Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

I have a hard time seeing God as --- doing unto others as he would want done to himself --- in the clip above. I cannot see God wanting someone to do what he did to the women who owned those wombs to him. He is therefore certainly not walking his talk or fallowing his own good advice.

It seems that people are more responsible than God as we are trying to get everyone on board the Golden Rule that God ignores.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Regards
DL

[Mr. Paradise]

Can you give me an example of God not following the Golden Rule? Why is it his best rule?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Can you give me an example of God not following the Golden Rule? Why is it his best rule?

God does not follow the Golden Rule every time he kills instead of cures anyone. That is quite often in scriptures.

If you want to get more specific then think of King David's innocent baby that God tortured for 6 days before finally killing.

It is the best rule thanks to the consensus of almost everyone that says that reciprocity is fair play. It is in every theology and philosophy that I have ever encountered.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Probably because the world is not "just"

Yes it is as it passes mens rea.

Mind you, it has no mind to be evil. Only a mind can be said to be just or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

God does not follow the Golden Rule every time he kills instead of cures anyone...If you want to get more specific then think of King David's innocent baby that God tortured for 6 days before finally killing.
Seriously? You're posting the same thread that was ended by Admin/Moderators just days ago? Or was that your "Bible Myth or Reality" thread? Either way, it's back…and with your identical comments again. If it's been approved then my response to your comment is incapsulated in this link:
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html

[Gnostic Bishop]

Seriously? You're posting the same thread that was ended by Admin/Moderators just days ago? Or was that your "Bible Myth or Reality" thread? Either way, it's back…and with your identical comments again. If it's been approved then my response to your comment is incapsulated in this link:
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html

It was locked because you people could not behave. Other than that, it was doing well enough for me to recognize that there was more to say.

You have yet to show the justice of God punishing the innocent baby instead of the guilty man and your link does not answer that for this case nor the others I gave you.

So thanks for showing all here that you cannot justify the immoral acts of your God.

No wonder your own bible tells you not to try to teach men. You are not good at it, woman.

Regards
DL

[Calidore]

It was locked because you people could not behave. .

[Snip]

No wonder your own bible tells you not to try to teach men. You are not good at it, woman.


You might look at some of your own comments before excluding yourself from the "you people.". Matthew 7:3-5, you know.

[Gnostic Bishop]

You might look at some of your own comments before excluding yourself from the "you people.". Matthew 7:3-5, you know.

I did.

Regards
DL

[easy75]

I don't think God made that rule for himself. I think he made it for Israel and by extension through Christ, spiritual Israel, or believers. Sometimes what God does and why he does it is beyond our capability to reason. Him being God and all, he knows infinitely more than we do. That is where trust (faith) enter the picture.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I don't think God made that rule for himself. I think he made it for Israel and by extension through Christ, spiritual Israel, or believers. Sometimes what God does and why he does it is beyond our capability to reason. Him being God and all, he knows infinitely more than we do. That is where trust (faith) enter the picture.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Your remark is interesting though.

Do you think it moral for God to basically say do as I say and not as I do?

I do not.

Another glitch to your thinking is that scriptures tell us to emulate and be like God in all ways.

If he needs not follow his rules and we are to be like him then we should not either.

Take your thinking to those glitches and you will agree on the immorality of your God.

Regards
DL

[easy75]

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Your remark is interesting though.

Do you think it moral for God to basically say do as I say and not as I do?

I do not.

Another glitch to your thinking is that scriptures tell us to emulate and be like God in all ways.

If he needs not follow his rules and we are to be like him then we should not either.

Take your thinking to those glitches and you will agree on the immorality of your God.

Regards
DL

I was only saying that God did not make the Law for himself.
By your interpretation of the admonition to live a Godly life, we should all be trying to create worlds in six days and send fire down from heaven as well. We obviously are not able to emulate God in all ways. God made very clear the areas of life in which we are to emulate him, and it does not involve trying to be him. He even sent us down an example of a man completely obedient to His will so we wouldn't have any doubts. That man took it a step further and encapsulated all of God's commandments into just two. Very easy to understand.
To answer your question, yes I think it is perfectly fine for God to say "do this, I will do that." You misunderstand the relationship between creator and creation if you think otherwise. As a believer, it is my opinion that all real morality flows from God. God also says that he created evil. I do not willingly try to do that either. God is God. I am a man. I am fine with that.
You seem very worked up about this subject. Why?

[Gnostic Bishop]

I was only saying that God did not make the Law for himself.
By your interpretation of the admonition to live a Godly life, we should all be trying to create worlds in six days and send fire down from heaven as well. We obviously are not able to emulate God in all ways. God made very clear the areas of life in which we are to emulate him, and it does not involve trying to be him. He even sent us down an example of a man completely obedient to His will so we wouldn't have any doubts. That man took it a step further and encapsulated all of God's commandments into just two. Very easy to understand.
To answer your question, yes I think it is perfectly fine for God to say "do this, I will do that." You misunderstand the relationship between creator and creation if you think otherwise. As a believer, it is my opinion that all real morality flows from God. God also says that he created evil. I do not willingly try to do that either. God is God. I am a man. I am fine with that.
You seem very worked up about this subject. Why?

Because Christianity has become an evil and corrupted religion that promotes homophobia and misogyny to name just two issues.

Your belief that human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow good justice is also rather satanic.

You want to ride your scapegoat Jesus into heaven and that is not kosher.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[mona amon]

Because Christianity has become an evil and corrupted religion that promotes homophobia and misogyny to name just two issues.

You seem to think of Christianity as some sort of homogenous religion with all its believers following every word of the Bible literally or something when in reality there are so many denominations, so many groups within those denominations, so many differences of opinion within each group that it's safe to say that there are as many opinions about almost everything as there are Christians. The central thing about Christianity is of course Christ, and Christ was never the least bit homophobic or misogynistic. Of course there are many Christians who insist that homosexuality, or at least homosexual acts, are a sin (based on two old Testament and three New Testament passages), and if it wasn't for these Bible passages they wouldn't be thinking in such a wrong-headed way, but that's hardly reason to discard a perfectly good religion, and times are certainly changing. Only yesterday I read in the paper that Ireland, where 84% of the population is Catholic, voted 62% yes in a referendum on same sex marriage. My own country is still a long way off from that, but that can hardly be blamed on Christians, who make up only about 2.5% of the population.


Your belief that human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow good justice is also rather satanic.

What human sacrifice?


You want to ride your scapegoat Jesus into heaven and that is not kosher.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

You have got it all wrong. Even someone like me who does not take much interest in the matter and has never really thought about it can see this. He did not suffer as a punishment for other people's wrongs. He suffered and died to save us from the consequences of our wrongs. Surely you can understand the concept of sacrifice of yourself to save others. There is absolutely no escape from responsibility involved. Jesus did not say, "sin as much as you like. I've saved you." He said, "Sin no more."


Do you agree?

Nope.

[Gnostic Bishop]

You seem to think of Christianity as some sort of homogenous religion with all its believers following every word of the Bible literally or something when in reality there are so many denominations, so many groups within those denominations, so many differences of opinion within each group that it's safe to say that there are as many opinions about almost everything as there are Christians. The central thing about Christianity is of course Christ, and Christ was never the least bit homophobic or misogynistic. Of course there are many Christians who insist that homosexuality, or at least homosexual acts, are a sin (based on two old Testament and three New Testament passages), and if it wasn't for these Bible passages they wouldn't be thinking in such a wrong-headed way, but that's hardly reason to discard a perfectly good religion, and times are certainly changing. Only yesterday I read in the paper that Ireland, where 84% of the population is Catholic, voted 62% yes in a referendum on same sex marriage. My own country is still a long way off from that, but that can hardly be blamed on Christians, who make up only about 2.5% of the population.



What human sacrifice?



You have got it all wrong. Even someone like me who does not take much interest in the matter and has never really thought about it can see this. He did not suffer as a punishment for other people's wrongs. He suffered and died to save us from the consequences of our wrongs. Surely you can understand the concept of sacrifice of yourself to save others. There is absolutely no escape from responsibility involved. Jesus did not say, "sin as much as you like. I've saved you." He said, "Sin no more."



Nope.

If you cannot agree with this then you are not a moral and just person.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

------------------------

"He did not suffer as a punishment for other people's wrongs. He suffered and died to save us from the consequences of our wrongs."

That consequence was his own condemnation of those he created to be exactly what they/we are.

If you want to believe that God is stupid enough to condemn us and then turn around and die for us, to appease his own wrath instead of just finding a moral way to forgive, us then go ahead and follow that idiot.

Moral and intelligent people will not.

You are correct in that there are many different Christian cults and sects and denomination.

A house divided cannot stand.

Regards
DL

[togre]

In the Holy Bible God revels that he is content with providing a substitute to suffer in our place. "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

That this is the message of the Bible is irrefutable.

GB, you reject this message as being true, correct?

Okay, then what do you believe about sin? What is it? Is it punished? Who is punished for it?

A follow up question: Why do you believe this? Or, since this is a "religious texts" forum, Where is it written? Note: Calling those who disagree with you 'blind' or 'stupid' or' evil' is not a substitute for an supporting your argument.

[Gnostic Bishop]

In the Holy Bible God revels that he is content with providing a substitute to suffer in our place. "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

That this is the message of the Bible is irrefutable.

GB, you reject this message as being true, correct?

That is a part of what Christianity sells for sure but I would not say that anything about a myth is true.

As to what you say is irrefutable, there are many scriptures that say we are responsible for our own sins and not some other. Even common decency refutes the morality of scapegoating.

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.
Someone trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?



Okay, then what do you believe about sin? What is it? Is it punished? Who is punished for it?

If God would punish us for sin, he would be punishing us for being and doing exactly what he created us to be and do and that would make him a vile and immoral God indeed.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. Since God did make us with a dominant sin nature, to punish us would be quite immoral.

That is partly why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists.



A follow up question: Why do you believe this?

See above.


Or, since this is a "religious texts" forum, Where is it written? Note: Calling those who disagree with you 'blind' or 'stupid' or' evil' is not a substitute for an supporting your argument.

I deal with what is given as I see fit. Straight denials and adherence to dogma without a proper argument will likely draw a sharp reply.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

GB, were you ever a Christian literalist yourself?

[Gnostic Bishop]

GB, were you ever a Christian literalist yourself?

No. I was born R.C. but never believed in anything out of the ordinary until telepathy pushed my apotheosis.

There is an unseen world but nothing unnatural or supernatural that I know of.

If you can believe that the cosmic consciousness that they think they have found with this research is real, then there is a chance that you will believe I visited it the one time and that there is a next evolutionary step to our consciousness after death. How long that lasts, I have no idea.

https://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

Could you explain a little what you mean by "telepathy" and "unseen world" and why you don't consider these things supernatural?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Could you explain a little what you mean by "telepathy" and "unseen world" and why you don't consider these things supernatural?

I have no problem with how Webster's Dictionary defines it.

Telepathy --- a way of communicating thoughts directly from one person's mind to another person's mind without using words or signals.

Unseen world here is just the magnetosphere or magnetic shield that encompasses the earth. We know it is there but cannot physically see it as it is made up of the same thing though waves are made up from. Sub-atomic particles too small to see, thus a part of the unseen world.

It, like our thought waves are just a part of our natural world.

If they were supernatural, us being natural beings would likely not be able to observe or use them. Humans, as far as I know, cannot do anything supernatural and to me supernatural is fantasy and does not exist.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

So by "invisible world" you just mean the earth's magnetic field? Okay, fine. As far as we know there's nothing supernatural about that. I'm not so sure about telepathy, though. What exactly is the natural means (in terms of physics) of "communicating thoughts directly from one person's mind to another person's mind without using words or sign?" Is there any scientific proof? Do you believe that you have this ability? Could you demonstrate and reproduce your results? For example, I'll fix an image in my mind. Okay, what is it? Let me know, and if you get it, we'll try it again. Also, what exactly are these "thought waves" you mention?

