OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

See I dont view it as a free pass.. like I said ignorance is bliss.. now that you have this knowledge that you're going to heaven no matter what how do you choose to live? Does it matter? Theres no hell anyways. :) ehh idk, im struggling with this theory.. its a work in progress for sure

With Christ, why do I think he was more than a great man (buddha is a good example of another great man)? Because He fufills Gods prophets as His Son.

Yeah, I suppose so... if you believe that the folks writing about him aren't just telling a story designed to fit the prophesies in the first place...

 

[Bleed S & G]

Yeah, I suppose so... if you believe that the folks writing about him aren't just telling a story designed to fit the prophesies in the first place...

Thats where the faith comes in I suppose.. regaurdless of what you believe (in my book) if you live with love, it transcends faiths & creeds.

 

[jwinslow]

I have labored over this issue for many years, and I just cannot find one rational reason to accept that Jesus was anything more than a man. A "great" man, even.. but a man, nonetheless.

I can't find one rational explanation for how Christ can be accepted as a great man. He was either the Son of God, or a liar/lunatic. Who dies on the cross for a lie?

Yeah, I suppose so... if you believe that the folks writing about him aren't just telling a story designed to fit the prophesies in the first place...

Which part of the story was made up to fit the prophecies? Or is that just a generic assumption of yours?

 

[Jagdaddy]

Here's a great theological question to non-believers that I heard raised on the Dennis Prager show last week:

How does a person who does not believe in a Supreme Being objectively demonstrate that human life has significance? Is it even possible?

How does a person who does? For that matter, why does it even matter whether human life is "significant" or not?

 

[buckeyegrad]

How does a person who does?

The religious person says human life has significance because God gives it to us. Each religion has different explanations for it, but the significance derives from God. Now, you might say that is not an objective perspective, which I fully agree, but I would never claim it to be, nor would I require it to be.

For the non-believer, or maybe more specifically the natural materialist, subjectivity is not acceptable because they reject religious beliefs/teachings on the basis of it not being objective. If this is the requirement religion must stand upon for them, then objectivity become the requirement for them to justify significance of human life (or anything for that matter).

For that matter, why does it even matter whether human life is "significant" or not?

It matters in how we treat each other and how one lives a moral life. If humans are no more significant than a dog, a rock, or pond scum, then how we should be expected to treat each other should be the same as those other objects. Without a divine being bestowing significance on us, then we are the same as a rock and therefore morality would be the same leading to the conclusion it is okay to destroy humans, just as it is a rock; or intentionally destroying a rock is equal to the muder.

 

[buckeyegrad]

In scripture Christ died for Mans salvation.. where in scripture does it say only for the non-sinner? My impression is Christ died for humankind. I don't have a verse from the bible, it's my own personal thoughts..

Of course Jesus didn't die for the non-sinner, there would be no reason for Him to since His death was THE Atoning Sacrifice. However, simply because He died for humankind doesn't mean everyone will accept the gift of justification that is extended through the act of grace. After all, Jesus did say that many are called, but few are the elect.

The basis for ignorance is bliss? Adam & Eve.. they weren't sinning until they knew they were. Perhaps this is why Christ was so found of kids? If a racist is born & raised a racist and it's not wrong in his eyes, and he dies and meets God on judgement day.. whats Gods judgement? I personally believe you aren't sinning unless you think you are.

Except Paul is very clear in Romans that not knowing the Law is not an excuse for sin and that all will be judged according to their actions regardless of their knowledge.

You may want to re-examine Adam and Eve and what eating from the Tree of Knowledge really entails. It is not that they were ignorant of God's commands and therefore were free to do whatever they wanted because of the ignorance. Read Genesis and you will see that there were only three commands upon them and they knew them: 1) be fruitful and increase in number; 2) fill the earth and subdue it; 3) do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Prior to eating the forbidden fruit, they did not have the knowledge of good and evil because they only knew good, that is God's Will, because they were in perfect obedience. Once they defied God's Will and ate from the tree, they knew good and evil because they now new both obedience and rebellion to God's Will.

 

[Taosman]

If I may add the Buddhist point of view on this.

