OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Bleed S & G]

... I asked why you (and I dont mean YOU) don't try to act more Christ like.

Very fair question. I wonder this too..

Ah, I didn't catch earlier that you were pointing out others perceptions, not reality. But as Christians we know the reality as told to us by the Bible and we try to get them see this reality. I see we really agree then.

Perception is reality, no?

The jews were prime for a savior, and were given a near opposite of what they were looking for.

the original teachings don't really jive with this type of conspiracy or show these politics you suggest.

I disagree, they we're told of the savior as well as the military leader. I believe it's a 2 part messiah..

and interestingly enough we christians wait his return which is a much more military like return.. you know like slaying satan in jersualem and establishing a world wide system after the battle at armageddon?

In terms if "christian" churches.. study Simon Magnus.. the true first pope

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This doesn't really jive with the circumstances under which Christ's teachings were recorded. The jews were prime for a savior, and were given a near opposite of what they were looking for. If I'm looking to control and manipulate people, I write or twist His words much differently.

First, I would observe that no one here has any idea under what circumstances Christ's teachings were recorded. That's the nature of a historical analysis. I can tell you that Justinian was an Emperor, but I can tell you very little about his rule. I could recite what his historians said about him, but I don't have much reason to believe they're being truthful. That said, I likewise don't have any compelling reason to dismiss their writing. Point being, I'm sure you have a view of what exactly was the situation upon Jesus' arrival. They may well be accurate... but, they may well NOT be.

Second, it begs a serious question that the Jews would be predicting a savior in prophecy after prophecy and then fail to recognize him when he showed up. Despite "well documented" covenants with God, devout Jews missed the coming of their Lord? I would love an explanation for that one. Begging also the question of what do Christians think happens to Jews upon death. If you read the OT God seems to be pretty straight up about them being the chosen people and all, and yet if I understand Christianity correctly, the only way to God is through Christ. Odd to me that God would forsake his "chosen people." Of course, I already know your response, he didn't forsake anyone, they failed to recognize. Reaching impasse yet again. (more on this in a moment)

While Christianity exploded into a worldwide poewr, and WAS manipulated in despicable ways... the original teachings don't really jive with this type of conspiracy or show these politics you suggest.

Well, in as much as the "conspiracy" I suggested was generalized at best, I'm not surprised it doesn't "jive." But, I won't quibble.... A few words on original teachings.....

How can you, or anyone in 2007, have the first idea what Jesus' "original teachings" were? 2000 years of manipulation leaves for a very distorted view. Of course, you'd probably have to deny that and rest on the faith that the word is there for the reading... and I'm not interested in taking that away. But, I do question how someone can think they have any idea what Jesus was talking about. Oh, I think you might be able to tell me what Paul thought about Jesus... But, you're also assuming Paul had no axe to grind. Maybe he didn't... I don't know.. But, I leave room for the possibility that he did.... Christians do not. I leave room for this possibility because it is what I observe in human nature. You'd say Paul was forbidden from lying because he was writing such a precious message. But, that's not proof. That's belief. It's a perfectly fine belief. But, it's nothing more than a belief... getting to what I left dangling above....

It occurs to me that if I were saying the things I say on these threads, but my focus was on Islam and not Christianity, none of you would take much issue with me. That is, if I said Muhammad may have had an axe to grind, you would hardly object. And yet, when it comes to Christianity, well..... of course I'm wrong, because you believe what you believe. But, I find it remarkable that - and this gets to the impasse I mentioned - that under precisely like scenarios, faith intervenes to the point of immovable object. I don't believe, personally, that that is an expression of faith. Instead, I think it's a manifestation of some sort of brainwashing. I don't mean that with negative connotations, "brainwashing," I just can't think of a better term to get at what I mean.

I feel very strongly that everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I don't say any of this with the intent of changing anyone's mind. But, I DO say it with the intent of challenging your beliefs. Not for me. For you (not that I think I'm providing some service here, just that I'm saying what my intent is). When you have to defend your faith, you can make it stronger. Much like I use these threads to better understand the holes in my position, so too should you use your answers to understand yours. I guess I see impasse as something of a cop-out. I make cop-outs too.... No question about it. But, I also know that where I've copped out, it's time for me to give serious consideration to the issue.