And how about apotheosis? My understanding of the word is that it means deification (although I know that there are less literal uses, too) How are you using it? Do you believe that you are a god? Or did you mean something else by that? Looking forward to your responses. :)

[easy75]

I have no problem with how Webster's Dictionary defines it.

Telepathy --- a way of communicating thoughts directly from one person's mind to another person's mind without using words or signals.

Unseen world here is just the magnetosphere or magnetic shield that encompasses the earth. We know it is there but cannot physically see it as it is made up of the same thing though waves are made up from. Sub-atomic particles too small to see, thus a part of the unseen world.

It, like our thought waves are just a part of our natural world.

If they were supernatural, us being natural beings would likely not be able to observe or use them. Humans, as far as I know, cannot do anything supernatural and to me supernatural is fantasy and does not exist.

Regards
DL

Interesting..... So telepathy = possible, but God = impossible. I think I am officially checking out of this conversation. Not because you believe in telepathy (it may very well be a real thing), but because you can choose to believe in that, but challenge other people's belief in a God capable of doing things which are not yet explainable by man's extremely limited knowledge of the natural world. Anyhow good luck to you.

[Gnostic Bishop]

So by "invisible world" you just mean the earth's magnetic field? Okay, fine. As far as we know there's nothing supernatural about that. I'm not so sure about telepathy, though. What exactly is the natural means (in terms of physics) of "communicating thoughts directly from one person's mind to another person's mind without using words or sign?" Is there any scientific proof? Do you believe that you have this ability? Could you demonstrate and reproduce your results? For example, I'll fix an image in my mind. Okay, what is it? Let me know, and if you get it, we'll try it again. Also, what exactly are these "thought waves" you mention?

And how about apotheosis? My understanding of the word is that it means deification (although I know that there are less literal uses, too) How are you using it? Do you believe that you are a god? Or did you mean something else by that? Looking forward to your responses. :)

Yes I am a God but not the type of God most associate with that word.

This Gnostic Christian’s apology for calling myself God.

Adam and Eve became as Gods when they gained a moral sense and no longer had their mind cut off from intelligent thought. As our primordial ancestors, we inherit that same trait even though Christianity wrongly thinks that to be evil and a fall. Retaining dominion over the earth, humans never revoked this inherited trait of a moral sense, --- and the right for man to judge himself. Jesus highlights this when he took the seat of judgement at God’s right hand.

When I use terms like “I am God”, or “you are God”, I am not speaking of the traditional miracle working God of scriptures and myths. He does not exist as far as we can know as he has never made an appearance to prove his reality.

What I am trying to convey to you by saying that you are a God in your own right is to be master of yourself and you need not be a sheep. You can, as Jesus says, pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins and follow his mind set. Be a shepherd. Lead by example.

What I am trying to convey is that the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself. It's your ideal of God and of the Jesus or Christ mind. That is quite different from me or someone thinking they are the traditional creator God, or thinking that they are more than anyone else. Both Jesus and the Christ in these myths are for equality. Not the misogyny that we presently enjoy. That is another topic though. We are to be co-equal with Jesus.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Jesus would explain this concept as one just seeing that they have joined God’s Divine Council by embracing his own Christ mind. Or better said, as this is the more eastern Jesus, we activate our pineal gland and open our third eye.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council

---------------------

As to telepathy, I was able to initiate it twice. The first time with my wife and the second time to what I call a cosmic consciousness. I have not been able to reproduce it for some years now. If I did not have my wife to verify my first telepathic experience I would not give any veracity to the second.

Apotheosis is shown as deification but I think it overstated. I see and define it as just finding myself on Jacobs ladder and recognizing that there is an --- up there, so to speak.

If the usual definition can include my use and the Jewish use of the word God as used in their Divine Council then I could use the traditional definition. The ancients would have understood the meaning to be different from how we use those words today.

Remember please that in the old Jewish tradition, the Rabbis could overrule the written word of God.

All the old miracle working God are/were created by humans. They are all myths.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Interesting..... So telepathy = possible, but God = impossible. I think I am officially checking out of this conversation. Not because you believe in telepathy (it may very well be a real thing), but because you can choose to believe in that, but challenge other people's belief in a God capable of doing things which are not yet explainable by man's extremely limited knowledge of the natural world. Anyhow good luck to you.

Do those who claim a miracle working God have a moral duty to produce some kind of proof or evidence?

If they don't then anyone can tell whatever lie he wants without ever considering the morality of lying.

Regards
DL

[mtpspur]

There are others that can say this better. From my point of view faith in God is an acknowledgement that while we have reason and intelligence we simply can't understand it all or why things are the way they are. Faith gives hope and strength in the time when--and it will eventually--all else fails. God is holy and perfect in His ways. I would rather have him in charge then me I can assure you of that. And like it or not the very concept of God leads one to the idea that--ahem-He has final say. The Lord Christ was sacrificed as a payment for man's sins that they could be in the presence of God without sin and able to stand in a righteousness given by the mercy and love of God. You may believe what you like-your privilege. I have always found the hatred of non-believers interesting. If they don't believe it why tke the comfort others have in it and often nothing in return? Just wondering.

[Gnostic Bishop]

There are others that can say this better. From my point of view faith in God is an acknowledgement that while we have reason and intelligence we simply can't understand it all or why things are the way they are. Faith gives hope and strength in the time when--and it will eventually--all else fails. God is holy and perfect in His ways. I would rather have him in charge then me I can assure you of that. And like it or not the very concept of God leads one to the idea that--ahem-He has final say. The Lord Christ was sacrificed as a payment for man's sins that they could be in the presence of God without sin and able to stand in a righteousness given by the mercy and love of God. You may believe what you like-your privilege. I have always found the hatred of non-believers interesting. If they don't believe it why tke the comfort others have in it and often nothing in return? Just wondering.

If I may, I will do this in two parts.

I am not an atheist but disagree that atheists hate theists as I have yet to see it.

I think that I and others who fight the mainstream homophobic and misogynous religions do it for altruistic reasons.

I do not mind quoting one of the few words of wisdom in the bible.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

We try to correct foolish and damaging thinking. We are not so much against religions as we are against literal reading and what that has done to what were initially decent moral religious traditions.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0...;list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zhlDbMfDg

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI

Jesus Camp 1of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Death to Gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyuKLyGUHNE

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

There are others that can say this better. From my point of view faith in God is an acknowledgement that while we have reason and intelligence we simply can't understand it all or why things are the way they are. Faith gives hope and strength in the time when--and it will eventually--all else fails. God is holy and perfect in His ways. I would rather have him in charge then me I can assure you of that. And like it or not the very concept of God leads one to the idea that--ahem-He has final say. The Lord Christ was sacrificed as a payment for man's sins that they could be in the presence of God without sin and able to stand in a righteousness given by the mercy and love of God. You may believe what you like-your privilege. I have always found the hatred of non-believers interesting. If they don't believe it why tke the comfort others have in it and often nothing in return? Just wondering.

I mentioned that I had not seen atheist hate Christians but I have seen a lot of hate from Christians to all others not of their ilk.

What most have forgotten is that Christianity was in large part formed by Rome to help foster hate against the Jews.

It worked better and longer than anyone would have guessed.

People, especially those in the Abrahamic cults feed on hate.

Have a look at this story where the Christian love of hate for all not of their ilk, had a preacher who told the truth forced to recant and return to the immoral construct of hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lv_rmQuagpY

I look forward to your thoughts on what I gave you.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

Adam and Eve became as Gods when they gained a moral sense and no longer had their mind cut off from intelligent thought. As our primordial ancestors, we inherit that same trait even though Christianity wrongly thinks that to be evil and a fall. Retaining dominion over the earth, humans never revoked this inherited trait of a moral sense

I see. So Adam and Eve were real then?

Look, GB, I have no desire mock the your religion, but it is fair to point out that you have mocked non-Gnostic Christians on this site for their belief in the Eden story, isn't it? Am I to understand that you consider your version to be any more rational than theirs? What scientific evidence do you have that "Adam and Eve" were "our primordial ancestors" (and how could we "inherit" "moral sense" from them in any case)? Isn't there DNA evidence that all living humans are descended from a Homo sapiens woman who lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago in Africa (although many humans had existed previously)? And isn't there fossil evidence that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier species of Homo, such as H. erectus, H. habilis, or perhaps H. georgicus?; and before that from other genuses like Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, and possibly Sahelanthropus?; and before that from earlier primates? Would you mind telling me which of those were Adam and Eve, when "moral sense" began to be "inherited," and what specific scientific evidence you have of this claim?

Or do you take your version of Eden on faith? Hmmmm?

I wouldn't necessarily be such a stickler, but I have just listened to you telling theist and non-theist alike that:


Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

and


Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic

You are certainly welcome to your faith, although in my opinion it hangs a little ridiculously on you in light of your recent smugness to easy, Ecurb, and togre (not to speak of your utter rudeness to Melanie on the thread that was closed). But as far as "Reason and Logic" go, let's be very clear:

1. You have stated that you believe yourself to be a kind of god.

2. You have stated that you have telepathy.

3. You have stated that your telepathy doesn't always work, and you were unable to demonstrate it when I asked.

4. Since you are unable to reproduce your results, there is no reason for a rational person to accept your claim about having telepathy.

5. Since you are clearly a god who lacks omnipotence, even the irrational would be well advised to look elsewhere.

Thank you for answering my questions, however, rather than hiding behind rhetoric and calling those who have faith in other things names. I wish you all the best.

Oh, and the offer of the telepathic image still goes. Just let me know when it kicks in again! :wave:

[Gnostic Bishop]

That apology was written more for Christians and that is why I related the Eden story. I repeat that all religions are based on myths.

I also stated my definition of what God should mean.

I also stated that I had not been able to do telepathy for a long time.

Seems I was up front and honest more than you were.

Regards
DL

[mtpspur]

I will concede willingly that your reply to me was polite, respectful and well thought out. For which I very much appreciate the sentiment behind it. I deliberately keep my faith in the Lord Christ as simple as possible mostly to avoid being overwhelmed by the concepts of holiness and eternity. I also try to believe God as I find him revealed in the Bible and not to constrict Him to my personal desires and bias which is very easy to do. Your remarks were more revealing then the prior posts before my comments so at least I can believe you HAVE given this more thought then most.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I will concede willingly that your reply to me was polite, respectful and well thought out. For which I very much appreciate the sentiment behind it. I deliberately keep my faith in the Lord Christ as simple as possible mostly to avoid being overwhelmed by the concepts of holiness and eternity. I also try to believe God as I find him revealed in the Bible and not to constrict Him to my personal desires and bias which is very easy to do. Your remarks were more revealing then the prior posts before my comments so at least I can believe you HAVE given this more thought then most.

Thank you.

If you think I have a reasonable thinking capacity, let me apply it to what you think of Jesus and vicarious redemption of substitutionary atonement, from a moral standpoint and I invite you to debate it.

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[Whifflingpin]

The majority of Christians believe in the Trinity of God, which means that Jesus is God. Jesus' death is therefore God's self-sacrifice not a sacrifice imposed by God on some creature.
Being open to the possibility of self-sacrifice is an essential quality of kingship. No-one has a right to rule unless willing to suffer alongside those ruled. Jesus' death is God's act of sharing in the suffering of His people.
Sin, in this context, means offending against God. It is up to God to forgive sin or not and to set any criteria that would merit his forgiveness. God's self sacrifice clears the slate for everyone - He is the only person whose sacrifice can redeem sins in general, because all sins are, by definition, against Him.
[Note, this does not absolve anyone from the need to take the necessary actions to earn forgiveness from anyone else whom they have offended. Jesus said you should resolve issues with your fellows before seeking God's forgiveness, and if someone has offended you then your forgiveness of them should be, in effect, infinite.]
If you don't accept the idea of the Trinity, then the redemptive aspect of the crucifixion probably does not make sense to you, but then your arguments against it are irrelevant to the majority of Christians, and are irrelevant as a criticism of mainstream Christianity.