One thing I teach: suffering and the end of suffering. It is just Ill and the ceasing of Ill that I proclaim.
--The Buddha {2}

One of the most important questions all belief systems seek to address is: What is the purpose of life? And virtually all religions propose a way of life that will lead to salvation, liberation, satisfaction, or happiness. Buddhism is no exception.
In Buddhism, the primary purpose of life is to end suffering. The Buddha taught that humans suffer because we continually strive after things that do not give lasting happiness. We desperately try to hold on to things - friends, health, material things - that do not last, and this causes sorrow.
The Buddha did not deny that there are things in life that give joy, but pointed out that none of them last and our attachment to them only causes more suffering. His teachings were focused entirely on this problem and its solution.
This is done by recognizing the impermanence of all things and freeing oneself from attachment to these things. This will lessen suffering and eventually end the cycle of rebirth. These teachings are expressed most concisely in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, which together form the foundation of belief for all branches of Buddhism.
The Four Noble Truths

In his first sermon after attaining enlightenment, the Buddha taught the "Four Noble Truths," which form the foundation of belief for all branches of Buddhism:

1. All of life is marked by suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by desire and attachment.
3. Suffering can be stopped.
4. The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path........ http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/purpose.htm

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Thats where the faith comes in I suppose.. regaurdless of what you believe (in my book) if you live with love, it transcends faiths & creeds.

I agree 100% Pleasing God, in my view, has little to do with rigid adherence to ritual and more about how you treat your fellow man.

 

[jwinslow]

I agree 100% Pleasing God, in my view, has little to do with rigid adherence to ritual and more about how you treat your fellow man.

Correct, Pharisees worshipped their religion (and themselves in the process). You cannot love God without loving your neighbor.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I can't find one rational explanation for how Christ can be accepted as a great man. He was either the Son of God, or a liar/lunatic.

You can't? Hmmm... maybe you don't hear the lessons of his words then? As we've discussed before, I don't care if he's a liar or a lunatic. Im more interested in his philosophy than his divinity. Greatness often finds the world in the ravings of madmen. This isn't news.

In any case, Jesus' greatness is in his teachings and has little to do with his divinity. Is Einstein any less a great thinker because he was not divine? How about St. Augustine? Is his lack of divinity a strike against the things he taught? I never understand how Christians can only see Jesus as divine or a lunatic.

In any case, suppose for a moment that Jesus was a liar/lunatic... What does that say about your salvation? In my way of thinking, if he's divine, OK.. fine.. and if he's just a man, as I believe? OK too. I feel this way because of my understanding of God. My God doesn't have much time for picking the right label for things, and is more impressed with my willingness to think about the problem than he is by my ability - as when I was a practicing catholic - to recite a number of prayers, eat fish on Fridays and that sort of rote stuff.

Anyway, point is... I lose nothing if Jesus is divine or not... you, it seems, have much on the line. That must be a scary way to live. (of course, assuming you're like most Christians I know (and, you may well not be), the chance of your view being wrong isn't something you ever give much serious consideration to.)

Who dies on the cross for a lie?Which part of the story was made up to fit the prophecies? Or is that just a generic assumption of yours?

Who dies on the cross for a lie... well, any number of criminals of the day who did not commit the crime they were convicted of, I guess.

I neither have specific examples that I could use to "prove" writers of the NT fit their story to what was already predicted nor do I assume anything. What I'm saying is, I can easily see storytelling made to fit a set of assumptions (the OT prophecy) and because of that reality, I find the NT up against this "logical" bar (Logical isnt the right word, but the word I'm looking for escapes me at the moment). I've addressed this view before on other threads, and don't think I can add much more to it right now. Fact is, I discern my faith with a critical eye. I look inside my heart... soul.. whatever.. (Edit: If you would prrefer me to tie this to some sort of Biblical thing, Man was created in God's image.. thus, I can read inside me and know something about God (guess your pharisees aren't as fucked up as you might have thought) My God doesn't reveal himself on the pages of a book or in the words of some other man wearing some funny robe. I am - as I said earlier in this thread, I think - hypersensitive to finding bullshit in religion. That's not to say that what I deem bullshit IS bullshit, just that I don't much care if my view is accepted by others or not... it's not important.. what's important is that I consider the issues as deeply as I can.

Again, this goes to my belief that it is more pleasing to God to think than it is to blindly accept. And, since I cannot accept Jesus "blindly" (and appeals to the Bible hold little water with me - especially in my admitted hypersensitive to rubbish mindset) I dont.