Perhaps I have assumed too much. I mean, I already attributed a conclusion to you which you may not actually reach. BUT - if you would reach that conclusion ("the jews failed to recognize, God didn't forsake") I would, if I were you, wonder to myself... how or why is it that I always rest on other people's failures to recognize that which is clearly the most ultimate power in the universe (God), even where those other people don't seem to think they're failing at all.... and in many cases, think they're just as right or more so than I am. Again, in as much as Jews are chosen folks... in as much as Muslims are certain they're getting 72 virgins.... how can you be comfortable with "They failed to recognize."

I certainly understand being confined to the box that is one's own philosophy. I am in my own box, to be sure. I do try to keep it as open as I can, but truth is, I am in a box. But, recognition of that box, and it's limitations, surely will go far in fostering intelligent discussion among all peoples about God. I mean, isn't that what this is about? Understanding? It's not about right and wrong, and I guess my quarrel with Christians, is... to them... it most certainly is. And, to the extent that you or any Christian would insist they're right, and with respect to the boxes and limitations of our own philosophies readily apparent, it is why - I think - so many people think of Christians as arrogant... even in the face of their ever humble savior.

Just something to think about. I'm probably just full of shit, though.

Edit: Again, I already realize you did not say some of the things I'm using in the above to make the point I'm trying to make, so you don't need to point out "I didn't say that" I know what you said, and so does anyone who can read. If we're going to argue, I'd prefer to argue about the point, not the particulars.

 

[jwinslow]

(I'm lazy/tired, mostly the former, and am going to C&P some Zechariah breakdowns...)

I'm going to respond in detail, but you are proving my point. If you're trying to control a Jewish population with corrupt propaganda, wouldn't you cater to their religion and beliefs? Mocking their uber-Jews (pharisees) and bringing about a new era and style of religion is a pretty strange way to start a conspiracy.

First, I would observe that no one here has any idea under what circumstances Christ's teachings were recorded. That's the nature of a historical analysis. I can tell you that Justinian was an Emperor, but I can tell you very little about his rule. I could recite what his historians said about him, but I don't have much reason to believe they're being truthful. That said, I likewise don't have any compelling reason to dismiss their writing. Point being, I'm sure you have a view of what exactly was the situation upon Jesus' arrival. They may well be accurate... but, they may well NOT be.

No offense, but this is a bit absurd. What reason do you have to believe the historical accounts from that era are all hogwash?

Second, it begs a serious question that the Jews would be predicting a savior in prophecy after prophecy and then fail to recognize him when he showed up. Despite "well documented" covenants with God, devout Jews missed the coming of their Lord? I would love an explanation for that one

In the OT, God was very powerful and flexed his muscle quite often, enabling his people to wipe out enemies with great frequency. The God they knew was a powerful dominating God, one who helped a small race eradicate their enemies in order to survive in a tumultuous environment. Most importantly, He rescued them from captivity on multiple occasions.

Likewise, they expected their savior to rescue from oppression again. They never expected someone like Christ. They looked past this prophecy somewhat:

Zec. 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding on an ass, and on a colt the foal of an ass.
"Riding on an ass."Hebrew "chamor,"

, a male. "A colt the foal of an ass." Hebrew "a'yir ben 'atonoth,"

. "A'yir,"

, is a young male ass; "'atonoth,"

, is a female ass. The prophecy is very specific. The colt Jesus rode was a male.


Expecting the conquerer to arrive earlier, when in reality he would come during the "end times". I can include those passages if really necessary, but you get the idea.

"Lowly" Savior Jesus (as a teacher) was prophesied as well as the Warrior Savior. They just didn't recognize the distinction.

Begging also the question of what do Christians think happens to Jews upon death. If you read the OT God seems to be pretty straight up about them being the chosen people and all, and yet if I understand Christianity correctly, the only way to God is through Christ. Odd to me that God would forsake his "chosen people." Of course, I already know your response, he didn't forsake anyone, they failed to recognize. Reaching impasse yet again. (more on this in a moment)

The Jews turned their back on God, and eventually His protection followed suit.
Zechariah warned of this earlier in his OT scripture.