[Gnostic Bishop]

The majority of Christians believe in the Trinity of God, which means that Jesus is God. Jesus' death is therefore God's self-sacrifice not a sacrifice imposed by God on some creature.
Being open to the possibility of self-sacrifice is an essential quality of kingship. No-one has a right to rule unless willing to suffer alongside those ruled. Jesus' death is God's act of sharing in the suffering of His people.
Sin, in this context, means offending against God. It is up to God to forgive sin or not and to set any criteria that would merit his forgiveness. God's self sacrifice clears the slate for everyone - He is the only person whose sacrifice can redeem sins in general, because all sins are, by definition, against Him.
[Note, this does not absolve anyone from the need to take the necessary actions to earn forgiveness from anyone else whom they have offended. Jesus said you should resolve issues with your fellows before seeking God's forgiveness, and if someone has offended you then your forgiveness of them should be, in effect, infinite.]
If you don't accept the idea of the Trinity, then the redemptive aspect of the crucifixion probably does not make sense to you, but then your arguments against it are irrelevant to the majority of Christians, and are irrelevant as a criticism of mainstream Christianity.

I agree that common sense and decency is irrelevant to most Christians.

If it was not so and was relevant, they would not be the homophobic and misogynous religion that they have ended up being.

Self-sacrifice for a cause is quite good.

How can an immortal God self-sacrifice? God cannot die and he cannot offer himself to himself.

That is why I decided to look at the morality of substitutionary atonement from a moral view to see if a moral God or person would embrace such a policy and decided that since most intelligent law seeks to punish the guilty and not the innocent, that no moral God would have us embrace such an immoral concept of forgiveness.

Having cleared that up and seeking to know your morals.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

The majority of Christians believe in the Trinity of God, which means that Jesus is God. .

I wanted to do this separately as I have a long reply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

Further.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.






Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

Constantine’s Victory Arch says it all.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

Self-sacrifice for a cause is quite good.


So Gnostic Christianity supports suicide bombing by terrorists?

Actually, I posted because of GB's reference to "whipping boys", who were beaten when princes misbehaved. When my son Shane was 6 or 7, his best friend was a kid named Mike. Mike was a rambunctious boy. I was reading "The Whipping Boy" by Sid Flieshman to my son in the evenings. One day, Mike was over at out house and, as usual, was being rowdy and rambunctious.

"That does it," I said. "Unless you simmer down, punishment will be meted out. Of course, I can't punish you, because you are not my child, but if you misbehave one more time, I will spank your best friend, Shane. Shane will be your whipping boy."

Not unnaturally, Mike thought this was the funniest thing he'd ever heard. He immediately started running about the house, pulling all the books off of the bookshelves. "OK! Spank Shane! Spank Shane!" he cried.

So I (fake) spanked Shane, who played his role well, crying out in faked pain. This drove Mike into a fit of ecstatic laughter, and excited him so much that he ran about the house at top speed, trying to think of new ways to misbehave.

In fact, for months afterward, whenever Mike came over he would ask, "Is Shane still my whipping boy?" When the answer was affirmative, we would reenact the entire scene, complete with Mike's gleeful misbehavior and Shane's sham beatings. A good time was had by all.

[Gnostic Bishop]

So Gnostic Christianity supports suicide bombing by terrorists?

Actually, I posted because of GB's reference to "whipping boys", who were beaten when princes misbehaved. When my son Shane was 6 or 7, his best friend was a kid named Mike. Mike was a rambunctious boy. I was reading "The Whipping Boy" by Sid Flieshman to my son in the evenings. One day, Mike was over at out house and, as usual, was being rowdy and rambunctious.

"That does it," I said. "Unless you simmer down, punishment will be meted out. Of course, I can't punish you, because you are not my child, but if you misbehave one more time, I will spank your best friend, Shane. Shane will be your whipping boy."

Not unnaturally, Mike thought this was the funniest thing he'd ever heard. He immediately started running about the house, pulling all the books off of the bookshelves. "OK! Spank Shane! Spank Shane!" he cried.

So I (fake) spanked Shane, who played his role well, crying out in faked pain. This drove Mike into a fit of ecstatic laughter, and excited him so much that he ran about the house at top speed, trying to think of new ways to misbehave.

In fact, for months afterward, whenever Mike came over he would ask, "Is Shane still my whipping boy?" When the answer was affirmative, we would reenact the entire scene, complete with Mike's gleeful misbehavior and Shane's sham beatings. A good time was had by all.

Funny.

But to your --- "So Gnostic Christianity supports suicide bombing by terrorists?"

Eh, no.

Self-sacrifice is sacrificing the self. Not murder or sacrificing the lives of others.

What I had in mind was more the dying for your friends scenario that many miss-use to justify what Jesus did.

Regards
DL

[mtpspur]

At the basic level my attempt to profit from a 'sacrifice' is designed to avoid eternal punishment. The 'evil' you believe about a sacrifice is the penalty for sin or wages--Romans 6:23. God proved Himself merciful enough to allow His son the Lord Christ to BE that sacrifice in order to make us holy and acceptable in His shed blood before him. I see where at first glance your ideas have a point but -very politely- would state that this is with the eyes lacking a spiritual discernment. On earth we see thru a glass darkly but there is light. I appreciate your taking the time to fairly state your views without the usual hollering and name calling etc etc that this forum--ahem--indulges in perhaps a bit too much to the detriment of all. For me it is all of grace to an deserving mankind MADE deserving by the entire grace of God as presented in His Son the Lord Christ as revealed in the Bible. And that I have found in very dark times to be more then enough.

[Gnostic Bishop]

At the basic level my attempt to profit from a 'sacrifice' is designed to avoid eternal punishment. The 'evil' you believe about a sacrifice is the penalty for sin or wages--Romans 6:23. God proved Himself merciful enough to allow His son the Lord Christ to BE that sacrifice in order to make us holy and acceptable in His shed blood before him. I see where at first glance your ideas have a point but -very politely- would state that this is with the eyes lacking a spiritual discernment. On earth we see thru a glass darkly but there is light. I appreciate your taking the time to fairly state your views without the usual hollering and name calling etc etc that this forum--ahem--indulges in perhaps a bit too much to the detriment of all. For me it is all of grace to an deserving mankind MADE deserving by the entire grace of God as presented in His Son the Lord Christ as revealed in the Bible. And that I have found in very dark times to be more then enough.

So you have to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, a satanic form of justice, to get your now immoral soul into heaven.

Go to your satanic heaven then but do not expect respect from those with a decent moral sense.

You will not agree but --- having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Regards
DL

[Calidore]

The 'evil' you believe about a sacrifice is the penalty for sin or wages--Romans 6:23. God proved Himself merciful enough to allow His son the Lord Christ to BE that sacrifice in order to make us holy and acceptable in His shed blood before him.

People say this a lot, and I've never understood how it makes sense. If God makes the law and is above them himself, then why did he need to create a human aspect to be sacrificed in order to absolve our sins rather than simply absolving them himself? Otherwise, who made the rules that God must follow?

[Melanie]

So you have to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, a satanic form of justice, to get your now immoral soul into heaven.First, I would like to compliment Wifflingpen and mtpspur for excellent posts. To GB…If you read the Bible you will find that Christ rose after the 3rd day of his suffering and sacrifice for our sins. He is still alive. That scenario has not occurred within any "satanic form of justice", as you say.

[Ecurb]

I have a question: on my recent trip to Yosemite, I listened to Christian Talk Radio, because it was the only channel I could get (and because I like it). One show host said that the reason Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me" on the cross is because he had taken all the sins of mankind onto himself. Since sin is a separation from God, in a sense, Jesus was separated from Himself (or forsaken by Himself).

I'm just curious (since this is a famous and controversial quotation of Jesus) if this interpretation is standard, and if not, what are some others?

[Melanie]

..I have always found the hatred of non-believers interesting. If they don't believe it why take the comfort others have in it and often nothing in return? Just wondering.I was wondering the same thing. I've seen hateful responses over and over again here. Uncontrollable emotions never makes for good discussion. The Bible tells us, to walk away from those who don't want to "hear". Arguing the same points repeatedly isn't much of a discussion either.

[Melanie]

I have a question: on my recent trip to Yosemite, I listened to Christian Talk Radio, because it was the only channel I could get (and because I like it). One show host said that the reason Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me" on the cross is because he had taken all the sins of mankind onto himself. Since sin is a separation from God, in a sense, Jesus was separated from Himself (or forsaken by Himself). I'm just curious (since this is a famous and controversial quotation of Jesus) if this interpretation is standard, and if not, what are some others?
Good question Ecurb. The radio show host was correct. God tells us in Corinthians 5:21, “God made Him (Jesus) who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” The Bible tells us that Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin, it was ours. As Jesus was feeling that weight of sin, He was experiencing separation from God for that one time in all of eternity. I see it as necessary for the execution of God's perfect plan because sin separates us from God. When we sin we are sinning against Him.

But back to your question, Ecurb, it's "standard" because it's pretty clearly stated in the book of Corinthians.

[Calidore]

I have a question: on my recent trip to Yosemite, I listened to Christian Talk Radio, because it was the only channel I could get (and because I like it). One show host said that the reason Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me" on the cross is because he had taken all the sins of mankind onto himself. Since sin is a separation from God, in a sense, Jesus was separated from Himself (or forsaken by Himself).

I'm just curious (since this is a famous and controversial quotation of Jesus) if this interpretation is standard, and if not, what are some others?

According to the NET Bible notes, it's a quote from Psalm 22:1. The note for Psalm 22 as a whole says, "The psalmist cries out to the Lord for deliverance from his dangerous enemies, who have surrounded him and threaten his life. Confident that the Lord will intervene, he then vows to thank the Lord publicly for his help and anticipates a time when all people will recognize the Lord’s greatness and worship him." Psalm 22:1's note says, "From the psalmist’s perspective it seems that God has abandoned him, for he fails to answer his cry for help (vv. 1b-2)."

(Also, FWIW, Jesus says that in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, but not Luke or John.)

[mtpspur]

I assure you Gnostic I have plenty of sins to account for. But, with respect, my personal belief is that there is NO ONE who is innocent and all lie under the death sentence so to speak. I can either die IN and FOR my sins or accept that God sent His Son the Lord Christ in the form of a man that I would have a Saviour to stand IN
MY PLACE. He took the form of man to show unity and desire to show what we could be IF sin had not ruined our nature. This in no way means I believe Christians are sinless after salvation--just more aware of their true nature that will brought to fruition at our death and resurrection. Again keeping it simple. And I further assure you-to be honest-I was highly amused by being considered Satanic--I have been called many things in 63 years--some of them deserved -:) I hope at least to escape the censure of hypocrite.

[Melanie]

Re post 44: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is from Matthew 27:46 in the New Testament and is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1 in the Old Testament. There were many parallels in Psalm 22:1 to the crucifixion long before it came to pass..just as many fulfilled prophecies.

[Ecurb]

Thanks. I have one more question (sorry for hijacking your thread, GB). I recently attended an Orthodox Mass, because one of my friends' mothers had died and was being remembered in the Mass. Among the literature I found there was a pamphlet which made this reasonable (I thought) point: "It is especially ironic to hear people speak today of 'only the Bible' when the Bible itself was the product of that Church which continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and communion, the breaking of bread and the prayers."

In the Literary Theory thread, we've been discussing authorship and authority. The "authority" of the Bible (surely) was created by the Church -- at the Synod of Carthage in 397 (acc. the Orthodox pamphlet). So (it seems to me) if the Church had no "authority" to decide what was in the Bible, and what was excluded, the Bible cannot be considered the infallible word of God. How can the infallibility of the Bible be reconciled with a fallible Church?

[Gnostic Bishop]

People say this a lot, and I've never understood how it makes sense. If God makes the law and is above them himself, then why did he need to create a human aspect to be sacrificed in order to absolve our sins rather than simply absolving them himself? Otherwise, who made the rules that God must follow?

A good point that Christians cannot address well.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

First, I would like to compliment Wifflingpen and mtpspur for excellent posts. To GB…If you read the Bible you will find that Christ rose after the 3rd day of his suffering and sacrifice for our sins. He is still alive. That scenario has not occurred within any "satanic form of justice", as you say.

You are basically saying then that Jesus did not die for you as he did not stay dead.