I suppose there are those reading this who are taken aback that I'd use the words Bible and Rubbish in the same sentence. Let me ask you people this.. is the Koran rubbish? The book of Mormon? Etc.... One man's deepest faith is another man's rubbish when your religion is based on the words of other men written in some book having been translated from language to language. You say, well the Bible is the inspired word of God! Yeah, well, other religions think they have it right... I'll let you guys argue and go to war over it, while I enjoy the beauty in a sunrise and the love I see in my children's eyes when they look at me. God? If there is such a thing, he's not bound in the pages of man. And calling a book divine doesn't make it so. I could call one of my Mom's romance novels divine.. But.. it's not. Even if I really really really believe it. And I should add, the number of people who also believe is irrelevant. It's not particularly uncommon for people to believe something that is later definitively proven wrong (not that the Bible will ever be). Indeed, it was once widely understood that the Earth was the center of the universe, the sun and stars revolving around it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Of course Jesus didn't die for the non-sinner, there would be no reason for Him to since His death was THE Atoning Sacrifice. However, simply because He died for humankind doesn't mean everyone will accept the gift of justification that is extended through the act of grace. After all, Jesus did say that many are called, but few are the elect.

Pretty exclusive club. Considering that the majority of living things in the universe have either no idea what the hell Jesus is or what he did or if they have an idea, believe something else... I don't know... the exclusivity of any one religion is something I see as highly problematic (and qualifies under my hypersensitivity to the issues as rubbish (again, my term .... not meant to offend.. just trying to describe a thought. I don't mean anything negative, necessarily... just my imperfect use of langauge.)

Except Paul is very clear in Romans that not knowing the Law is not an excuse for sin and that all will be judged according to their actions regardless of their knowledge.

Ah, here we go. The teachings of man, instructing other men what is pleasing to God and going so far as to dangle words like 'law' and 'judgment' over my head. No thanks. Paul was divine too, I suppose? If he wasn't, then maybe he, a man like me, is just as full of shit as I am. That means his authority on matters religion, in my view, is worth talking about, but not worth committing my life to. What I'm saying is, and probably shoulda been more direct about with Jwin... I don't understand it when people look to other people to figure out what God wants. If God is real and he loves you and all that.. then all you gotta do is listen.

Look around. If God is everywhere, divine meaning out of the night sky. If God is everywhere, hear him in the blowing wind.

Ironically, and I recognize this as a problem with what I'm saying, if God is everywhere.. he too is in the voice of Paul. But then, is he not also in my voice? What about when Paul and I disagree? I resolve this with the notion of individuality.. free will, you might call it. I am not of one mind with Paul. ANd even where we each believe completely opposite things.. we are both right.. we are both wrong. There isn't such a thing as right or wrong. There simply is.

Paul, in my view, was trying to implement some sort of control over man... maybe even for the "right" reasons.. doesn't matter. To me, it's simple as politics. Paul... Mohammed... Hammurabi.... all these people told us to be afraid of God and to listen to them so we please God and don't feel his wrath/suffer the judgments of our sin/etc. Bah.. I don't need religion to be a "good" person. Spare me your edicts and fear tactics attempting to ensure I am a contributing member of society. I do it because I am compelled to do it by what I feel is right in my heart, not because Paul said it was a good idea.. not because Mohammed said it was a good idea.. and not because some nitwit carried around the "magic gourd" for a few months. I am simply compelled to be the thing that I am, and I don't need the eyes of man presuming to be the eyes of God upon me.

And if I'm wrong, I suppose I just accept my damnation. I can't think I'd want to be any part of a God who would damn me for not being ... what... smart enough to close my mind up and simply recite scripture as truth. Judgmental gods... you can have him.

 

[jwinslow]

You didn't answer my question. Do you consider him to be a madman? delusional?

You can't? Hmmm... maybe you don't hear the lessons of his words then? As we've discussed before, I don't care if he's a liar or a lunatic. Im more interested in his philosophy than his divinity. Greatness often finds the world in the ravings of madmen. This isn't news.

Greatness emerging from madmen don't change the fact that they are madmen.
What about all of his followers which died following his false teachings?
You don't seem to respect the religion he created, so what of those enormous consequences of his deception/delusions?

In any case, suppose for a moment that Jesus was a liar/lunatic... What does that say about your salvation?

That's a pretty rhetorical question, one that I don't think you are willing to ask yourself any longer.

In my way of thinking, if he's divine, OK.. fine.. and if he's just a man, as I believe? OK too.

You just presented outcome

1A. BKB is right, and Jesus is divine
1B. BKB is right, and Jesus is just a man.

That's a pretty convenient list, leaving out the true alternative:

2. If what Jesus said was true, then what you've deduced about God is false and unsatisfactory.

I feel this way because of my understanding of God. My God doesn't have much time for picking the right label for things, and is more impressed with my willingness to think about the problem than he is by my ability - as when I was a practicing catholic - to recite a number of prayers, eat fish on Fridays and that sort of rote stuff.

