an outpouring of the environemtns that shaped my life as a testimony.

to help teach other men how to lead.

to mediate.

to mentor

to be mentored

to have joy, peace, and hope.

to give my life if neccesary for the cause.

to protect and nurture my wife and all that has been assigned to me within the confines of decency and order.

[phee]

good answer, and yes I too have done the research.

here's a difficult crossroads - you will find - justufyable and credibel evidence on both siodes of the argument from worthwhile sources.  You told me about your degree.  I respect that.  Should i disregard professors or those with doctorates and such, who would argue in my favor - because you also have a anducated background?

I have said several time sin severl aposts recvently -0 that you will fidn what you are searching for.

Your arguments about the possibilities of changes in text - to me - hold little credibility.  Because - as I've stated before - the text itself - the message, the gospel - the God described, the inttent - does not change.  Not only will you find reliabel sources that support this - but more importantly for me - I find the continuity in the effects the Gospel has on individual lives.  Again I am searching for - the end result.

And heres my confusion - if you've studied the word as you say you have (objectively???) why do you ask me the questions that you do?  Why do you return to issues relating to rules and  behaviour?  Your studies should lead you to much more than that as you peruse what the Bible really is, a collection of histories, books of major and minor prphets, letters, charters, songs, and poems.

To me your understanding of scripture seems to be (and no offense is intended) rather dry - data based - with the human element removed from the process.

It is actually the exact opposite... it is extremely human, to the point where there is nothing but the humans that have handled the text... you said that "the God described, the inttent" I will not disagree with this (given all of the assumptions about the existance of a Christian God) But with all of the non-god hands that have manipulated these texts over the years... how can we as humans have any idea at all what this intent was?

If I were doing a book report for collage... and in the book report I stated something as "true" lets just say that in 5000 B.C. fish could talk or something silly... then when asked where the information came from I said well... I got it from a book that got the information from another book that was edited by a politician about 500 years ago that he origianally had traslated from German by a scribe, who got it from a book that was written 500 year before that he traslated from Latin, that was updated by by another statesman before that, shortly after it was traslated from Greek, and that Greek book was based upon a bunch of letters that were copied by other statesmen that copied them from other scribes who worked for local kings in the area, who then copied them from someone writing in the "vien" of an author who copied them from someone else... who heard a story spoken from another who heard it from another person, who heard it from another person, who said it was absolutely true.... so it must be true because nothing could have happened to the orignal "gist" of this truth overtime given all these circumstances, because everyone whom this fact passed through... was totally legit... My teacher would kind of look at me like I was on crack

So in the case of "what God said"... well It may have said something.... but after that process.... how can we actually say with any certainty... what the intent was? God in this Christian Universe may be trustworthy... but as History has shown, the people that have access to his message are just that... people.... and people lie, change, and alter the truth... which crushes the original meaning....

And from what my studies have shown is this... it is an amazing peace of literature... and can hold many truths in it's pages... but these pages (at this point anyway) are written by men.... and they are the truths of these men... I study the bible the same way I would study say... the Code of Hamurabi or the works of Makaveli, these are not works of Fiction... And I am not saying the bible is either, it is a collection of the works of men... but I cannot be objective at all If I give it more credibility or if it is more "special" anymore than I could the works of Confusios or Shakespeare... I would cease to be objective if I said but this writing deserves more or less scruteny because I am told that it is Divinely inspired... I could be told that my computer manual is Divinely inspired, but I still must read it as literature first....

you used the term "the word" but all of this makes it hard to tell who's word we are reading at this point

[phee]

Your arguments about the possibilities of changes in text - to me - hold little credibility.  Because - as I've stated before - the text itself - the message, the gospel - the God described, the inttent - does not change.  Not only will you find reliabel sources that support this - but more importantly for me - I find the continuity in the effects the Gospel has on individual lives.  Again I am searching for - the end result.

And heres my confusion - if you've studied the word as you say you have (objectively???) why do you ask me the questions that you do?  Why do you return to issues relating to rules and  behaviour?  Your studies should lead you to much more than that as you peruse what the Bible really is, a collection of histories, books of major and minor prphets, letters, charters, songs, and poems.