Chapter 11:vv.1-9 Zechariah predicts decline in spiritual leadership, terminating the Golden Years and precipitating "the day of the LORD".
The following words are addressed to the nation's hierarchy:-

vv 4-5 "This is what the LORD my God says; Put out to pasture the flock intended for slaughter! Those purchasing them slaughter them and are not punished. Those who sell them even say, The LORD be praised; for I am rich. Even their shepherds don't spare them."
The rich made themselves richer at the expense of the poor and the religious leaders were involved in it up to the hilt. They exploited the poor and thanked God for the riches they thus acquired. Whilst they were still in the process of rebuilding the temple, God had warned them of the deterioration that would set in toward the end of the promised golden years.

...

The covenant God had made with the Hebrew nation was everlasting in essence but they had violated the terms of the covenant.
11:10-11 So God was going to break His covenant with them "in that day". Note this was to be the end of the covenant with all the Hebrew tribes. It was never to be reinstated! The Jewish nation forfeited its right to the land of Palestine.
[There is no Divine authority for the Jewish restoration of the nation of Israel !]

How can you, or anyone in 2007, have the first idea what Jesus' "original teachings" were? 2000 years of manipulation leaves for a very distorted view. Of course, you'd probably have to deny that and rest on the faith that the word is there for the reading... and I'm not interested in taking that away. But, I do question how someone can think they have any idea what Jesus was talking about. Oh, I think you might be able to tell me what Paul thought about Jesus... But, you're also assuming Paul had no axe to grind. Maybe he didn't... I don't know.. But, I leave room for the possibility that he did.... Christians do not. I leave room for this possibility because it is what I observe in human nature. You'd say Paul was forbidden from lying because he was writing such a precious message. But, that's not proof. That's belief. It's a perfectly fine belief. But, it's nothing more than a belief... getting to what I left dangling above....

If's and buts and candy nuts. I certainly question the validity of scripture, and tested it against most major and minor rebuttals I came across. In the end, those tests strengthened my belief. We have ancient texts to refer to... like the dead sea scrolls. Beyond that, there are probably passages which cannot be proven to be untainted to a doubtful eye... but likewise I don't see very strong proof that he did not say such things, especially in light of other passages.

People have tried to disprove Christ's teachings for thousands of years, most importantly during the persecution that followed his life, especially those who killed his followers and preachers. I'll leave the onus on them to refute his teachings.

I understand the general point you're making, but it's so generically wide-sweeping that its principle could be applied to so many things in life.

It occurs to me that if I were saying the things I say on these threads, but my focus was on Islam and not Christianity, none of you would take much issue with me. That is, if I said Muhammad may have had an axe to grind, you would hardly object. And yet, when it comes to Christianity, well..... of course I'm wrong, because you believe what you believe.

Why would I care to defend a belief system I find to be invalid?

But, I find it remarkable that - and this gets to the impasse I mentioned - that under precisely like scenarios, faith intervenes to the point of immovable object. I don't believe, personally, that that is an expression of faith. Instead, I think it's a manifestation of some sort of brainwashing. I don't mean that with negative connotations, "brainwashing," I just can't think of a better term to get at what I mean.

You did not express yourself clearly here, so I will pass on responding.

I feel very strongly that everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I don't say any of this with the intent of changing anyone's mind. But, I DO say it with the intent of challenging your beliefs. Not for me. For you (not that I think I'm providing some service here, just that I'm saying what my intent is). When you have to defend your faith, you can make it stronger. Much like I use these threads to better understand the holes in my position, so too should you use your answers to understand yours. I guess I see impasse as something of a cop-out. I make cop-outs too.... No question about it. But, I also know that where I've copped out, it's time for me to give serious consideration to the issue.

Of course... idle hands (minds) are the devil's workshop... to an extent, something I'm guilty of too often.

Perhaps I have assumed too much. I mean, I already attributed a conclusion to you which you may not actually reach. BUT - if you would reach that conclusion ("the jews failed to recognize, God didn't forsake") I would, if I were you, wonder to myself... how or why is it that I always rest on other people's failures to recognize that which is clearly the most ultimate power in the universe (God), even where those other people don't seem to think they're failing at all.... and in many cases, think they're just as right or more so than I am. Again, in as much as Jews are chosen folks... in as much as Muslims are certain they're getting 72 virgins.... how can you be comfortable with "They failed to recognize."