Empty actions have no value in Christianity either... I'm sorry those faithless routines (of certain others, I'm assuming) jaded you, but misguided "religion" for the wrong reasons is not part of my faith/religion.

Anyway, point is... I lose nothing if Jesus is divine or not... you, it seems, have much on the line.

Again see above, you have much more to lose than you're willing to admit.

That must be a scary way to live. (of course, assuming you're like most Christians I know (and, you may well not be), the chance of your view being wrong isn't something you ever give much serious consideration to.)

I've dwelled on that 'chance' many times, but do not live my life in fear of being wrong.

Who dies on the cross for a lie... well, any number of criminals of the day who did not commit the crime they were convicted of, I guess.

The disciples certainly were guilty of their crimes.

Fact is, I discern my faith with a critical eye. I look inside my heart... soul.. whatever.. My God doesn't reveal himself on the pages of a book or in the words of some other man wearing some funny robe.

What makes your eye any less suspect than theirs?

I am - as I said earlier in this thread, I think - hypersensitive to finding bullshit in religion.

As was Christ.

Again, this goes to my belief that it is more pleasing to God to think than it is to blindly accept.

Paul echoed the same sentiment about religious teachings...

Yeah, well, other religions think they have it right... I'll let you guys argue and go to war over it, while I enjoy the beauty in a sunrise and the love I see in my children's eyes when they look at me.

Is this one of BKB's aliases holding a (civil) argument with me? I don't remember going to war, but I certainly recall being in awe of God's creation. Sorry, you don't have dibs on that one.

 

[jwinslow]

What I'm saying is, and probably shoulda been more direct about with Jwin... I don't understand it when people look to other people to figure out what God wants.

Do you not do this when dismissing Christianity?

If God is real and he loves you and all that.. then all you gotta do is listen. Look around. If God is everywhere, divine meaning out of the night sky. If God is everywhere, hear him in the blowing wind.

Why will you trust something so abstract as the wind, which must be passed thru the filters of your beliefs/biases...

Yet you will not trust the words of a man who was without fault? Those in power were unable to find any true sin in him, despite hounding him endlessly... such that they had to take action at night and rely upon a mob to ensure his condemnation?

ANd even where we each believe completely opposite things.. we are both right.. we are both wrong. There isn't such a thing as right or wrong. There simply is.

You say you believe this, yet somehow justify the concept of 'good' (see below).

Paul, in my view, was trying to implement some sort of control over man... maybe even for the "right" reasons.. doesn't matter. To me, it's simple as politics.

What does he gain by this control you speak of?

People have abused all sorts of principles and religions to control humanity. This happens in our government, but does not make the founding principles wrong.

Paul... Mohammed... Hammurabi.... all these people told us to be afraid of God and to listen to them so we please God and don't feel his wrath/suffer the judgments of our sin/etc. Bah.. I don't need religion to be a "good" person.

What the heck is 'good'? You just argued that there is no such thing as right or wrong. How can there be good?

Spare me your edicts and fear tactics attempting to ensure I am a contributing member of society.

I really don't believe you experienced Christianity with the verbage and references you use, but I doubt anything I could type would convince you of that.

I do it because I am compelled to do it by what I feel is right in my heart

Do you trust your heart? Do you trust the heart of those sunday-morning churchgoers who worship their religion and false gods instead of serving & loving God?

And if I'm wrong, I suppose I just accept my damnation. I can't think I'd want to be any part of a God who would damn me for not being ... what... smart enough to close my mind up and simply recite scripture as truth. Judgmental gods... you can have him.

And I don't want any part of an accomodating world view.

You don't seem to trust anyone else's perception of God. I agree, and it's the inherit flaw that I see in your world view.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Pretty exclusive club. Considering that the majority of living things in the universe have either no idea what the hell Jesus is or what he did or if they have an idea, believe something else... I don't know... the exclusivity of any one religion is something I see as highly problematic (and qualifies under my hypersensitivity to the issues as rubbish (again, my term .... not meant to offend.. just trying to describe a thought. I don't mean anything negative, necessarily... just my imperfect use of langauge.)

We've been here before, it is not exclusive in the fact that anyone can become a Christian. Unlike many religions that do require you to be of a certain ethnicity, lineage, or status, or that require you to peform specific rituals, Christ's message is open to all individuals, the question is whether they accept it or not (as I originally pointed out).