I would argue to say that the conclusion that you have come to here about objectivity, is very far from objective... it seems that there is an excpetence on your part that these words are divine and the message is still there... and then you go to lengths to prove this... I am actually not trying to prove anything about what the message is and it's meaning only that the likelyhood is very low given human nature that it is the same... I will not however close my mind to the possibility that it is still there...

But then again... all of the assumptions about the nature of universe/god I don't simply accept at face value either...

[Shade Everdark]

I really wish I had something worthwhile to contribute to this highly fascinating discussion.

However, I don't. I just thought I'd share that with you all.

[sinmantyx]

At some point you have to give props to that oh-so-gay King James fellow.

Has anyone mentioned him yet?

...or that whole genocide of the Gnostics thing?

*opens up can of worms and runs away*

[Steven]

It is actually the exact opposite... it is extremely human, to the point where there is nothing but the humans that have handled the text... you said that "the God described, the inttent" I will not disagree with this (given all of the assumptions about the existance of a Christian God) But with all of the non-god hands that have manipulated these texts over the years... how can we as humans have any idea at all what this intent was?

If I were doing a book report for collage... and in the book report I stated something as "true" lets just say that in 5000 B.C. fish could talk or something silly... then when asked where the information came from I said well... I got it from a book that got the information from another book that was edited by a politician about 500 years ago that he origianally had traslated from German by a scribe, who got it from a book that was written 500 year before that he traslated from Latin, that was updated by by another statesman before that, shortly after it was traslated from Greek, and that Greek book was based upon a bunch of letters that were copied by other statesmen that copied them from other scribes who worked for local kings in the area, who then copied them from someone writing in the "vien" of an author who copied them from someone else... who heard a story spoken from another who heard it from another person, who heard it from another person, who said it was absolutely true.... so it must be true because nothing could have happened to the orignal "gist" of this truth overtime given all these circumstances, because everyone whom this fact passed through... was totally legit... My teacher would kind of look at me like I was on crack

So in the case of "what God said"... well It may have said something.... but after that process.... how can we actually say with any certainty... what the intent was? God in this Christian Universe may be trustworthy... but as History has shown, the people that have access to his message are just that... people.... and people lie, change, and alter the truth... which crushes the original meaning....

And from what my studies have shown is this... it is an amazing peace of literature... and can hold many truths in it's pages... but these pages (at this point anyway) are written by men.... and they are the truths of these men... I study the bible the same way I would study say... the Code of Hamurabi or the works of Makaveli, these are not works of Fiction... And I am not saying the bible is either, it is a collection of the works of men... but I cannot be objective at all If I give it more credibility or if it is more "special" anymore than I could the works of Confusios or Shakespeare... I would cease to be objective if I said but this writing deserves more or less scruteny because I am told that it is Divinely inspired... I could be told that my computer manual is Divinely inspired, but I still must read it as literature first....

you used the term "the word" but all of this makes it hard to tell who's word we are reading at this point

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and I cant bother to (nor do I wish to for amny reasons but the primary being one that of respect to you) try to convince you otherwise.

we are looking at the biblical text from completely different perspectives and motivations, neither of which...can be proved.

i personaly am looking beyind the text for evidence of it's abject power to create change and to support itself. The biblical text itself says that it is not "null and void"....In my experience, i've seen that evidence over and over again for many years. Others like yourself, have not. Its not my job to attack your perspective, or cast you aside for not sharing my own. Your questions and points are valid phee, absolutely. I beleive that mine as well....are valid. It seems to me that you are looking for proof, or a certain type of evidence that you can trust. I am too. You are looking at the creation of and sincerity of the process....proof, that it has not been tampered with and changed, and proof, that foundationally that which is written is truly that which was intended. Beleive it or not, so am I. I am forced to, literally, seek out this evidence by way of the end result.

And this leads us into faith does it not?