The fact that your God even asked for such a sacrifice and that you wish to profit from it to get yourself saved from a condemnation which is itself immoral shows how little you are thinking of this issue.

Every legal system in the world tries to punish the guilty instead of the innocent, and here you are applauding a God and his legal system that does the opposite.

Do you not think that strange?

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Why do you ignore this scripture and try to put the wickedness that you think you have and is rightfully yours to deal with onto Jesus?

He tell you in scriptures to pick up your cross and follow him. Not to take it and yourself and try to ride him into heaven.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I have a question: on my recent trip to Yosemite, I listened to Christian Talk Radio, because it was the only channel I could get (and because I like it). One show host said that the reason Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me" on the cross is because he had taken all the sins of mankind onto himself. Since sin is a separation from God, in a sense, Jesus was separated from Himself (or forsaken by Himself).

I'm just curious (since this is a famous and controversial quotation of Jesus) if this interpretation is standard, and if not, what are some others?

The idea of Jesus, if part of a Trinity, separating himself from himself is rather droll.

If sin is separation from God then how did he separate himself from himself in Job 2;3 where he complains of being an evil sinner himself with his ----- Satan moved me to destroy without cause.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I was wondering the same thing. I've seen hateful responses over and over again here. Uncontrollable emotions never makes for good discussion. The Bible tells us, to walk away from those who don't want to "hear". Arguing the same points repeatedly isn't much of a discussion either.

What you see as hate, they and God see as love.

It all depends on how you look.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

You do not see it because your morals have been corrupted by your religion.

Who is more likely to ask you to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

God or Satan?

Your answer is correct. Now wonder why the other did and change your views.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I assure you Gnostic I have plenty of sins to account for. But, with respect, my personal belief is that there is NO ONE who is innocent and all lie under the death sentence so to speak. I can either die IN and FOR my sins or accept that God sent His Son the Lord Christ in the form of a man that I would have a Saviour to stand IN
MY PLACE. He took the form of man to show unity and desire to show what we could be IF sin had not ruined our nature. This in no way means I believe Christians are sinless after salvation--just more aware of their true nature that will brought to fruition at our death and resurrection. Again keeping it simple. And I further assure you-to be honest-I was highly amused by being considered Satanic--I have been called many things in 63 years--some of them deserved -:) I hope at least to escape the censure of hypocrite.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

If none of us cannot sin as you indicated above, then for a God to punish us for following the natures he gave us and we cannot change then he is as vile and satanic as Satan.

Regards
DL

[mtpspur]

Again I have to laugh --just a little. Not once did I ever invoke free will in the equation. I do not believe the will. Mankind can NOT make a decision that isn't tainted by self interest or outside causes. Our 'freedom' was destroyed when Adam disobeyed ONE commandment from God. This disobedience represents the entirety of God's relationship with man. My view is this. Yes fallen mankind deserves punishment from a holy and righteous God because being God He created and made us in His image. When man fell from grace thru sin He provided the CURE. Reading your comments from above it appears and if I am mistaken -apologized in advance- but God provided the means to SAVE mankind -totally and leave us blameless. This proves--to me anyway-how magnificent a Saviour He is thru the sacrifice of the Lord Christ who paid for eternity the price of sin--which is always Death--be it physical or spiritual. Adam and Eve had the ability to choose good or evil --without bias. We do not and our fallen natures will always choose evil unless grace intervenes. This will always be a problem until our own departure from this veil of tears. Again--this is all based on a faith in the Bible as I believed revealed there is one studies carefully and with a view to be TAUGHT and NOT a view to have pet theories or ideas explained away to one's personal satisfaction. If I may say so--I have many complaints and whines about God's providence in my life but at the end of the day--God is still good. :)

[mtpspur]

Oh btw and aid with a smile--yes it is all man's fault--put me down on THAT side of the equation. Said with respect for the truth. I have only one real talent. I freely confess sinfulness both willful and stupid. I also confess being a believer in a merciful and loving God who Judges correctly with much more patience then I would ever have and I live with very spoiled cats. :)

[Melanie]

…at Mass. Among the literature I found there was a pamphlet which made this reasonable (I thought) point: "It is especially ironic to hear people speak today of 'only the Bible' when the Bible itself was the product of that Church which continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and communion, the breaking of bread and the prayers." In the Literary Theory thread, we've been discussing authorship and authority. The "authority" of the Bible (surely) was created by the Church -- at the Synod of Carthage in 397 (acc. the Orthodox pamphlet). So (it seems to me) if the Church had no "authority" to decide what was in the Bible, and what was excluded, the Bible cannot be considered the infallible word of God. How can the infallibility of the Bible be reconciled with a fallible Church?
It's kind of like how writers throughout history who have used amanuenses (secretaries) to write their literature. John Milton was blind when "he wrote" Paradise Lost. He dictated it to friends and family and no one questions his authorship. The Bible is God's Word, written by inspired men of God, inspired by God, and moved by the Holy Spirit 2Peter 1:21. He says "Believe all of this or none of it".

Jeremiah 20:9 described how it felt to receive the inspiration to write God's message. 2 Timothy 3:16 "Scripture is breathed out by God". Also in (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). God didn't take pen to paper but rather through the process of divine inspiration while human's recorded His words. It was certainly not a product of the any Church. The Catholic Church does and says a lot of things that aren't in the Bible. I'm not criticizing them…everyone has their own way of worshipping and they do believe that Jesus was the Messiah which is the most important thing. But I try to just stick with what it says in the Bible.

Lastly, one point, many books of the Bible are unknown as to who the author was but no question as to who the Divine Author was.

Mtpspur: You'll find that Gnostic Bishop often puts words in our mouths that aren't there. To respond to that is fruitless.

[Calidore]

It's kind of like how writers throughout history have used amanuenses (secretaries) to write their literature. John Milton was blind when "he wrote" Paradise Lost. He dictated it to friends and family and no one questions his authorship. The Bible is God's Word, written by inspired men of God, inspired by God, and moved by the Holy Spirit


The main problem there is that unlike Milton, who was a physical presence seen and heard by everyone, God is an invisible presence seen and heard by, well, people who claim to have seen and heard him. Some undoubtedly do believe that; others have been following no muse but their own.

In the end, the Bible was:

* written by men who claim to have been channeling God's words;

* assembled from books chosen and ordered by men, who often disagreed on the validity of certain books--hence the Apocrypha, included in some Bibles but not others, and numerous other excluded books whose authors presumably claimed the same divine inspiration as those whose books were included, but other men didn't think so.

* translated into English and other languages by men who were and are often at cross purposes (witness the arguments about gender neutrality, Old Testament translations that don't take later New Testament references into account, etc.), resulting in dozens of different translations into English alone;

So who decides which men were and are feeling it and which weren't? Well, other men. As a result, when it comes to the Bible, you're putting your faith in men rather than in God.

[mtpspur]

Melanie-- appreciate your remark to me and I don't mind GB--we certainly do not agree with each other nor do I expect to change his or any one else's mind--that is not my place and I am very aware that the heart of man is dead set against giving God any sort of credibility. It will ALWAYS come down to simple faith. Was further amused by Calidore's remarks on men writing the bible etc. etc. Such a book coming form the minds of mere mortals --indeed THAT would be a miracle in itself when one carefully studies it. Translations are numerous -partially to bring out the nuance of shades of meaning from the original Hebrew and Greek. Again it's all of faith--one either believes it's the word of God or not--at their peril of being proven wrong. When one is truly honest about it--the main objection to the Bible is that it deals directly and honestly with sins as a KILLING problem and gives NO glory to man to hide or revel in. As to GB--I salute his courtesy at least in not falling back on the time honored tradition of setting up the straw man and then cursing it though I was amused at being called satanic. I have been called many things in my life--some very much deserved but that was a new one. At my age it's almost refreshing. all the best to any readers--with respect--no offense intended eternity will sort this all out-at the proper time.

[Whifflingpin]

Calidore: "If God makes the law and is above them himself, then why did he need to create a human aspect to be sacrificed in order to absolve our sins rather than simply absolving them himself?"

God does not "need" anything for himself. The incarnation is for human benefit, to satisfy our needs.
God could certainly absolve all sins without our knowing anything about it - but then we would not know that he had done so.
It is our perception of justice that makes it hard to acknowledge infinite forgiveness without recompense. We need a scapegoat - God says, "Let that scapegoat be Me."
It is our sense of being the plaything of the gods that can best be allayed by God's presence and suffering amongst us.
It is our bewilderment over the problem of evil in a good universe that may not be resolved but is at least made manageable if we believe that the creator of the good universe is willing to experience evil from our side.

[Whifflingpin]

Gnostic Bishop: "If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin."

That is the crux of the matter. On the one hand there is Adam, standing symbolically for the natural tendency to sin. On the other hand there is Christ, showing that sin is not universal in the human species.
The sin nature is not dominant. At every moment, not being bound by sin, each human has the option of choosing the good or the evil.

[Melanie]

The main problem there is that unlike Milton, who was a physical presence seen and heard by everyone, God is an invisible presence seen and heard by, well, people who claim to have seen and heard him. Some undoubtedly do believe that; others have been following no muse but their own.
John 20:29 says "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." It's not "the main problem" as you say, it's actually part of God's perfect plan to test and reward true faith in Him.

(To back up a bit, the verse above refers to "doubting Thomas". After Jesus' death and resurrection, he appeared alive to his disciples to comfort them and to proclaim the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. Thomas wasn't there for that but later, when told by the disciples, he asked for physical proof of the risen Lord. Jesus understood Thomas’s human frailty and lack of faith, so he showed him proof. Once Jesus ascended into heaven he sent the Holy Spirit to indwell within believers as a Helper to enable us to believe the things we cannot see.)

[Ecurb]

Lastly, one point, many books of the Bible are unknown as to who the author was but no question as to who the Divine Author was.

.

Fine, Melanie, but you didn't address my question. There were (for example) competing "gospels" describing Jesus' life which were not canonized into the Bible. The "authority" for anyone thinking the Bible includes only those writings which are inspired by God is the Church -- in fact, the Orthodox Church (the Orthodox church didn't split from the Roman Catholics until 1054).

So either the Church had the "authority" (or wisdom) to determine which writings were divinely inspired or it didn't. If it did, then one MIGHT assume that it also had the "authority" (or wisdom) to determine which ritual practices were divinely inspired. In the Orthodox pamphlet, it states, "The Bible itself was the product of the life of that Church."

I'm not a biblical scholar, but this seems accurate to me -- the Church determined which writings Melanie accepts as inspired and canonical. So Melanie accepts the authority of the Church in this regard, but rejects it in other respects. There's nothing (ipso facto) wrong with this position, although the Orthodox pamphlet calls it "ironic".

By the way, the same pamphlet says that Roman Catholics have ADDED TO the apostolic tradition (by, for example introducing indulgences and purgatory), and the Protestants have SUBTRACTED from it (by rejecting communion, for example).

[Melanie]

It's kind of like how writers throughout history who have used amanuenses (secretaries) to write their literature. John Milton was blind when "he wrote" Paradise Lost. He dictated it to friends and family and no one questions his authorship. The Bible is God's Word, written by inspired men of God, inspired by God, and moved by the Holy Spirit 2Peter 1:21. He says "Believe all of this or none of it".

Jeremiah 20:9 described how it felt to receive the inspiration to write God's message. 2 Timothy 3:16 "Scripture is breathed out by God". Also in (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). God didn't take pen to paper but rather through the process of divine inspiration while human's recorded His words. It was certainly not a product of the any Church. The Catholic Church does and says a lot of things that aren't in the Bible. I'm not criticizing them…everyone has their own way of worshipping and they do believe that Jesus was the Messiah which is the most important thing. But I try to just stick with what it says in the Bible.

Lastly, one point, many books of the Bible are unknown as to who the author was but no question as to who the Divine Author was.
Ecurb...Sorry but I just wanted to post my whole comment so that the last line is not taken out of context and because it overlaps my response here. I understand that your question is not about authorship alone but sometimes I take only part of someone's post to respond to because a)I'm more familiar with it and b)time constraints.