Ah, here we go. The teachings of man, instructing other men what is pleasing to God and going so far as to dangle words like 'law' and 'judgment' over my head. No thanks. Paul was divine too, I suppose? If he wasn't, then maybe he, a man like me, is just as full of shit as I am. That means his authority on matters religion, in my view, is worth talking about, but not worth committing my life to. What I'm saying is, and probably shoulda been more direct about with Jwin... I don't understand it when people look to other people to figure out what God wants. If God is real and he loves you and all that.. then all you gotta do is listen.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Of course, you completely ignore two key facts from the Christian perspective that greatly elevates Paul's ideas as compared to yours.

First, Paul's writings were guided by the Holy Spirit, your ideas are not. Sure, you can go to your claim that Paul may have been lying that the Holy Spirit guided him or that you receive as much guidance as he did from the Holy Spirit, but that will never hold water with a Christian because your ideas are completely incompatible with those who knew Jesus. Of course, this gets to another reason why one can believe the divine inspiration of Paul's statements compared to yours. Peter, who received authority directly from Jesus, confirmed Paul's writings as being from God. You have no one of such authority to confirm your ideas.

Second, Paul backed up everything he wrote with the Old Testament. You do not do this and in the instances where I have seen you try to relate your theology to the Old Testament, it done in a manner that the original text is twisted to such a degree that anyone could create almost any interpretation using such an approach.

Look around. If God is everywhere, divine meaning out of the night sky. If God is everywhere, hear him in the blowing wind.

You know my stance here, a person without the Holy Spirit cannot properly hear God speaking to them through nature. They only receive fractured interpretations of what God speaks that is filtered through their finite, limited mind that is more a product of their culture and experiences than any pure, rational thought.

Paul, in my view, was trying to implement some sort of control over man... maybe even for the "right" reasons.. doesn't matter. To me, it's simple as politics.

This is an interesting comment since Paul spent his life after his conversion being persecuted and constantly traveling to new places. How does a man who is essentially a nomad and is physically abused and in trouble with the authorities everywhere he goes exercise control over others? He never asked for money. He never sought a political following...in fact, he advocated remaining obedient to governing authorities--which at times would be the ones persecuting him.

Paul... Mohammed... Hammurabi.... all these people told us to be afraid of God and to listen to them so we please God and don't feel his wrath/suffer the judgments of our sin/etc.

Where does Paul say to be afraid of God? Sure, he follows the Old Testament's call to fear the Lord, but that means acknowledge and respect God's authority, not live in fear of it. Paul's message was God's love for us as expressed through the Christ. Paul also never said people had to listen to him in order to please God, he said that we should listen to Jesus.

Bah.. I don't need religion to be a "good" person.

I agree with this. So does Paul! But we would both say you do need a relationship with Jesus.

Spare me your edicts and fear tactics attempting to ensure I am a contributing member of society.

Again, not Paul. Paul really has no interest about society other than how one should treat others in accord with God's Commands in the Old Testament.

I do it because I am compelled to do it by what I feel is right in my heart, not because Paul said it was a good idea.. not because Mohammed said it was a good idea.. and not because some nitwit carried around the "magic gourd" for a few months. I am simply compelled to be the thing that I am, and I don't need the eyes of man presuming to be the eyes of God upon me.

I don't do anything because Paul says it is a good idea. Jesus is my rabbi, not Paul. Paul merely provides the explanations of many of Jesus' teachings in terms of both rationality and how to live them out.

And if I'm wrong, I suppose I just accept my damnation. I can't think I'd want to be any part of a God who would damn me for not being ... what... smart enough to close my mind up and simply recite scripture as truth. Judgmental gods... you can have him.

Why does being judged by a "god" bother you so much? If he is the creator of all things, is perfect in all he does, and always acts in love, why would you dislike his judgment?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

A lot to get in to here, sorry for the length of what will follow....

You didn't answer my question. Do you consider him to be a madman? delusional?

I did answer. My answer is, it makes me no difference. For what its worth, and a more direct answer, I dont consider him a madman.

Greatness emerging from madmen don't change the fact that they are madmen.

I don't understand the hang-up on the lable. I could care less who is mad, I'm more interested in ideas.

What about all of his followers which died following his false teachings?

Jim Jones. David Koresh. Just to name a few. And, you completely misunderstand me if you think for one second I'm calling Jesus' teaching false.

You don't seem to respect the religion he created, so what of those enormous consequences of his deception/delusions?