Remember that i do not waiver based on what i have seen and experienced in the lives of beleivers, not because of a proven or disproven preservation of the original process. Yes I have attempted to argue the sanctity of the process, but ultimately that faith I place in it is because i beleive in a God who has the ability to finish what he started.

this is I supose, the beginning of my leap of faith. I accept it. it sustains me. and therefore that is the end of my conclusion about scripture, from this point foirward i seek only to further explore it and apply it to my own life. There is risk to my process Phee. I could be well intentioned but wrong. i just dont beleive that I am. The further i press on, the further my faith advances. and this is pivitol to what i am - who I am.

[Steven]

It is actually the exact opposite... it is extremely human, to the point where there is nothing but the humans that have handled the text... you said that "the God described, the inttent" I will not disagree with this (given all of the assumptions about the existance of a Christian God) But with all of the non-god hands that have manipulated these texts over the years... how can we as humans have any idea at all what this intent was?

If I were doing a book report for collage... and in the book report I stated something as "true" lets just say that in 5000 B.C. fish could talk or something silly... then when asked where the information came from I said well... I got it from a book that got the information from another book that was edited by a politician about 500 years ago that he origianally had traslated from German by a scribe, who got it from a book that was written 500 year before that he traslated from Latin, that was updated by by another statesman before that, shortly after it was traslated from Greek, and that Greek book was based upon a bunch of letters that were copied by other statesmen that copied them from other scribes who worked for local kings in the area, who then copied them from someone writing in the "vien" of an author who copied them from someone else... who heard a story spoken from another who heard it from another person, who heard it from another person, who said it was absolutely true.... so it must be true because nothing could have happened to the orignal "gist" of this truth overtime given all these circumstances, because everyone whom this fact passed through... was totally legit... My teacher would kind of look at me like I was on crack

So in the case of "what God said"... well It may have said something.... but after that process.... how can we actually say with any certainty... what the intent was? God in this Christian Universe may be trustworthy... but as History has shown, the people that have access to his message are just that... people.... and people lie, change, and alter the truth... which crushes the original meaning....

And from what my studies have shown is this... it is an amazing peace of literature... and can hold many truths in it's pages... but these pages (at this point anyway) are written by men.... and they are the truths of these men... I study the bible the same way I would study say... the Code of Hamurabi or the works of Makaveli, these are not works of Fiction... And I am not saying the bible is either, it is a collection of the works of men... but I cannot be objective at all If I give it more credibility or if it is more "special" anymore than I could the works of Confusios or Shakespeare... I would cease to be objective if I said but this writing deserves more or less scruteny because I am told that it is Divinely inspired... I could be told that my computer manual is Divinely inspired, but I still must read it as literature first....

you used the term "the word" but all of this makes it hard to tell who's word we are reading at this point

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

forgot to add that "The Word" - this phrase I used, is intended as IT was intended.

"The Word" is one of the many titles of the pre-incarnate Christ. The text states clearly that "The Word" was God. Again - I beleive that God has the ability to protect what he intended. Its not a big leap of faith for me.

[Steven]

At some point you have to give props to that oh-so-gay King James fellow.

Has anyone mentioned him yet?

...or that whole genocide of the Gnostics thing?

*opens up can of worms and runs away*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tell me about the Gnostics, and your findings on them.

Good point to unpack. Which will lead us to other points of discussion.

[Steven]

I would argue to say that the conclusion that you have come to here about objectivity, is very far from objective... it seems that there is an excpetence on your part that these words are divine and the message is still there... and then you go to lengths to prove this... I am actually not trying to prove anything about what the message is and it's meaning only that the likelyhood is very low given human nature that it is the same... I will not however close my mind to the possibility that it is still there...

But then again... all of the assumptions about the nature of universe/god I don't simply accept at face value either...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is fair.

I'll only add that part of my reluctance (beleive it or not) to delve too deeply into this subject was/is that I have a high degree of passion and repsect for the biblical text. If I fail the objectivity test, it is the bi-product of that which I have built my life around. Give me some grace my friend, it aint easy being me.....

[sinmantyx]

tell me about the Gnostics, and your findings on them. 

Good point to unpack.  Which will lead us to other points of discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know much at all, just bits and pieces of conjecture. My husband has read the Gnostic texts, but I have not done that yet. (Unless of course, you call the gospel of John a "gnostic text" because some people believe that Mary Magdalene actually wrote it.)