Your question was "How can the infallibility of the Bible be reconciled with a fallible Church?". This requires a lengthy response but, in short, here's my best shot: Scripture alone is the one and only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. Traditions are only valid if they agree and follow scripture precisely. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that traditions are "breathed out by God" nor infallible as I mentioned above in my previous comment.

Over 60 scriptures refer to Jesus and his apostles using the scriptures "it is written" to support their actions and teachings. In Mark 12:24 Jesus himself said the Sadducees made mistakes about the resurrection because they weren't following the scriptures. Nowhere in scripture does it approve of infallible church leaders to circumvent the apostles. In fact there are many scriptures from the New and the Old Testaments that point out that appointed church leaders actually caused God's people to make mistakes. That's why the Bible tells us often to study God's Word so that we may be approved.

In Mark7:1-13 Jesus condemned some traditions because they weren't following scripture. The rabbis put together the Talmud of Jewish traditions but Jesus and the apostles never appealed to the Talmud. In Matthew 15:2-3 Jesus has a conversation with the Pharisees where they questioned why he wasn't following their traditions and Jesus said, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your traditions?" In Matthew 15:9 Jesus rebukes "the commandments of men".

Jesus and the apostles only used scripture as the standard and NOT the church traditions. This should be an example for the churches.

"The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books."
~combination of The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy and Logos Bible Software.

I used a quote in the last paragraph because I don't know that much about the Catholic Church other than they use many many many traditions that are not found in the Bible as I mentioned in my previous post above.

[Ecurb]

Your question was "How can the infallibility of the Bible be reconciled with a fallible Church?". This requires a lengthy response but, in short, here's my best shot: Scripture alone is the one and only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. Traditions are only valid if they agree and follow scripture precisely. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that traditions are "breathed out by God" nor infallible as I mentioned above in my previous comment.....



"The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books."
~combination of The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy and Logos Bible Software.
.

Two points: first, it seems to me that using scripture to justify the primacy of scripture over the Church is circular reasoning. Second, there are competing (indeed heretical "scriptures") that the Church does not recognize as "inspired", but some people do. So the notion that the Holy Spirit had already "made evident" which scriptures are inspired seems shaky. Made evident to whom? If the evidence was clear to ALL believers, there would be no reason for canonizing the Bible -- people could read (for example) the Gospel according to Judas, and decide for themselves if it was inspired. If the Church (as the bride of Christ) has some special authority (or wisdom) to make such decisions, my point stands.

By the way, the Orthodox literature talks about how Jesus and Paul regularly support (in the Bible) the ritual practices of the Church (I won't quote chapter and verse because I don't care enough to look them up). I don't have a dog in this fight; I just think it's an interesting discussion. Thanks for responding. Also, the Orthodox pamphlets are critical of Roman Catholics for non-scriptural theology, hierarchy and rituals, just as you are.

[Melanie]

John nor Paul nor any of the Apostles, nor Jesus ever supported the ritual practices of the church as I mentioned in my post above…and I quoted scripture as to where I got that idea. The Orthodox literature probably relates to the traditions the Thessalonians had received from Paul's own teachings that they themselves had received from Paul himself. Paul is not giving his blessing on all tradition, but, rather, only on the traditions he had passed on to the Thessalonians. This is in contrast to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, which have been handed down from the fourth century and later, not from one of the apostles. I'll address your other two points later…gotta' run

[Ecurb]

A quick glance through my Orthodox pamphlet shows that:

1) The Orthodox Church prides itself on following the Apostolic traditions, from the earliest times of Christianity.

2) A quick glance at the Orthodox pamphlet shows a number of scriptural mandates to support the Church: IICorinthians 16:2, 9:7' I Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4:11-16; 5:25-27; John 6:51-58; Hebrews 13:17; Acts 2:42. Now I imagine which Church to support might be controversial; the Orthodox literature suggests that since the ORTHODOX Church is the pure descendent of the Apostolic tradition, it is the Church referred to in scripture.

By the way, in my one and only attendance at an Orthodox church, the priest spoke about ecumenism, and (although of course he thinks the Orthodox Church is the purest and best form of Christianity) supports the notion of unity between Christians whatever their church membership. The pamphlets are presumably designed to gain more membership for the Orthodox Church, however.

[mtpspur]

A very interesting discussion indeed. Melanie kudos for the A. A. Hodge reference. Impressed in this day and age any one has even heard of him. But the more I read here the more I am reminded that God has made man upright but they have sought out many inventions. Your use of Biblical references is much better then mine-mostly a bit lazy about getting out the Strong's concordance but I still say and always will t gets down to Faith and whether one wishes to believe God is a liar or not. Isaiah 55 states that My ways are not Your ways and this no doubt is what troubles man--the spiritual blindness is of course the prevailing problem. Said with respect and support since even the Lord Christ said they know not what they do. (But even a child gets burned by touching the stove none the less.) Pretty much saying all I'm ever going to on the matter and hopefully not bringing the wrath of Logos (a dear friend) upon us all.

[Melanie]

mtpspur, I hope you weren't serious when you said you pretty much have said all you're going to say on the matter because I'm enjoying your wise and respectful input here. Very good reminders above about faith and spiritual blindness, btw. It's hard for me to believe that some people believe the Bible is a hoax after over 3,000 years on the "best seller list" with faithful followers worldwide and so many fascinated by every page of it. Wouldn't that be the greatest hoax of all time to have no validity!

Ecurb, you have posed some challenging topics that have made for an enjoyable discussion. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around your phrase "using scripture to justify the primacy of scripture over the Church" though. Scripture is infallible, Churches are fallible. I honestly am not that familiar with the Orthodox Church and what they have to say about their own validity of doctrine. I only know what God says in the Bible because that's my "go to". If it's not in there then I don't believe it.

The Bible says, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33) and I've found that to be true after studying the scriptures over time. When I was a new believer I thought there were contradictions in the Bible until I learned to keep everything in context and to pray before reading for clarity and discernment with the help of the Holy Spirit. Someone else may find a different personal meaning to the same scripture verse (not to be confused with basic truth) but that's the beauty of it...God speaks to each of us on a personal level through the scriptures so, while the basic truth remains, the personal application may vary. I agree that there is a unity of all denominations of Christianity if the core belief is intact…basically John 3:16 and that Jesus was the Messiah.

If a church doesn't recognize a certain scripture as inspired then perhaps they have a fallible human frailty of some sort going on...perhaps they're unable to discern what the truth of it is due to their own blindness from sin (separation from God) or lack of the Holy Spirit, or lack of faith or who knows what….only God knows. Like mtpspur said, "it gets down to faith" and God says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Bible)".

[Ecurb]

Thanks for your responses, Melanie. There's no point in arguing about the infallibility of the Bible -- but I've always seen Islam or Mormonism as the religions with (supposedly) infallible books -- because they tell origin stories about the books that support their infallibility. The Bible was written by many different people, over many centuries, and what was allowed into it was determined by a (fallible) Church.

IN addition, it seems to me that the "essence" of Christianity is faith in the Incarnation and Resurrection (the divinity of Christ), not in the infallibility of the Bible. Since modern science clearly contradicts some biblical passages, emphasis on biblical infallibility may make proselytizing more difficult.

[Melanie]

I agree Ecurb, about no point in arguing about the infallibility of the Bible.

I don't understand what you mean about Islam and Mormonism having infallible books because they tell "origin stories". Do you mean like the Book of Moroni being infallible because of their story about a guy named Joseph Smith who says he translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates he dug up in a hill in New York in the early 1800s?...and used magical glasses from the angel "Moroni" to translate it?…thus "confirming" Joseph Smith's calling from God as "the new prophet" on the earth in these latter days? Btw, Joseph Smith's biographical background is an eye-opener to say the least. With all due respect, Ecurb, you aren't saying this "story" gives you faith that the book of mormon is infallible, are you?? And yet you have no faith in the infallibility of the Bible because you're confused about whether or not the authors were inspired by God even though the proof is in the books of the Bible themselves, such as fulfilled prophesies, lack of error, and Jesus' life and teachings (not an angel maroni). No one refutes history that Jesus existed. Then you further go on to say you "clearly" have faith in the contradictions of science even though it's based on theory?? Are you sure you want to place your faith in those 2 things (theories and dug up treasure translated by magical glasses). I'm sorry, I do have a high regard for the Mormons but I choose to place my faith in Jesus who fulfilled all the prophesies of the coming of the Messiah. God said "do not add to or subtract from the Bible lest he rebuke you"*…including the book of Mormon.
*Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelations 22:19

…but to step back a bit:

Whenever I realize how ignorant I am about something (don't ask how often that is), it inspires me to learn. In my readings regarding the Orthodox Churches this morning, I came across an article written by a minister at an Orthodox Protestant Church who studied at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary…I know, right?

His observations of what is appealing about Orthodoxy and what the shortcomings of Orthodoxy was in a concise little summary of the things I had read. Very interesting. The Bible wasn't mentioned in the Appealing section (only in the shortcomings section). It was more about the appeal of history, roots and staying power, rich and elaborate liturgical heritage, and tradition….none of which appeals to me in a spiritual sense.

The shortcomings regarding Orthodoxy are that it does not understand justification by faith (aka nature of salvation by faith, some reject it, some tolerate it, no one gets it), sanctification tends to be the whole gospel, too entwined with ethnicity (being Greek or Russian is synonymous with Orthodox), inadequate understanding of sovereign grace, their veneration of icons is a violation of the 2nd commandment (I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just quoting the article), views rarely accord to scripture the authority it claims for itself, etc….these are all important to me.

His bent, in the end, was this conclusion:

"Just as the Orthodox have not thought a lot about matters that have consumed us (such as justification, the nature of Scripture, sovereign grace, and Christ's work on the cross), so we have not thought a lot about what have been their consuming passions: the Incarnation, the meaning of worship, the soul's perfection in the communicable attributes of God (which they call the energies of God), and the disciplines by which we grow in grace. Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it, and to learn from others where we need to learn. Orthodoxy in many ways fascinates me, but it does not claim my heart nor stir my soul as does the Reformed faith. My firsthand exposure to Orthodoxy has left me all the more convinced that on the essential matters of human sin, divine forgiveness, and Christ's atoning sacrifice, the Reformed faith is the biblical faith. I would love to see my Orthodox friends embrace a more biblical understanding of these matters. And I am grieved when Reformed friends sacrifice this greater good for the considerable but lesser goods of Orthodox liturgy and piety."

To read the article I've used here in my post you can click on this link (it's safe):
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html

I'm going shopping now…later gators :)

[mtpspur]

Melanie--my remark was more in the lines of -hopefully-not repeating myself endlessly or hammering away at the same hobby horse. I was also considering your warning about fruitless debate. As I recall the original question seemed to be why God didn't follow the Golden Rule--which He does--but in a way that the natural man can not understand it. The Lord Christ showed us what a man can do when perfectly consecrated to God and following Him without sin. With that role model it is no wonder the Pharisees went crazy as all THEIR righteousness was exposed as the hollow shell it had become. What people have a hard time grasping is twofold--they want a God at their beck and call without the responsibility of obedience in return AND they want a God they can totally understand and overrule. Thus Lucifer wanting to be LIKE the Most High--at least His perception of it. God came to save sinners and He does. The problem is that people really do NOT believe they are sinful or at least in the eyes of their peers let alone an unknown and unseen God. Once grace reveals to a person their true spiritual state there is hope of a happy reconciliation. Just saying.

[mtpspur]

It occurs to me that it is easy to say just have faith and it all works out. Obviously not or there would be a whole less lottery tickets being bought these days. A simple way-is to ask yourself what faith means. Simply a belief that something you have been told or had revealed to you is true--without any evidence other then the word given. John Doe shakes his head confused all ready. So starting with the simplest indicator of faith--ask yourself--when is my birthday and what is my name. Almost everyone can answer that. You follow up with how do you know that? Hopefully but not always--the answer is my parents told me that. Is that true? Of course--with perhaps some irrirtation or better--astonishment that is no doubt. It's true because there is no reason to doubt the facts of name or birth. Why would you? With that simple declaration faith is established. If we proceed on that line of thought that our Father Creator God tells us something perhaps believing Him is an indicator of faith in action. Just a thought.