Isn't this the case in your world view too? Most have failed to recognize, and God has forsaken them from that richer life (vs. Christianity's "heaven"). How is that a sign of a loving god?

Shouldn't he make your world view and richer spiritual life apparent to all if he truly loves us? To me it's a matter of religious semantics... our system both share that supposed flaw.

I certainly understand being confined to the box that is one's own philosophy. I am in my own box, to be sure. I do try to keep it as open as I can, but truth is, I am in a box. But, recognition of that box, and it's limitations, surely will go far in fostering intelligent discussion among all peoples about God. I mean, isn't that what this is about? Understanding? It's not about right and wrong, and I guess my quarrel with Christians, is... to them... it most certainly is. And, to the extent that you or any Christian would insist they're right, and with respect to the boxes and limitations of our own philosophies readily apparent, it is why - I think - so many people think of Christians as arrogant... even in the face of their ever humble savior..

Getting outside yourself and examining honestly is something we should all do.

However, the stakes of the world are much different, and such are our approaches. Your belief system skipped any serious consequences... ours does not. If we reject your belief system and yours is on point, we are left with mediocrity... which is easier for a human mind to stomach than eternal suffering, hence the added urgency.

BTW, your little quip about humility sounds NOTHING like the Christ I've read about in the new testament.

I disagree, they we're told of the savior as well as the military leader. I believe it's a 2 part messiah..

and interestingly enough we christians wait his return which is a much more military like return.. you know like slaying satan in jersualem and establishing a world wide system after the battle at armageddon?

right, zechariah went on to detail that later in his scripture...

 

[buckeyegrad]

Yeah, I suppose... and not to put too fine a point on it, but... what's the point of Christianity, then? I mean, if the end game is salvation, and you believe you can only get there through Christ, how "christian" is it to do so while the majority of people burn in hell?

BKB, thank you for the compliment in the PM. I only hope that I really act as you describe.

As for the post above, I wanted to ask you to elaborate on it more as I'm not sure how accepting salvation despite other not doing so, would not be "christian". After all, the greatest commandment a Christian has is to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength. If we fail at this one, we will ultimately fail at loving our neighbors as ourselves, obeying the Golden Rule, or any other commands of God.

By your question, I also wonder what then would you have Christians do? I engage in these conversations with you and other nonbelievers hoping to plant a seed that will one day sprout into Christian faith. I have also lifted nonbelievers, even you specifically, in prayer that God would reveal His Truth. Other than these things, I don't know what else I can do as a Christian that allows me to obey both Great Commandments.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Second, it begs a serious question that the Jews would be predicting a savior in prophecy after prophecy and then fail to recognize him when he showed up. Despite "well documented" covenants with God, devout Jews missed the coming of their Lord? I would love an explanation for that one.

Jwinslow already did a great job explaining the answer through the use of Zechariah, but I wanted to supplement it with a bit more information regarding why the Jews failed to recognize Jesus as the messiah. If you turn to Talmud to see what the Jews were looking for you find an interesting dialogue. After studying all of the prophesies and covenants God had made with them, the Jews realized there were two conflicting images of the Messiah present. On one hand was a conquering king who would reign over Israel, defeat her enemies, and establish an eternal kingdom. This version of the messiah they called Mechiac ben David. On the other hand was a suffering servant who would by lowly and who would be struck down. This version of the messiah they called Mechiac ben Yoseph (after Joseph of Genesis).

The Talmud tells us that the Jewish understanding of these two messiah images lead them to believe that depending upon how they acted would determine which one God would send. If they lived righteously and obeyed His commandments, then God would send the conquering king. However, if they sinned and did not follow God's commands, the messiah would come as a suffering servant. As a result of this interpretation of the prophesies, the Jews actually came to hope that the suffering servant would never appear, because if he did, then it meant that God was not pleased with them. Go now to the first century, where the Jews are under oppressive Roman rule and you find they were seeking almost exclusively for the Messiah ben David to appear. Hence why many, not all Jews, did not recognize Jesus as the promised messiah. I emphasize not all the Jews because the historical account of Acts shows us that there were thousands of Jews who did come to accept him as the messiah. Many historians tell us that the Jewish Christians reached over 100,000 before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D and Gentile influences began to overwhelm the Jewish believers within the universal church.