What I have heard is that Mary Magdalene was a gnostic and a leader in the early church. Since the Gnostics were big on personal wisdom and wisdom through personal experience, they were considered threats to the more dogmatic formation of the Church and were considered heretics and killed.

When skimming through the wiki material, my gut reaction is that gnostics generally believed in a "bottom-up" church structure where everyone did the thinking, and the "winners" believed in a "top-down" church structure where the heirarchy was in charge and enforced religious unity.

I think it's interesting to note that Gnostics were not neccesarily who we would call Christian, because their ideas were very different than what eventually became Christian theology. Even though their ideas were directly influenced by Jesus. The Gnostics pre-date Christianity.

It would make sense then, that some of Jesus' followers were gnostics before meeting Jesus and that he influenced them. I think the fun question is, not if Mary was gnostic, but if Jesus was gnostic.

I guess you could sum-up the whole "gnosis" concept with as the assertion that the divine can be found through personal inspiration. In that light, you can be spiritual and come to "the knowledge of the truth" without the intervention of a priest or other intermediary.

As the thinly veiled Gnostic propoganda horor flick "Stigmata" would say:

"The kingdom of God is within you and around you. My Church is not made of wood, stone or mortar. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Look under a rock and you will find me."

[Fierce Critter]

Damn, I've been missing this? I have to drop in and visit for this one...

(Steven - note this is not an indictment of you or your beliefs, nor an attempt to put you in the position of having to defend your beliefs from modern-day "lawyers and hypocrites" who would try to back you into a corner. It's just something I've been observing when catching up in this thread, and value your input as the strongest voice in these regards. You know I respect you this way, but I want it on record.)

From Steven:

you've made an assumption that the goal of Christianity is to model human behaviour. [sNIP]...it does not.

Biblicly there are many teachings that apply directly to everyday life - these are however - bi-products of the foundation of a needful relationship with the Creator.

But Christians all over the place use information gathered from the Bible to do just this - to tell humans how to behave. They find a passage saying (in Critter-modernized paraphrasing) "for a man to screw another man instead of a woman is BAD and will send you to hell". How is this not Christians trying to model human behavior?

From Steven:

...Christs own words when he was asked what one must do to be saved: "you must love your God with your whole mind, heart, and will"

Notice that he did not say "you must play nice, you must follow the Golden Rule, you must be a really giid guy and do the best you can and dont burn anybody"

So what you're saying here is, Jesus himself wouldn't push the Bible on anyone, but that people just need to open themselves up to Jesus one-on-one and all the pieces will fall into place, even without reading or following the Bible?

Isn't that kinda leaving a window open to say, "if you think you love Christ completely, but you still do bad things, it's because you really haven't given yourself over to Christ completely and you're just fooling yourself and thus, you're not saved"?

I've read Jack Chick tracts lately that bear this out. For Pete's sake, the guy REALLY has it in for Catholics. My mother, a totally devoted Catholic who prays a Rosary every day, feeds birds & squirrels and will make my father drive her back to the grocery store if she realizes the cashier gave her $1.00 too much change so she can give it back, is going to hell according to Christians like Jack Chick. Because by being Catholic instead of being a "Saved Christian", she's damned for praying that Rosary every day because it's worshipping a false idol, as the Bible/Christ proclaimed. WTF?

From Steven:

one of the things that got Jesus killed is his rightful accusation of the Pahrisees and the Jes for making the Ten COmmandments their god - instead of God....they very much loved their controlling legalism.

obeying the ten commandments does not, and nevr did - make one a beleiver.

Can you insert "Bible" where you have "Ten Commandments" and still be Christian? Do Christians not use the Bible as their "controlling legalism?"

Steven (responding to Phee's bringing up the Ten Commandments/having no other gods/keeping the sabbath holy:

this biblical quote: why was this commanded? to whom did it apply, and at what stage of their existence were they in when this was commanded? What was their identiy prior to this stage and hwo did it affect their culture?

Likewise, why can't we view the Bible this way, too? That things may have applied "at the time", but to DIFFERENT peoples today, at THIS stage of people's existence, with TODAY'S culture & human identity - it just doesn't apply anymore.