[Melanie]

Well said mtpspur. That was an excellent read. Amen and amen :)

[Melanie]

I've always seen Islam or Mormonism as the religions with (supposedly) infallible books -- because they tell origin stories about the books that support their infallibility. The Bible was written by many different people, over many centuries, and what was allowed into it was determined by a (fallible) Church. IN addition, it seems to me that the "essence" of Christianity is faith in the Incarnation and Resurrection (the divinity of Christ), not in the infallibility of the Bible. Since modern science clearly contradicts some biblical passages, emphasis on biblical infallibility may make proselytizing more difficult.
Ecurb, I don't understand what you mean about Islam and Mormonism having infallible books because they tell "origin stories"? Do you mean their stories about a guy named Joseph Smith who says he translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates he dug up in a hill in New York in the early 1800s using a seer-stone aka gazing crystal? (now,these golden plates which no one ever saw are mysteriously missing)...and used magical glasses from the angel "Moroni" to translate it?…thus, as you say, "confirming" Joseph Smith's calling from God as "the new prophet" on the earth in these latter days?? (Btw, Joseph Smith's early treasure-hunting-for-profit background is quite questionable and hiding the golden plates from everyone so no one could see including his family).

Ecurb, you aren't saying this "story" gives you faith that the book of mormon is infallible, are you? And yet you have no faith in the infallibility of the Bible because you're confused about whether or not the authors were inspired by God even though the proof is in the books of the Bible themselves, such as fulfilled prophesies, lack of error, and Jesus' life and teachings? No one refutes the historical fact that Jesus existed but you place your faith in angel maroni and the missing plates that Mormonism is based on? Then you further go on to say you "clearly" have faith in the contradictions of science even though it's based on theory?? Are you sure you want to place your faith in those 2 things (theories and dug up plates now missing)? I'm sorry, I do have a high regard for the Mormons but I choose to place my faith in Jesus who fulfilled all the prophesies of the coming of the Messiah. God said "do not add to or subtract from the Bible lest he rebuke you" (including the book of Mormon). Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelations 22:19

[Whifflingpin]

Ecurb referred to "Islam or Mormonism as the religions with (supposedly) infallible books." Maybe "allegedly" would have been a better word than "supposedly," but either way he was saying that those religions each have a story (that their book was delivered to their prophet by an angel,) that enables them to claim that their own particular religious book is infallible. (Non-believers will probably reject the origin story and the claim of infallibility.)

Believers in the old and new testament, on the other hand, are more likely to believe that each book in the bible was written by one or more humans, more or less inspired by God. Most Christians, for example, accept that the history sections of the Old Testament are no more or less reliable or biased than one would expect of any other history book. Similarly, each prophet is recognised as a human speaking according to his conscience in addressing the issues of his own time (and maybe for all time, but maybe not.)

The majority of Christians are happy to accept that the list of books making up the Bible was defined by fallible humans. Christians, for the most part, do not claim that the Bible is infallible in detail. What the church does claim is that within the Bible can be found all the information that is necessary to know God's purpose for the universe and humanity's role in response to that purpose.

[tailor STATELY]

Interesting discussion.


I do have a high regard for the Mormons but I choose to place my faith in Jesus.
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I thank you; and testify of my utmost and unequivocal faith in Jesus, who is the Christ and Heavenly Father's only begotten son, the head and corner stone of my faith as well.

Gold plates: an article on eye witness accounts - https://www.lds.org/new-era/2007/07/what-did-the-golden-plates-look-like?lang=eng .

Angels have appeared throughout scripture. I find it hard to believe the word of God to man died with Jesus and His Apostles in the early years A.D.; and am grateful for His restored gospel and word through latter-day Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

For those who haven't read the Book of Mormon I invite you to do so. For even the casual reader the Book of Mormon is an uplifting book of the human condition: faith (or no), war, struggles, etc... 600+ years of scripture in the Book of Mormon predates the New Testament. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ as the subtitle of the Book of Mormon so states.

Respectfully,
tailor STATELY

[Ecurb]

Thanks, Whifflingpin, for explaining my position (and that of "the majority of Christians") so clearly.

[Melanie]

...I do have a high regard for the Mormons but I choose to place my faith in Jesus who fulfilled all the prophesies of the coming of the Messiah. God said "do not add to or subtract from the Bible lest he rebuke you"...Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelations 22:19
tailorSTATELY, thank you for correcting my critical typo. I left out the word "alone" which makes it look like the Mormons don't believe in Jesus Christ. I meant to say "I choose to place my faith in Jesus alone"(...and not in future prophets and additions to the Bible). I did know that Mormons are believers in Jesus Christ and in the Bible, thus your name, Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Thank you for clarifying that for all.


Christians, for the most part, do not claim that the Bible is infallible in detail.
I know you were speaking for Ecurb but I take it you were in agreement with Ecurb. You and I were on the same page with your first paragraph but when you made the assumption that "most believers are more likely to believe that each book in the Bible was written by one or more humans, more or less inspired by God", and your assumption that, "most Christians accept that the history sections of the Old Testament are no more or less reliable or biased than one would expect of any other history book" is where we disagree. I can't judge who are truly Christians and who aren't since only God knows that but, "Most Christians"? "Believers" who don't believe? How are you sure they are Christians then? Because they say so? Be careful about assuming because God warns in one of his New Testament Parables that "some will say Lord, Lord, and I know them not". I do acknowledge that there are believers who are misguided at times but I wouldn't say "most Christians don't believe the entire Bible is the truth". Some things are parables, some are examples, etc...but truth is always what it's about. Could you please post an example (just one) of a "detail", as you say, in the Bible that's in error? Or 2 scriptures that seemingly contradicts themselves? That might make for an interesting discussion.

[Ecurb]

It is true, of course, that some Christians think that entire the Bible is literally true. Nonetheless, in general, that's not the essence of the faith. Nobody can call himself a Muslim unless he thinks that Gabriel dictated the Quran to Mohammed. "There is no God but God and Mohammed is His prophet". This notion is essential to Islam, and the Quran is one book.

The Bible is many books. The Orthodox Church decided which (of many) potential books were included in the Bible, and which were not. There are no stories about how God (or an angel) dictated each book to its author. The authors may have been "inspired" -- but they were still fallible humans, not Gods or angels, and there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. The Church which decided which books to canonize is not (acc.to Melanie) infallible. There are any number of (silly) atheist websites pointing out contradictions in the Bible, and an equal number of (equally silly) Fundamentalist websites denying that they ARE contradictions, so I won't get into that discussion.

However, John 3:16 suggests that believing in the absolute truth of some trivial historical detail in the Book of Kings is not essential to living a Christian life. (By contrast, the Ten Commandments were -- allegedly -- inscribed by God on stone tablets. They were written by God, acc.the story, not by humans. Therein the distinction.)

[Whifflingpin]

Ecurb: "Thanks, Whifflingpin, for explaining my position (and that of "the majority of Christians") so clearly."
You're welcome. It was, of course, rather presumptuous of me.

"I know you were speaking for Ecurb but I take it you were in agreement with Ecurb."
I was stating what I thought Ecurb was saying, and I was in agreement with it.

Melanie: ""Believers" who don't believe?"
I almost agree with Ecurb's opinion that "the "essence" of Christianity is faith in the Incarnation and Resurrection (the divinity of Christ), not in the infallibility of the Bible." More precisely, I think that the essential belief of Christianity is that Christ is the Saviour, whatever that may mean. (For most Christians* that relates to the Incarnation and Resurrection, but some Christians (Unitarians, for instance,) do not believe in the Incarnation.) The "belief" of Christians, at any rate, is a belief about Christ, and a person's "Christian-ness" is not determined by what that person believes about the Bible or the nature of the church. Within Christianity, of course, different groups may hold certain beliefs to be essential for their members.

Melanie: "Some things are parables, some are examples, etc...but truth is always what it's about."
To hold that all of the Bible is true in detail means, in my opinion, to stretch the meaning of the word "true" beyond its usefulness. It leads to entrenching oneself into absurd and untenable positions, and to arguing ferociously over trivia.
When you say "some things are parables" you are saying that the passage is not literally true and is open to interpretation. In those cases, anyone is free to make his own interpretation, (unless he belongs to a church that declares that only the church is permitted to interpret scripture.) There may be truth in the parable, but by its nature a parable will illustrate many truths (and not a few untruths.)

Melanie: "Could you please post an example (just one) of a "detail", as you say, in the Bible that's in error? Or 2 scriptures that seemingly contradict themselves?"
I don't think that will make for interesting discussion - it will just elevate trivial stuff way above its importance. However, I will give some examples.
Example 1: I do not think that it is remotely important to Christian belief whether or not the sun stood still for 24 hours as stated in Joshua 10. That is a recorded miracle probably not true, but in any case totally unimportant.
Example 2: In the same chapter, and much more important, I do not consider it an essential part of Christian belief that God favoured and assisted in the genocide of Amorites as carried out by Joshua. Obviously those who wrote the book believed that He did, but I would not take their word for it. A great deal of Old Testament history is, like any chronicle, a one-sided statement of what happened and why. The actors and writers often claimed God's approval for terrible actions; we do not have to believe them or justify them.
As for contradictions, I am sure that a quick search using G**gle will return lists of them. They are unimportant unless you are trying to claim the literal truth of every word in the Bible, which is not necessary for Christians.

*I keep using "most Christians," "majority of Christians" etc. Obviously I have no idea what most Christians believe in their hearts. When I use the phrase I mean I am saying what I believe to be the official view or doctrine of the major Christian groups.

[Melanie]

Okay. I understand that neither of you wants to discuss the "details" of your alleged "Biblical errors". I wouldn't exactly call it "trivial stuff" or "silly" as you two say, but I understand that it makes for intense discussion that is not always a pleasure. And Lord knows, it's time for smiles :)
But please allow me to post a closing statement:

The Bible is either what it claims to be, God's Word, or it's a myth. We either believe all of the Bible, or none of it because if the Bible is only partially true, as some claim, it would be the most dangerous book ever published since we wouldn't know which part to believe and which part not to believe. Btw, there's no way it would have lasted over 3,000 years of scrutiny.

If a person chooses not to study the Bible because they aren't sure its accurate, then how can they know they're saved? Think about that. Who says the Bible can't be trusted? Surely, not a person who diligently studies the Bible. There is no reason that one can't believe every word of the Bible. If we can believe the opening statement in the Bible, then we will have no difficulty in believing the rest of the Bible. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…" Genesis 1:1. If you believe Christ was born of a virgin then why is it so hard to believe the rest of the Bible.

[Ecurb]

I don't get it, Melanie. Why can't parts of the Bible be correct, and other parts in error? Isn't that the case for many (if not all) history books? Weren't the books of the Bible written by people (who are fallible) and approved by a church (which is also fallible)?

In addition, you questioned the Orthodox reverence for icons in an earlier post, as (possibly) contradictory to the 2nd Commandment. But isn't it possible that extreme veneration of a book (the Bible), written by fallible humans, risks violating the 2nd Commandment as well? Are the words, inked or "graven" on a page of paper? Does reverence for and emphasis on the infallibility of those words amount to "bow(ing) down to" and "serving" those words, which are, after all, a "graven image"?

[Melanie]

I don't get it, Melanie. Why can't parts of the Bible be correct, and other parts in error? Isn't that the case for many (if not all) history books?Yes, "that's the case for many, if not all, history books". But the Holy Bible is not just another history book…unless you're an unbeliever. That's what sets the Bible apart from all other books. Parts of the Bible can't be in error because its God's Word and God is perfect (except errors of translation…and that's our own fault [sin] so we must deal with it...remember the tower of Babel? After the flood God told humanity to increase their number and fill the earth. Man disobeyed and instead built a tower to keep everyone together. To enforce God's command, he confused the language, thus causing the people who had the same language to congregate together and move to other parts of the world.