 

[Gatorubet]

(I'm lazy/tired, mostly the former, and am going to C&P some Zechariah breakdowns...)

No offense, but this is a bit absurd. What reason do you have to believe the historical accounts from that era are all hogwash?

No offense, but the scant historical works from two thousand years ago on ANY subject are ALL subject to some questioned veracity. The fact that the very real subject of questionable veracity is morphed by you to "hogwash" displays your personal emotional stake in the subject matter, but does little to support the veracity of two thousand year old reports. As the history books you read in school today contain an enormous amount of spin regarding relatively recent history, to think that history millennium old is free from it is beyond naive.

Zec. 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding on an ass, and on a colt the foal of an ass.

"Riding on an ass."Hebrew "chamor,"

, a male. "A colt the foal of an ass." Hebrew "a'yir ben 'atonoth,"

. "A'yir,"

, is a young male ass; "'atonoth,"

, is a female ass. The prophecy is very specific. The colt Jesus rode was a male.

Er...anyone who claimed to be the Messiah would have read and known what he was supposed to ride to fulfill the prophesy. That neither proves -or disproves - the fact.

However, the stakes of the world are much different, and such are our approaches. Your belief system skipped any serious consequences... ours does not. If we reject your belief system and yours is on point, we are left with mediocrity... which is easier for a human mind to stomach than eternal suffering, hence the added urgency.

That leads to my earlier point. It is like offering the gift of freedom from addiction after first setting up a system where you are born chemically dependent.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

A lot to respond to, so I'm not going to block quote, as it will make this post way too long.....

Jwin - first, I think the language you're using to describe what I'm trying to get at with my "political influence" is seeking a larger consequence/conspiracy than I'm intending to suggest. I'm not of the mind that any group of conspirators got together with an intended purpose of getting away with anything.... As you see, under my post last page, I tried to re-phrase my lose terminology to mean what religion has done with the text of the Bible, and not so much the Bible text itself. So, in this regard, I can't really comment because we're not talking about the same thing.

It is not my contention that early Christians we looking to do anything sinister. But, it is my contention that the New Test. was not written in some kind of vacuum devoid of purpose with respect to its own time. That is, there was an audience. Much like a politician might focus on Terrorists in 2008 - as a serious issue among the audience - such a focus seems to be aloof if this was, say, 1976. Complicating the issue, of course, is the time that has transpired between then and now. Like Gator said, it's to my mind naive to think our conceptions of "original teachings" aren't twisted by the intervening years.

On the issue of what various scripture means, we have a .... impasse, I guess. That being, you offer scripture for the truth of the matter asserted, And while I would expect this, being that it is your faith, it continues to avoid the underlying issues I have with it in the first place. Being, what evidence is there to believe that these verses stand for those propositions? In terms of having a witness on a witness stand, my argument concerns the credibility of the remarks. Before giving weight to the remarks, I think it's reasonable to figure out the purpose for making them. I think a lot of Christians (or any religion, really, but I'll use Christians here since you're Christian) fail to offer anything to establish credibility... It's a function of the problem of faith.... faith doesn't require reason (though it may have it) Thus, the questionableness of something isn't an issue for you because you're operating under the assumption that it is beyond questioning.

As I alluded to pages ago, I'm reading a book which seeks to outline Prophecies and their fulfilment. And, I cannot accept as established a prophecy that was fulfilled by reference to the very same text which made it. I mean, I guess, there should be independent verification of these events. Take the Exodus.... specifcially the parting of the red sea... how this event has escaped the attention of any independent verification, even from Egyptians strikes me as highly peculiar. Now, I can appreciate that maybe the Egyptians weren't keen on outlining the details of a defeat, and that's a reason to accept the story in some degree, but I just don't understand how a body of water like the Red Sea can be parted, and no one seemed to notice - save for the people telling the story (for a purpose). It's the same as me saying that on my walk to my car yesterday I was obstructed by a pillar of fire. I'm reporting it happened, and you might believe me.... but, the fact that Im the only one to have seen it, begs the question of whether or not it happened.