Actually, Josh, I do respect his Religion. I wonder if I'm speaking in a foreign langauge.

That's a pretty rhetorical question, one that I don't think you are willing to ask yourself any longer.

Either I am speaking in a foreign laguage or your not reading my posts before firing off responses. Not only am I "willing" to answer, I even answered it in my post. Oddly enough, you avoid answering it altogether and attempt to make it look like I'm somehow the object of inquirey.

You just presented outcome

1A. BKB is right, and Jesus is divine
1B. BKB is right, and Jesus is just a man.

That's a pretty convenient list, leaving out the true alternative:

2. If what Jesus said was true, then what you've deduced about God is false and unsatisfactory.

Actually, Josh, and again... if you were reading my posts inclusive, you'd see that if your 2nd alternative is the "correct" one, then I have decided to accept my eternal damnation. Follow along, please.

Again see above, you have much more to lose than you're willing to admit.I've dwelled on that 'chance' many times, but do not live my life in fear of being wrong.

Jwin, seriously... you're going to begin your response with a statement that I didn't answer your question and then you're gonna go on ahead and ignore my question about the consequences of Christinanity being "wrong" by making the conclusory assertion that I've ignored the problem, as if you have any idea what I think about? Please. Discussion is one thing, far reaching assumptions geared in the manner I see here is quite another. It matters little if you answer the question, actually, just point out ... well... nothing I guess.. never mind. Don't want this to delve in to a pissing match...

What makes your eye any less suspect than theirs?

Do you like the socratic meathod for some reason? It has become obvious to me you're not following along with anything I'm talking about. It's either because I'm not expressing it well enough, or you are not reading in context... Or both. In any case.... I don't see the point in continuing a piecemeal discussion of the remainder of your responses.... (this occurred to me as I was engaged in the same practice (see above...., so I'm no innocent here either)

Though I will make some general responses to clarify... I feel that appropriate so other readers have a more clear idea of what I'm talking about...

Do you not do this when dismissing Christianity? Why will you trust something so abstract as the wind, which must be passed thru the filters of your beliefs/biases...

Yet you will not trust the words of a man who was without fault? Those in power were unable to find any true sin in him, despite hounding him endlessly... such that they had to take action at night and rely upon a mob to ensure his condemnation?You say you believe this, yet somehow justify the concept of 'good' (see below).
What does he gain by this control you speak of?

People have abused all sorts of principles and religions to control humanity. This happens in our government, but does not make the founding principles wrong.
What the heck is 'good'? You just argued that there is no such thing as right or wrong. How can there be good?
I really don't believe you experienced Christianity with the verbage and references you use, but I doubt anything I could type would convince you of that.
Do you trust your heart? Do you trust the heart of those sunday-morning churchgoers who worship their religion and false gods instead of serving & loving God?
And I don't want any part of an accomodating world view.

You don't seem to trust anyone else's perception of God. I agree, and it's the inherit flaw that I see in your world view.

Do I trust my heart? Yes. Do I trust "the wind" of course.... and quite naturally, you focus on the relative absurdity of the remark in a literal sense rather than the point I was getting at. Josh, what I'm saying is there are consequences to "God being everywhere" and it doesn't take any magic or lecture from others to find God. It's really that simple. Incidentally, I do not "dismiss" Christianity.

You labor over a few points... A) I'm "dismissing christiantity" and B) I'm "calling the underlying principles "wrong"" I am doing neither. I have never argued Jesus' philosophy/teachings is "wrong" I have never argued that the basis upon which Christiainity is based is "wrong" (But for the divinity issue, which - while we disagree - is in my mind completely inconsequential... once again, as you avoided in your socratic way - What is the relevance of his divinity... Does the teachings he made lose force if he's just a man? It would seem you've boxed yourself in to the answer of 'Yes' it matters.. and yet, you refuse to explain how or why... and then, you accuse me of not really "expierencing christinanity?" Spare me. Again, I say... my faith survives the divinity question regardless of answer... you seem to think your salvation rests on a delicate balance between Jesus being divine or a nutcase. That's fine for me if it works for you, I just don't understand it. And, so I'm clear.... I don't JUDGE you for it... I'm just interested in TALKING about it. I gather from your posts you're looking to point out the "hypocricy" in what I'm saying... and, I guess I'm just not interested in parsing out posts any more.... it defeats the point of what I'm interested in accomplishing on this thread. So, if it's all the same to you, I may well ignore like responses in the future (although, I may not).