Weren't the books of the Bible written by people (who are fallible) and approved by a church (which is also fallible)?
Yes, but here's the thing…the authors are fallible but the inspired words of God are not. The Church is fallible but the books chosen, as well as the ones left out, are not. doesn't matter what the Churchmen say, the inspired words of God are what they are…truth... in or out of the Bible. Translations from Greek or Hebrew into English ARE fallible…and that's where we must be diligent in our study as God warns in scripture. That's the only place where corrections are needed and acceptable.


In addition, you questioned the Orthodox reverence for icons in an earlier post, as (possibly) contradictory to the 2nd Commandment. But isn't it possible that extreme veneration of a book (the Bible), written by fallible humans, risks violating the 2nd Commandment as well? Are the words, inked or "graven" on a page of paper? Does reverence for and emphasis on the infallibility of those words amount to "bow(ing) down to" and "serving" those words, which are, after all, a "graven image"?
Well, this is a first but good thinking, Ecurb. I've never heard that the actual engraved typeface could be referenced as a graven image via "thou shalt not bow down to graven images". Wow, that's genius but at the same time makes me chuckle a little because you're not worshipping the font or typeface. You're not idolizing the black ink that was used. The typeface is not an image in the likeness of anything. It's not a graven image even, because it must be a likeness of something as the 2nd commandment says "“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them". This is closely related to the 1st commandment, "Thou shalt not have any other god's before me"….aka idolatry. You're not worshipping the font, your worshipping the message.

[mtpspur]

In the interest of total honesty--one of the VERY nicest and generous hearted churches I ever visited was a Mormon one. My personal doctrinal beliefs are Baptist with large doses of the Reformed view (I have read a great deal of C. S. Spurgeon, Calvin's Institutes and Thomas Watson's Body of Divinity--highly recommended for a study of the attributes of God). As to the Mormons my main reason not to believe their views is that they have added to the work of the Lord Christ and the emphasis is on that. I believe God finished His plan for the salvation of mankind on the cross and resurrection and we should be satisfied with His work. Any thing that tales the spotlight off His accomplishments and glory should be highly suspect and smacks of man's constantly striving to take glory onto themselves. As I once told a friend online do not mistake courtesy for kindness until my life proves otherwise. I LIKE Mormon people when I meet them--I also like the Seventh Day Adventists--they out to shame the Christian churches when it comes to evangelism and we have much to answer for in that area but being nice does not always mean being right-unless covered by the grace of God. To cover the topic of the Golden rule the Lord met people on their own ground and revealed himself to them as He found the. Paul was all things to all men--not with deceit but with empathy. Just saying.

[tailor STATELY]

As to the Mormons my main reason not to believe their views is that they have added to the work of the Lord Christ and the emphasis is on that. I believe God finished His plan for the salvation of mankind on the cross and resurrection and we should be satisfied with His work. Then we agree to disagree. My belief is Christ lives and continues to direct and teach His people to become even as He is as we struggle with the issues of our day. A recent conference April 2015 instructs and edifies His people through His word given to those in authority in a plethora of talks centered mostly on the family: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/sessions?cid=HP14GC&lang=eng

As for those who vilify Joseph Smith, Jr as the first Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints know that Jesus, and His Apostles, were persecuted and killed by His own chosen people (Jesus was said to be a wine-bibber and heretic if I remember correctly); George Washington is a hero to one branch of my family and was hated by my English forefathers; Lincoln (a purported drunk) precipitated a Civil War (I'm fairly sure I had family on both sides, again); President Obama's service to the USA has polarized the population to apoplexy (many of the issues the detractors have against President Obama are summarily absurd). Calumny is endemic where opposition and polarization exists - and it exists everywhere.

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

[mtpspur]

No harm done. I could just have easily said the same for ANY denomination including my own. Baptists tend to put their work for the Lord ahead of their worship sometimes. For me the beginning and the end is the Lord Christ--or should be except I keep getting in His way. I have no interest in vilifying others--I have my own sins to lament over. But I appreciate your response and I still stand by the friendliness of your church. On a side note--I'm also a comic book collector and the super hero Captain Canuck was created by a Mormon missionary and I have enjoyed every issue he tries to put out. Just saying.

[Whifflingpin]

Melanie: "After the flood God told humanity to increase their number and fill the earth. Man disobeyed and instead built a tower to keep everyone together. To enforce God's command, he confused the language, thus causing the people who had the same language to congregate together and move to other parts of the world."
Do you believe that is a literal historical fact? Fair enough if you do, but there is no need to doubt or denigrate the faith of those who consider that story to be a myth or maybe a parable.

The fact is that there were Christians before the New Testament was written. St Paul, for instance, had no guidance from written gospels or from the epistles of St Paul when he converted to Christianity. His case is extreme, but there were many converted to Christianity without the help of written scriptures or of blinding lights and visions. Some were converted by those who had known Jesus, but others to whom the Gospel had been communicated verbally at third hand. The books came afterwards, possibly as much as seventy years afterwards in the case of some of those included in the New Testament. So no book is essential to Christian faith, unless you are saying that for two generations after Christ there were no people worthy of being called Christians.

It seems to me obvious from reading Paul's letters that he was a man working out as he went along what it meant to be a Christian, what Christ's resurrection meant, how the crucifixion worked as part of man's redemption and so on. Paul was not engaged in writing infallible holy books, he was writing guidance and explanation and gossip and reproof - whatever he thought necessary to help his fellow Christians and converts. This does not mean that none of his writings can be believed, but it does mean that some of the things he wrote must be accepted as related to the issue or attitudes of the day, rather than as eternal truths. As you are keen on examples, I could ask you if your church insists on men and women sitting separately, the women silent and having their heads covered, as described in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

[Whifflingpin]

Message deleted as tending towards spite.

[Ecurb]

Well, this is a first but good thinking, Ecurb. I've never heard that the actual engraved typeface could be referenced as a graven image via "thou shalt not bow down to graven images". Wow, that's genius but at the same time makes me chuckle a little because you're not worshipping the font or typeface. You're not idolizing the black ink that was used. The typeface is not an image in the likeness of anything. It's not a graven image even, because it must be a likeness of something as the 2nd commandment says "“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them". This is closely related to the 1st commandment, "Thou shalt not have any other god's before me"….aka idolatry. You're not worshipping the font, your worshipping the message.

Well, Melanie, Orthodox Christians aren't worshiping blobs of paint, either. They see the icon (quoting from their pamphlet) "as a dramatic and constant reminder that there is infinitely more to reality than we see.... We don't worship icons, of course: worship is for God alone. But we do honor them, believing that the honor given to the icon passes on the the person portrayed in the image."

Lots of Roman Catholics use Melanie's argument in support of Catholic doctrine and ritual. God is infallible -- so in matters of doctrine His Church is inspired and infallible. This is identical to Melanie's argument in favor of the infallibility of the Bible. However, both the Bible and the Church were created by humans, and we fallible humans make mistakes. The Bible is clearly a human creation (whether or not it is divinely inspired), just like statues or paintings. It seems to me that believing so passionately in its infallibility comes close to worshiping it. God is infallible; the works of man are not.

In addition, seeing the Bible as the MOST IMPORTANT connection we have to God seems strange. Jesus died for the literate and the illiterate alike. For centuries, before the printing press, Bibles were rare and most Christians were illiterate and never read the Bible. The Faithful reached out to God through prayer, worship, ritual, and meditation. To return to my Orthodox pamphlet, which started this discussion: The Church made the Bible (by deciding on its content); if Church decisions such as these are infallible, that might be one reason to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. If Church decisions are fallible, human decisions, it's difficult to justify THAT with the notion of Biblical infallibility.

[Melanie]

Melanie: "After the flood God told humanity to increase their number and fill the earth. Man disobeyed and instead built a tower to keep everyone together. To enforce God's command, he confused the language, thus causing the people who had the same language to congregate together and move to other parts of the world."
Do you believe that is a literal historical fact? Fair enough if you do, but there is no need to doubt or denigrate the faith of those who consider that story to be a myth or maybe a parable.
I'm so confused by this post. Are you speaking to me? About the story of Babel? I know I never "doubted or or denigrated the faith of anyone who may or may not consider 'that story' to be literal or a myth". I posted the story of Babel and no one mentioned Babel after that nor did I, so no one was denigrated. I'm sorry if you somehow misunderstood me in that way.


So no book is essential to Christian faith, unless you are saying that for two generations after Christ there were no people worthy of being called Christians.Again, this is a shock. I would never judge anyone and deem them unworthy of being called a Christian. Only God knows who is a Christian and warns us "judge not lest ye be judged" so why would I judge that?


As you are keen on examples, I could ask you if your church insists on men and women sitting separately, the women silent and having their heads covered, as described in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.
Huh? I don't attend a church nor am I a member of any denomination. I just read the Bible after praying and asking God to help me understand it clearly. I think it's best if I back away from this thread now.


Message deleted as tending towards spite.
I have no idea what I said that offended you this much but please accept my sincere apology. I'll step away from this discussion because I never want to offend.

[Melanie]

Well, Melanie, Orthodox Christians aren't worshiping blobs of paint, either.
I never said that. You said that the Word of God, being engraved in print, was a graven image (post#81) and I explained why it's not. That's all. Is that why your friend Whifflington posted "spite" towards me?
I'm sorry. I've learned a lot from this discussion and have enjoyed getting to know each of you. I respect your beliefs. We all have different ways of worshipping and I like to explain my way as well as learn from others about their way. But religion causes a lot of emotional buildup unfortunately. I recognize that it's gotten to this point and it's time for me to move on. Thank you for all your interesting posts and for being a part of it all. I'm sure we'll pass one another as friends in other threads and this may happen again as it's the nature of religious fervor but I speak for myself when I say that I feel all the more richer for being a part of this thread as it taught me a lot. Thank you.

[mona amon]

The Bible is either what it claims to be, God's Word, or it's a myth. We either believe all of the Bible, or none of it because if the Bible is only partially true, as some claim, it would be the most dangerous book ever published since we wouldn't know which part to believe and which part not to believe. Btw, there's no way it would have lasted over 3,000 years of scrutiny.

The problem with this Melanie is nowhere in the Bible as we know it (protestant, RC or Orthodox versions) does it say that the whole Bible as we know it is The Bible if you know what I mean - probably not, as I'm not explaining properly, but maybe in my reply to Ecurb my position will become more clear.


Thanks for your responses, Melanie. There's no point in arguing about the infallibility of the Bible -- but I've always seen Islam or Mormonism as the religions with (supposedly) infallible books -- because they tell origin stories about the books that support their infallibility. The Bible was written by many different people, over many centuries, and what was allowed into it was determined by a (fallible) Church.

IN addition, it seems to me that the "essence" of Christianity is faith in the Incarnation and Resurrection (the divinity of Christ), not in the infallibility of the Bible. Since modern science clearly contradicts some biblical passages, emphasis on biblical infallibility may make proselytizing more difficult.

I don't think it was the 'Church' which decided the scriptures but centuries of tradition, transmitted faithfully from generation to generation, first orally, then by writing, until we arrive at the Jewish scriptures that Jesus would have followed, which is more or less our present Old Testament, with Roman Catholics accepting a few more books as canonical, and the Orthodox Church a few more than that. Disputes over canon are always about what to leave out rather than what to include, and mostly arise due to the differences in the Septuagint translation Vs the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, the New Testament was the result of an accumulation of books considered important to Christianity right from the earliest days of the church.

What I'm trying to say is that the Bible, while it was not allegedly 'dictated' by God like the Koran, was also not just selected by churches or committees. It is very similar to the difference between Booker Prize winners (which sometimes turn out to be total crap like The Inheritance of Loss) and a time tested literary canon. The books were written by fallible humans, but the way they have come down to us is through a much less fallible process of selection.