So, I guess the underyling issue - and the failure of Christians in terms of what Im getting at - is there is no offer of proof. Of course, compounding the problem is that you don't personally NEED such an offer to so believe, and thus you don't give it much consideration. I mean, over on a thread this past summer, I outlined why a literal belief in the Noah's Ark story fails... It remains unresponded to. But, I doubt I changed anyone's mind. Faith doesn't need proof. But, I guess my point is, to have any religion (or belief) to be taken as something more than one man's opinion (and worthy of adoption for others) citations to it's teachings aren't enough for everyone.

I have no problem with many of the teachings of Christians. For example, that we should Love the Father with all our being. Likewise, I dont even have a problem with individuals using Christianity to learn that lesson. I just don't believe Christianity is the end all be all for everyone. Man can, and does, learn about God in a great many ways. Christianity... Islam... Judiasm... my Philosophy... none is superior to any other. In this respect I wish more people had TBuckeyeScott's veiw that to God, it's all the same. But, as I alluded, it's problematic that many Christians come off as arrogant (to be sure, many others from other religions also do, but again I'm addressing Christianity here for obvious reasons). The idea that the only way to God is through Christ is... frankly... offensive. It assumes superiority of self belief.

Re: my remarks that if I said the same with respect to Islam, and you saying:

Why would I care to defend a belief system I find to be invalid?

You seem to miss the point. The point isn't that you should or should not find Islam valid or invalid. The point is, if I said Muhammad had an axe to grind, you're willing to agree, but if I make the same observation about Paul, you dismiss it out of hand (part and parcel to the above observations regarding the power of faith as it concerns credibility). And, frankly, some of the apologetic defenses I've seen posited - ie "who'd die for a lie" fail on multiple levels as I've tried to outline before. Of course, I'm not trying to convice you that they fail, so much as to say "to me, that fails, what else do you have?" and I get silence....

leading to Bgrad....

What would I expect Christains to do.... Well, I'm not qualified to answer that, I think. I mean, I don't harbor any "idea Christian" in my mind, and even if I did, I can't imagine such a conception would have any value. My inquiry wasn't so much to A) take shots at anyone's individual Christianity v. some "ideal" standard, or B) call in to question Christainity as a faith, but instead to identify what I found to be a paradox between what I understand about the Christian mindset generally v. the damnation of so many folks with respect to any such mindset. More to the point, it was for me to understand where Christians are coming from.

I am personally unable to reconsile the belief that Christ came to atone for the sins of mankind, with the understanding that those who don't accept this "gift" in some way pleasing to Christians, don't get the benefit of it. Either Christ died for my sins, or he did not. What is there for me to accept? See what I'm saying? To try a bad example of what I mean - I wrote a part of the Michigan State preview for everyone to see, and whether or not you accept that "gift" doesn't change the fact that it's already given. I suppose you could say "Well, I'm not gonna click on it, so there" but... I still already DID it. It's given.. done. Your acceptance of it is without consequence to MY purpose. In terms of Christs' Sacrifice... the Sacrifice is already made (if we're to believe Christianity) so my acceptance of the Gift has no consequence, what's done is done. He either died for my sins, or he did not. Christians insist he did.... I guess maybe that gift is far more conditional than people let on? Maybe that's it.

And, to the extent that there are conditional gifts made by supernatural beings.... well.... it just strikes me as a bit ridiculous.

All powerful being: Do this for me and I'll give you X, but don't do it and you'll face Consequence Y.
Me: Dude, you're an all powerful being, do it yourself. Surely you can do it faster and better.
All powerful being: Yes, but you need to prove your devotion to me.
Me: Look in my heart, if it's proof you need. You CAN do that, right?

God's that act like humans don't interest me. I guess is what Im saying. The religious idea of God, very often, seems to be a trumped up version of Zues, or Thor... or whomever.

Might God reach individuals in such ways? Sure. Why not. Makes sense, I guess... but I balk at there being some kind of perscription for faith, and no one has ever been able to show me where such a belief is in error (short of pointing to self-appreciating confirmations from the very source in question - as I've observed on this thread before - proving the Bible is true by citing to the Bible saying it's true.) I say I am at peace with my God, and I am. I truly and honestly believe that.... why do I need Christianity, and isn't it a bit arrogant for any Christian to think I need saving, when I'm a good person, at peace with God?