We've been here before, it is not exclusive in the fact that anyone can become a Christian. Unlike many religions that do require you to be of a certain ethnicity, lineage, or status, or that require you to peform specific rituals, Christ's message is open to all individuals, the question is whether they accept it or not (as I originally pointed out).

I guess you and I disagree on who can believe what. I mean, you say you have to be a certain ethnicity, lineage, status to be in some other religion.... I fail to see how any of that has any effect on what I believe in my heart. That is, if I read the Koran and believed every word of it, practiced it's teachings and so on... am I any less Muslim simply because I wasn't born in the middle east? Maybe not the best example, but I hope you get the point I'm making. I will concede, however, that I overstated the exclusivity to the extent of "admission" to the faith, but what I was thinking about when I wrote that was more about the practice of it.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Of course, you completely ignore two key facts from the Christian perspective that greatly elevates Paul's ideas as compared to yours.

First, Paul's writings were guided by the Holy Spirit, your ideas are not.

Says you. You believe that... it is not a fact. And, at the risk of sounding like a nutbag myself, I actually do believe my ideas are guided by what you'd call the Holy Spirit. Statements like that (me saying I'm guided by the Holy Spirit) get people locked up in Psych. wards... Ironic, I think.

Sure, you can go to your claim that Paul may have been lying that the Holy Spirit guided him or that you receive as much guidance as he did from the Holy Spirit, but that will never hold water with a Christian because your ideas are completely incompatible with those who knew Jesus.

Those who knew Jesus.... Like... Philip? Mary? Thomas? other "gnostics" who's books were left out of the bible by some council of men who didn't like what those Gospels said, for whatever reason. As you no doubt agree, history is written by the winners... Applying that to Christianity in a "historical" way, if other men had been in charge, I can see a Christianity that would include, say, the book of Philip and not Matthew... I'm betting you don't see it that way, and I'm also certain that because of your studies you have a rational and reasons why Philip was exluded and Matthew was included... but, I don't see how you can get around my observation that that decision was a decision, ultimately, of man.

Of course, this gets to another reason why one can believe the divine inspiration of Paul's statements compared to yours. Peter, who received authority directly from Jesus, confirmed Paul's writings as being from God. You have no one of such authority to confirm your ideas.

Dont I? Seems to me you're making an assumption here. Indeed, what you're doing is appealing to authority (Peter) as if it's without question he knows what he's talking about... and, of course, that's the whole point... you believe his authority... but it's not a fact. I've tried to illustrate this principle in a number of ways in my posts, and I'll try again here...

Suppose Stephen Hawking and I agree that the Universe is 14 feet across. We both honestly believe that to our very cores. We even try and convince others of this view of the universe. Does my agreement with Hawking prove I'm right? Of course not... lend support, yes... prove? Not so much.

Taking that a step further... If me and some of my friends decide to tell the same (or similar) stories about someone we know, what does that say about the thruth of the matter asserted? Well.. again... nothing... as it comes to credibility deterimations.

Now, on this, it's clear you consider Peter and Paul credible. Thats not an unreasonable thing to believe... but, it's still not a fact. In any case, you seem to argue that I am alone in my dismissal of Paul... and yet... on this very planet alone there are literally billions of people who don't see Paul as the authority, for one reason or another, favoring instead other personalities who are - so it is believed - inspired by the Holy Spirit or it's equivelant in whatever faith we're discussing.

Second, Paul backed up everything he wrote with the Old Testament. You do not do this and in the instances where I have seen you try to relate your theology to the Old Testament, it done in a manner that the original text is twisted to such a degree that anyone could create almost any interpretation using such an approach.

You're a smart man, Bgrad, as you've been able to understand the entire point I've been making with the Bible as authority. Said as simply as I can.. there is no "one" interpreation of the Bible....

I mean it like this... why accept Paul's interpretation of the Bible? Your answer is because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit (again, a matter of faith, not fact) and that's all well and good... but your still resting your faith on the faith of another and not exploring God with your own eyes... if you will. That overstates it some, as one thing I would never accuse you of is not taking religion seriously... what I mean to say is we can all pick our authorities... we can all support our choice in picking an authority... but... it's nothing more than a battle of "experts" at the end of the day. Matters like religion, I think, are very much unlike matters of, say, geometry. Neither of us can "prove" our view is correct, like we could prove the length of a side of a triangle when given certain variables.