Steven:

you guys are all using the moralistic/legalistic argument about the Bible.

But the Bible is not a book of morals and legalism.

But that is, again, how Christians present it. Case in point as used above - homosexuals. You know I could give you more examples. For Pete's sake, I think non-Christians (or non-Bible following Christians like myself and others) are more on track in not using it in that way. Because by your definition, it's the fundamentalists who Bible-thump constantly who are the hypocrites, using the Bible incorrectly.

Steven:

to protect and nurture my wife and all that has been assigned to me within the confines of decency and order.

How are you determining what is decent and orderly - if not from the Bible, which you have been saying is not a "how-to" book on morales/behavior?

I'm just really getting some contradicting vibes here. It's all kinda boiling down to one thing for me, even after all the discussion going on here from all sides:

None of us has 100% knowledge of anything so we're all taking what we're given and trying to make it work for us the best way we can.

For some of us, we desperately want to NOT believe - so we see contradictions/lies/unproveable babble in everything religious.

For some of us, we have ABSOLUTE BELIEF - so everything is valid and applies.

For some of us, we fall somewhere in the middle. We believe there's something to all this, but haven't the know-how to determine what is and isn't absolutely valid or invalid - so we just do our best to try to judge for ourselves.

It's those who fall into the final category I feel most comfortable with. The non-proselytizers. Those who know they don't have all the answers, and thus are the most interesting with which to have these sorts of discussions. Because it's all about sharing & comparing - not damning and disproving.

And hoping for the best.

(Note: Sinmantyx's post about Gnosticism came in while I was composing this, and I like what I read...)

[phee]

forgot to add that "The Word" - this phrase I used, is intended as IT was intended.

"The Word" is one of the many titles of the pre-incarnate Christ.  The text states clearly that "The Word" was God.  Again - I beleive that God has the ability to protect what he intended.  Its not a big leap of faith for me.

BTW.... this is a great discussion.... and I am really glad that we have not called names or disrespected anyone in the thread.... I really genuinly like the people who I have been talking to... and this has done a lot for me...

Steven... I think I can see your perspective, it is hard to apply an objective logic to a situation that is based on faith... and your perspective is definitly based on faith.

One thing about the above statement though... even in the most faithful of viewpoints, without venturing into the realm of mental illness, how can you say that God has actually protected the "word"? as you have stated.... The Salem Witch Trials for example.... the justifications that people have used from scripture to perpetuated slavery... How can a person argue that these were clearly what was intended in the message without the "molestation" of human agenda? This to me would be the opposite of protection... I think that this prooves that the "Word" is only as good as the person who is using it (In your case Steven it is a good message, because you are a good person, but this is not the quality of the message, it is the quality of you that comes through, vs. say President Bush IMO)

And also good points Critter!

[Steven]

Damn, I've been missing this? I have to drop in and visit for this one...

(Steven - note this is not an indictment of you or your beliefs, nor an attempt to put you in the position of having to defend your beliefs from modern-day "lawyers and hypocrites" who would try to back you into a corner. It's just something I've been observing when catching up in this thread, and value your input as the strongest voice in these regards. You know I respect you this way, but I want it on record.)

From Steven:

But Christians all over the place use information gathered from the Bible to do just this - to tell humans how to behave. They find a passage saying (in Critter-modernized paraphrasing) "for a man to screw another man instead of a woman is BAD and will send you to hell". How is this not Christians trying to model human behavior?

From Steven:

So what you're saying here is, Jesus himself wouldn't push the Bible on anyone, but that people just need to open themselves up to Jesus one-on-one and all the pieces will fall into place, even without reading or following the Bible?

Isn't that kinda leaving a window open to say, "if you think you love Christ completely, but you still do bad things, it's because you really haven't given yourself over to Christ completely and you're just fooling yourself and thus, you're not saved"?

I've read Jack Chick tracts lately that bear this out. For Pete's sake, the guy REALLY has it in for Catholics. My mother, a totally devoted Catholic who prays a Rosary every day, feeds birds & squirrels and will make my father drive her back to the grocery store if she realizes the cashier gave her $1.00 too much change so she can give it back, is going to hell according to Christians like Jack Chick. Because by being Catholic instead of being a "Saved Christian", she's damned for praying that Rosary every day because it's worshipping a false idol, as the Bible/Christ proclaimed. WTF?