So, I guess in terms of the question I posed.... what's the Christian obligation, and how does it stand up against the various other factors I've tried to illicit. I think you guys HAVE to believe you're right and it is the ONLY way... which of course, means you have to be satisfied living an eternity with a sadistic God who's perfectly comfortable damning the majority of his creation... and... sometimes in arbitrary ways.. (for example, the guy that dies without ever even having heard of Christ... as you cannot accept that which you don't even know about). Or, you can believe there are multiple ways to God, in which case, why the insistence that only Christian doctrine is to be believed? Or... why be Christain at all?

I can live with Christ being A way to God.... I cannot, however, accept that he is THE way to God. In all my expireince in life, I see no evidence that there is only one way to Love god, only one way to understand his infinite Glory. It think it simplifies God to the point of the abusrd to suggest he can only recognize as honorable those who'd subscribe to one particular faith.

What is truth? I don't know... whatever it is, it's out there in the universe... surrounds us... whatever it is, it's God (or so I believe) It is ALL God... thus I can say things like exactly opposite things are the same thing... there is NO alternative but God (in my way of thinking) It either IS, or IS NOT. I can't choose that God exist, or that he does not as a matter of TRUTH, only faith. However reality operates is the way it does, regardless of what I might know about it... what you might know about it. The essential truth, I think, is that God Is. The rest is just an expression of that.... and we can do nothing but come to understand aspects of God.... When I learn how to make a desk, I learn something about God.. for what else is there for me to learn about? I don't compartmentalize knowledge, I guess.....

But, as I've admitted, I often get lost in the consequences of my belief, and thus have MUCH to learn, as I continue my progression through spiritual existence.

 

[buckeyegrad]

BKB,

Just a side note, your religion would be classified as a form of neo-gnostic pantheism. I'm guessing you won't like a label being put on your faith, but that is how it would be classified by theologians and religious studies scholars.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB,

Just a side note, your religion would be classified as a form of neo-gnostic pantheism. I'm guessing you won't like a label being put on your faith, but that is how it would be classified by theologians and religious studies scholars.

Yeah, I'm aware. I found that out visiting a site called internetinfidels.... I'm typically not interested in the labels for a set of beliefs, but it does offer some simplification of idea when used corrrectly. That said, :
Ask 10 Pantheists what is Pantheism, and you get 11 responses...

 

[Gatorubet]

Yeah, I'm aware. I found that out visiting a site called internetinfidels.... I'm typically not interested in the labels for a set of beliefs, but it does offer some simplification of idea when used corrrectly. That said, :
Ask 10 Pantheists what is Pantheism, and you get 11 responses...

Hey - try to explain the Trinity without sounding like a Pantheist

 

[buckeyegrad]

Hey - try to explain the Trinity without sounding like a Pantheist

Huh? I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, Bgrad - I'm really more of a panentheist than pantheist, because I do hold that God is something different than only the universe (in accord with your contention that God is more than infinite.. I think is how you say it). I'm not sure where my belief in multiple universes sets me, but regardless of this subtlety, God would be something different than simply just the multiple universes.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Actually, Bgrad - I'm really more of a panentheist than pantheist, because I do hold that God is something different than only the universe (in accord with your contention that God is more than infinite.. I think is how you say it). I'm not sure where my belief in multiple universes sets me, but regardless of this subtlety, God would be something different than simply just the multiple universes.

Thanks for the info. I was actually unaware of that distinction, but it makes sense as a sort of middle ground between theism and pantheism.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Thanks for the info. I was actually unaware of that distinction, but it makes sense as a sort of middle ground between theism and pantheism.

No problem....

I've also noticed some Hindu beliefs in my conception of reality, particularly the concepts of Samsara (continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth) and Karma (action and subsequent reaction). I'm not sure if those are also typical of a panentheist or pantheist... Maybe they are.... as I observed, and you know, the label doesn't much interest me.

 

[Gatorubet]

No problem....

I've also noticed some Hindu beliefs in my conception of reality, particularly the concepts of Samsara (continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth) and Karma (action and subsequent reaction). I'm not sure if those are also typical of a panentheist or pantheist... Maybe they are.... as I observed, and you know, the label doesn't much interest me.