My main issue with christiantity (really, all "organized" religions) and the point Jwin seems to be unwilling to read in my posts, has nothing to do with it's message per se, but instead the way that message is used to advocate conquests of man as against man.. to judge.. to.. control... to justify what might be otherwise unjustfiable. My other issue is how Christians (and other religious folks of other religions) don't live their life in accord with some pretty basic principles of their faith and then have the audacity to say they are getting in to heaven and I'm not? Again, the main problem I have with organized religion (including christiantity) is when it is used to judge and exclude... even where we can come back and say "Well, you're still invited to the table".... The point is, people who live their lives as if their Religion is the only way dont ever realize that not everyone wants to sit at that table... not because they're denying God... Not because they're denying Christ... but because they believe something else. And.. of course, your religion, or so it seems, requires you to believe you and only you (or like minded people) are correct and the rest of us are ... something else... (Usually viewed as "lower" in some sense).

I guess, I just don't understand how we can say in one breath that God is accessible to all, and yet when I say, fine, lets find God in the wind, I get sarcastic remarks. I don't follow how I can only be a "believer" in God/etc. if I decide to adhere to other people's opinions about things.. Josh said, Do I trust my heart, and why not trust other people (or words to that effect).... Who else am I to trust in the decisions that effect my life.. my salvation.. my existence than myself? Who, among me, is the final arbitor of what I believe? Me, of course. Do I trust myself? Of course. Why dont I trust others? It's not even an issue of trust, really... it's an issue of agreement, as I think about it. I don't know.. I don't see the usefulness in supporting my beliefs with appeals to the various other people who are of like thinking....

To me, that's the same as when a child says, "But Joey's mom lets him..." That never convinced my folks to allow me to do anything... and my mistake was, of course, assuming that my parents would respect the "authority" of Joey's parents on the matter.

You know my stance here, a person without the Holy Spirit cannot properly hear God speaking to them through nature. They only receive fractured interpretations of what God speaks that is filtered through their finite, limited mind that is more a product of their culture and experiences than any pure, rational thought.

Its not nearly that complicated to me. The way I look at it, one cannot fail to appreciate God when they view nature.. the universe... etc.... whether they realize they are appreciating God is of little consequence.

This is an interesting comment since Paul spent his life after his conversion being persecuted and constantly traveling to new places. How does a man who is essentially a nomad and is physically abused and in trouble with the authorities everywhere he goes exercise control over others? He never asked for money. He never sought a political following...in fact, he advocated remaining obedient to governing authorities--which at times would be the ones persecuting him.

I must not be making my point clearly enough. I am not attempting to argue that Paul personally had some sort of psychological control complex. I have no question Paul honestly believed what he wrote. Just as I have no question I honestly believe that the things I write are my honest beliefs... When I speak of "control" I'm talking more about "the Church" And, to be clear, I do not dismiss Paul's thoughts out of hand for what they are worth... that is to say, my objections are not about the useability of Paul's remarks for my own journey in life... I mean, hell... why am I even on this board talking about religion with you people if it was my desire to simply reject the ... I guess I'll call em talking points.. wholesale.

Where does Paul say to be afraid of God? Sure, he follows the Old Testament's call to fear the Lord, but that means acknowledge and respect God's authority, not live in fear of it.

I agree that "fear" God is more about awe than it is to be scared... hopefully my remarks directly above, re: The Church" clears up the confusion my post may have left with respect to Paul in particular.

Paul's message was God's love for us as expressed through the Christ. Paul also never said people had to listen to him in order to please God, he said that we should listen to Jesus.
I agree with this. So does Paul! But we would both say you do need a relationship with Jesus.

I do have a relationship with Jesus. It's just not one that you and Paul would consider sufficient.

Again, not Paul. Paul really has no interest about society other than how one should treat others in accord with God's Commands in the Old Testament.

I don't do anything because Paul says it is a good idea. Jesus is my rabbi, not Paul. Paul merely provides the explanations of many of Jesus' teachings in terms of both rationality and how to live them out.

Here again, I hope my paragraph about "the Church" clears up what I was driving at in the quoted text. Appeals to authority ... my point is... is subjective.

Why does being judged by a "god" bother you so much? If he is the creator of all things, is perfect in all he does, and always acts in love, why would you dislike his judgment?

I don't have any issues with God's judgment of me. Indeed, what I said was, I accept whatever judgment I get. If the nature of God is as I believe, then I'm good to go... if the nature of God is such that my decision to live the way I do is not good enough for him, then so be it. Bothered? Quite the contrary. I accept my fate... why? Because I trust myself.