From Steven:

Can you insert "Bible" where you have "Ten Commandments" and still be Christian? Do Christians not use the Bible as their "controlling legalism?"

Steven (responding to Phee's bringing up the Ten Commandments/having no other gods/keeping the sabbath holy:

Likewise, why can't we view the Bible this way, too? That things may have applied "at the time", but to DIFFERENT peoples today, at THIS stage of people's existence, with TODAY'S culture & human identity - it just doesn't apply anymore.

Steven:

But that is, again, how Christians present it. Case in point as used above - homosexuals. You know I could give you more examples. For Pete's sake, I think non-Christians (or non-Bible following Christians like myself and others) are more on track in not using it in that way. Because by your definition, it's the fundamentalists who Bible-thump constantly who are the hypocrites, using the Bible incorrectly.

Steven:

How are you determining what is decent and orderly - if not from the Bible, which you have been saying is not a "how-to" book on morales/behavior?

I'm just really getting some contradicting vibes here. It's all kinda boiling down to one thing for me, even after all the discussion going on here from all sides:

None of us has 100% knowledge of anything so we're all taking what we're given and trying to make it work for us the best way we can.

For some of us, we desperately want to NOT believe - so we see contradictions/lies/unproveable babble in everything religious.

For some of us, we have ABSOLUTE BELIEF - so everything is valid and applies.

For some of us, we fall somewhere in the middle. We believe there's something to all this, but haven't the know-how to determine what is and isn't absolutely valid or invalid - so we just do our best to try to judge for ourselves.

It's those who fall into the final category I feel most comfortable with. The non-proselytizers. Those who know they don't have all the answers, and thus are the most interesting with which to have these sorts of discussions. Because it's all about sharing & comparing - not damning and disproving.

And hoping for the best.

(Note: Sinmantyx's post about Gnosticism came in while I was composing this, and I like what I read...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oooooooooooooooooooooooook Critter.

how do i do this without it sounding like a cleanup? I am challenged indeed.

I guess I'll use my usual off the top of my head responses....

first, my goal is to know and understand my creator.

I usee the bible yes. It is part of my toolset. Foundational. But - you cannot just read a book and be made over. from this foundational tool comes groups fo people, fellow beleivers who likewise explore as I do. Fromt that community comes a sense of burden for others, and situations and people present themselves as opportunities to be servant leaders. From these burdens and interaction and experiences stems prayer and supplication. From prayer and supplication stems quiet time and personal reflection. From that quiet time I am led back into Biblical refreshment. ALong and in between and underneath all of this I am finding myself in situations that allow me to be mentored or to mentor somone else. This leads us back into the process of honing one another. In that process - a great deal of interaction and exchanges of ideas takes place, as well as mutual research, very much like what we have been doing here on this website. During that search I will find myslef at a crossroads with another beleiver in some sort of biblical gray matter. We dont see eye to eye. Perhaps one of my bretheren sees me as too open minded, or too liberal. Perhaps I charge him with being too legalistic and unwilling to cross over into areas unknown. Perhaps we both have somethign to learn and show one another. Perhaps this si the intention of God. Perhaps we have different callings, and yet the same foundational basis from which we draw.

It was the Apostle paul who said that "I become all men in all things for the sake of the Gospel of Christ". I personally take this very seriously. Many do not.

Everything I described to you above - has everything to do with my beleif system about God. It is a deep process that takes years to hone. I come across as simplistic in my answers to you. But in truth the answers are not so simplistic. Nor is my chosen path. Nor is my willingness to open that pathway up to your judging eyes, but I beleive that transparancy is something that I am called to. You've no idea Camille, how many lumps I've taken both from within the church and from those who do not share my faith, because of what I claim to beleive.

To "love your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" is what I just described to you. It IS my life Camille, not a portion of it, and not a safe or convenient or always palatable experience. I am by nature a very stubborn man. A non trusting man. An angry man, and an arrogant man. It is not because of the biblical warnings against such behaviour that that behaviour comes into check for me. It is because of what I am learnign and expereinceing from active and willful christian community that causes me to pause and reconsider. it is from my quiet times with God in the morning that cause me to pause and reconsider. It is from thoughts that enter my space as Im in prayer that cause me to stop and reconsider. It is from teh wisdom of my wife who is a very respectable christian woman that causes me to stop and reconsider (and incidently I also belevie that God speaks to me thru my wife because she is the only one who can cut thru my defenses when they are up).

Never Camille, wil you hear me tell somone that they are not saved. I do not have this right, and neither does Jack Chick, who was never crucified for anyone.

Now, I will confront a fellow beleiver, especially a man - if I think confrontation is needed. For example, Laura and i have coached many married couples, and many of those couples had leadership issues at home with the men, and i have addressed that.. After that its up to them to do what they will. Their lives will reflect what is most important. If that man rejects what i have to share - I'm not going to continue to press in on him. If he has ASKED me to be a form of accountability for him - I may press a bit more as a reminder, because I've had accountability partners myself, for my own needs. thats a good example of decency and order. If I'm honoring certain convictions that I beleive Christ has laid upon me, and yes - the framework of that can be found biblically - I will be a good listener and a good provider and a good intercessor for my wife. And you see it in our married life. I will not stray, I will not leave her unprotected, I will value and respect her.

If I dont - even thought eh bible says i should - am I going to hell?

Hell No (little jokie)

but my homelife will not be what it could and should be. ANd I will suffer by my own hand.

is that a morals lesson, or a lesson in wisdom? Or do the two intertwine?

we have to decide individually. in fact MOST of what we we deal with on a day to day basis as a Christian, we decide individually. I dont pull out a pocket sized bible out of my pants everytime I am faced with a challenge or have to make a big decision. At some point - you have to know your God and your place of stewardship. I beleive that I know this. But I cant prove it to you babe.

is it relevant to todays people and society?

that I suppose, depends on which side you decide to line up on.

maybe I like classic rock too much but I still like to think that I'm pretty relevant.

In this website here - I have been called both "typical" and unique in my Christian perspectives. We've got like....what 9 pages or so now of back and forth dialogue? And I for the most part - still stand alone in what I beleive, but so far none of you have taken up a petition to toss me out. I think thats pretty good, pretty relevent, and I also beleive that it lines up with what God wants me to do.....to just be. That's hard enough on its own beleive me. And if I sound like I'm contradicting myself, well.....I dont really know what to do about that Camille, except trust that over time you've gotten to know me and that you can see between the arguments and rules and theorhetical parabolas and just see me and know that above all else I am a certain type of man, abnd I may be stragne but I'm damn consistent. (laughter).

thats what I have to do with God sometimes, thru all of the static that this world brings.

Steven

[Steven]

BTW.... this is a great discussion.... and I am really glad that we have not called names or disrespected anyone in the thread.... I really genuinly like the people who I have been talking to... and this has done a lot for me...

Steven... I think I can see your perspective, it is hard to apply an objective logic to a situation that is based on faith... and your perspective is definitly based on faith.

One thing about the above statement though... even in the most faithful of viewpoints, without venturing into the realm of mental illness, how can you say that God has actually protected the "word"? as you have stated.... The Salem Witch Trials for example.... the justifications that people have used from scripture to perpetuated slavery... How can a person argue that these were clearly what was intended in the message without the "molestation" of human agenda? This to me would be the opposite of protection... I think that this prooves that the "Word" is only as good as the person who is using it (In your case Steven it is a good message, because you are a good person, but this is not the quality of the message, it is the quality of you that comes through, vs. say President Bush IMO)

And also good points Critter!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In English (how can you say......)

I have seen both things Phee.

Absolute manipulation, and an appropriate and respectful handling of the word.

I choose between the two. its the best I can do. its the best that anybody can do.

[phee]

In English (how can you say......)

I have seen both things Phee.

Absolute manipulation, and an appropriate and respectful handling of the word.

I choose between the two.  its the best I can do.  its the best that anybody can do.

Sounds good to me....