[mtpspur]

Melanie--it was a delight to -for once-take part here in the religious forum without the usual name calling and character assassination that goes on which merely backs up the doctrine of total depravity but that's probably my satiric sense of humor. This discussion was starting to get out of hand. With respect to those that disagree that the Bible is word of God there is very little one can say to change a mind other then to remind them they can ignore it at their peril if they choose to give it the authority of Grimm's Fairy Tales or perhaps wonder at the God that can write a book that can be studied and taught to ANYONE at any level of intelligence or emotional maturity. Grace is available to all and not just a privileged elite. Many years ago a magazine devoted to Psychology circa 1970 devoted a book review column in its first issue on the premise that the Bible was a mere book and read pretty much with the idea that it was literature. The reviewer concluded that God was a cranky personage in the Old Testament but started to lighten up in the new. The fellow that gave me the magazine to read had HOPED I would be insulted and angry and call down curses on him so he could continue to worship he Great God Intellect. I laughed uproariously and told him I was no longer the target audience--I believed God was a real and very particular deity but nice try. With that view it is much easier to write in this forum if we don't get too excited abot the disagreements and tahnk God privately for MUCH unmerited grace.

[Iain Sparrow]

Melanie--it was a delight to -for once-take part here in the religious forum without the usual name calling and character assassination that goes on which merely backs up the doctrine of total depravity but that's probably my satiric sense of humor. This discussion was starting to get out of hand. With respect to those that disagree that the Bible is word of God there is very little one can say to change a mind other then to remind them they can ignore it at their peril if they choose to give it the authority of Grimm's Fairy Tales or perhaps wonder at the God that can write a book that can be studied and taught to ANYONE at any level of intelligence or emotional maturity. Grace is available to all and not just a privileged elite. Many years ago a magazine devoted to Psychology circa 1970 devoted a book review column in its first issue on the premise that the Bible was a mere book and read pretty much with the idea that it was literature. The reviewer concluded that God was a cranky personage in the Old Testament but started to lighten up in the new. The fellow that gave me the magazine to read had HOPED I would be insulted and angry and call down curses on him so he could continue to worship he Great God Intellect. I laughed uproariously and told him I was no longer the target audience--I believed God was a real and very particular deity but nice try. With that view it is much easier to write in this forum if we don't get too excited abot the disagreements and tahnk God privately for MUCH unmerited grace.

See, this is when some of us atheists begin to get annoyed at the condescending tone Christians have concerning belief and faith... when you write, "With respect to those that disagree that the Bible is word of God there is very little one can say to change a mind other then to remind them they can ignore it at their peril if they choose to give it the authority of Grimm's Fairy Tales or perhaps wonder at the God that can write a book that can be studied and taught to ANYONE at any level of intelligence or emotional maturity"; we haven't "ignored" the Bible, we've studied it, wanted to believe it, but in the end cannot because there is nothing there that seems remotely God-like. Indeed, in every regard the Bible portrays creation, good and evil, events, and every aspect of existence in archaic terms.

I'll ask you as I do any Christian, to give me one paragraph or just one line from the Bible that could only have come from God.

[Whifflingpin]

Sorry Melanie to have implied that you upset me - certainly that was not the case in any way. I deleted a post because I was being less than kind, not because you were.

In response to your reference to the story of the tower of Babel I meant only that a Christian could take that story as a myth or parable, rather than as literal history, without having to be called an unbeliever.

I'll give my other upsetting sentence its proper neutrality. "No book is essential to Christian faith, unless one is to say that for two generations after Christ it would be incorrect to call anyone Christians."

Melanie: "I don't attend a church nor am I a member of any denomination. I just read the Bible after praying and asking God to help me understand it clearly."
That is your choice and of course you are entitled to it. May I suggest that, in focussing on details, it is easy to miss that the Bible addresses (amongst others) three major themes, the relation of individuals with God, the relation of communities with God, and the relations between God's people. One Biblical message that seems very clear to me is that believers should, where possible, gather together to share and celebrate their belief.

[tailor STATELY]

I'll ask you as I do any Christian, to give me one paragraph or just one line from the Bible that could only have come from God.

My faith has a Primary (children's) song titled: "This Is My Beloved Son" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSpzXgEKRDg based on the following scripture:

• Matthew 3: 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


• Matthew 17: 1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

• The Book of Mormon 3Nephi 11: 1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

2 And they were also conversing about this Jesus Christ, of whom the sign had been given concerning his death.

3 And it came to pass that while they were thus conversing one with another, they heard a voice as if it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; nevertheless, and notwithstanding it being a small voice it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn.

4 And it came to pass that again they heard the voice, and they understood it not.

5 And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:

10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

• Joseph Smith-History: 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!


In response to your reference to the story of the tower of Babel I meant only that a Christian could take that story as a myth or parable, rather than as literal history, without having to be called an unbeliever.
The Book of Mormon testifies that the Tower of Babel scriptural account is literal history.

Respectfully,
tailor STATELY

[Whifflingpin]

mtpspur: "With respect to those that disagree that the Bible is word of God there is very little one can say to change a mind other then to remind them they can ignore it at their peril if they choose to give it the authority of Grimm's Fairy Tales."
I have perhaps, in this recent discussion, argued that parts of the Bible have no more authority than Grimms' fairy tales. I have certainly argued that other parts have no more authority than, say, Caesar's "Gallic Wars" or Clarendon's "Great Rebellion." As to "word of God," I would want to make a distinction between "word about God" and "Word from God." The Bible contains a few thousand years worth of words about God, showing the attempts of humans to know the Unknowable and to work out what to do about Him. It could be seen, by Christians, as a spiritual travel book, describing the journey in the Old Testament and the destination in the New. The Word from God is, to most Christians, a person, not a book.

[Whifflingpin]

tailor STATELY: "The Book of Mormon testifies that the Tower of Babel scriptural account is literal history."
Fair enough, so Mormons are bound to take that story as literal history, but other Christians might still consider it to be a myth or parable.

[YesNo]

I'll ask you as I do any Christian, to give me one paragraph or just one line from the Bible that could only have come from God.

I am just a generic panentheist, so I probably shouldn't answer this. I do try not to act as if any text that I like is "infallible". However, like everyone else, I am fallible and I do enjoy telling other people that their precious texts are drivel if I don't happen to like those particular texts such as Joyce's Finnegans Wake or Dawkin's selfish gene or a text by some French philosopher who can't present a coherent, rational argument but whom undergraduates nonetheless drool over.

Having said that, there are some critical passages in the Judeo-Christo Genesis text that I like and use as personal assumptions. They can be broken into two ideas:

1) The universe was created by some transcendent Consciousness Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." What I take from that is the earth was not created by some demon. It is not some eternal, unconscious material substance to escape from through bizarre meditation efforts. Science seems to corroborate this. The universe has been dated and quantum physics has drawn into serious question the existence of any unconscious material substance underlying the reality we perceive.

2) The universe is good Genesis 1:4 and other places (http://biblehub.com/genesis/1.htm) "...it was good..." What I take from this is life and existence is just the opposite of the way Lars von Trier presented it in Melancholia.

Could either of these ideas "come from God"? Well, what does that mean? To say something is "inspired" implies it comes from some source outside oneself. That could be "God" or at least a muse.

I know there are many who don't believe in muses today. They try to reduce everything to individual psychological causes and then reduce those causes to unconscious material substances lodged in the brain. That doesn't bother me since quantum physics puts into question the very existence of those unconscious material substances.

Those two ideas that the universe had a beginning and that it is good give me two criteria on which I can filter out perspectives on reality that have value from those that don't.

Those that have value would include most forms of traditional religion represented by Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, non-denominational Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and maybe some eastern forms of Buddhism where they still have goddesses along with other traditional perspectives I can't think of at the moment.

Those religious perspectives that don't have value would be those represented by atheists, western atheistic Buddhists and perhaps "Gnostic Christians" but I don't understand what they are exactly.

[mtpspur]

Instead of Grimm's Fairy tales I probably should have said myths as in Norse myths for instance but being a literature website thought it would be more -well-literary. As to condescending I hope not but I can see how it may come across that way. I use to phrase with respect to indicate I DO actually think about the other person and their inalienable right to have their own beliefs and feelings even if we are very very much in disagreement. As to a paragraph that could only come from God--perhaps His remark I am that I am. With that I too take my leave. This is the best I can do to agree to disagree. Come to think of t Hans Christian Andersen's are gentler. As to a paragraph that could only come from God---try Isaiah Chapter 55. And with that--I too take final leave for awhile. This little trip down Litnet memory lane has been refreshing to the soul in so many ways.

[Ecurb]

To Mona: I'm not a biblical scholar. I don't know how the Jewish scriptures were "canonized". Clearly, the Christian Orthodox church had little to do with that. The New Testament is different. My understanding is that there were a number of competing "gospels" (biographies of Jesus' life), and the church determined that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be canonized, as well as some letters of Paul, etc. etc. Also, as Whiffling points out, Christianity predates the Bible. So faith in the Bible CANNOT LOGICALLY BE essential to the Faith (unlike faith in the Quran or Book of Mormon).

To Melanie: I don't want to over-emphasize my point about scripture possibly being equivalent to a "graven image". However, if we interpret, in general terms, "graven image" to mean "a work of art created by humans", then my point makes sense. The Bible consists of a variety of literary forms: theology (the letters of Paul), biography (the gospels), poetry (the psalms), history (Kings, Exodus) and stories which could fit into different categories depending on how we interpret them (is Jonah history or parable?). Poetry (to use one example) may be inspired, but it makes no sense to call it "infallible". The word simply cannot be sensibly applied to that literary form.

So what I meant is that worshiping the works of humans (instead of God) may be contrary to the 2nd commandment, depending on how we interpret "graven images".

[Ecurb]

One more point about the infallibility of the Bible: It seems to me that one tenet of modern literary theory (I haven't finished my course yet, so I'm not sure) is that any written narrative is biased (it's told from a point of view, for example). In addition, language is an imperfect way to describe reality. This is only natural, because language is an imperfect system of communication, invented by imperfect humans. If this is the case, how can the Bible be "infallible"? Suppose a language had only ten words -- surely a long book in that ten word language could hardly be called an "infallible" description of complicated events. Since our various languages -- Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic -- are also imperfect and incomplete, the difference between them and the "Ten Word Language" in terms of "infallibly" describing reality is simply one of degree.

"Infallible" means "incapable of error." Yet the ten word language would make constant errors (of omission, if nothing else) by describing reality inaccurately. Same with our languages. Conclusion: the Bible is not infallible.

[Iain Sparrow]

One more point about the infallibility of the Bible: It seems to me that one tenet of modern literary theory (I haven't finished my course yet, so I'm not sure) is that any written narrative is biased (it's told from a point of view, for example). In addition, language is an imperfect way to describe reality. This is only natural, because language is an imperfect system of communication, invented by imperfect humans. If this is the case, how can the Bible be "infallible"? Suppose a language had only ten words -- surely a long book in that ten word language could hardly be called an "infallible" description of complicated events. Since our various languages -- Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic -- are also imperfect and incomplete, the difference between them and the "Ten Word Language" in terms of "infallibly" describing reality is simply one of degree.

"Infallible" means "incapable of error." Yet the ten word language would make constant errors (of omission, if nothing else) by describing reality inaccurately. Same with our languages. Conclusion: the Bible is not infallible.

But why give the Bible even that free pass?.. it's not as if one need take a microscope to it to find errors, nor even take the vagaries of language and the prejudice of narrative point of view into account. There are glaring errors from Creation to Revelations, errors on every page!

[YesNo]

Conclusion: the Bible is not infallible.

So, what?

Are you trying to say it is completely wrong?

[Ecurb]

So, what?

Are you trying to say it is completely wrong?

Of course not. My argument (which I just thought up, by comparing the Bible with other man-made works of art) is not particularly telling in any practical way. However, many Literalist (and other) Christians call the Bible "infallible", so it is reasonable to make a logical argument attempting to refute that claim, although I'll grant it is a mere technicality.

I like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.

[tailor STATELY]

42
...

[Melanie]

Not to enter into the fray, but to clarify the truth of this thread topic as you might find it interesting:

The phrase, "Golden Rule", doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible (not that it matters), nor does "His Best Rule"…the latter being in error because there is no "God's best rule"…all of God's rules are perfect, ALL are "best". The "golden rule" is referring to Matthew 7:12 ("So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.") God follows that rule…but keep in mind that God is our heavenly Father, our parent so to speak, and we are His children, so He will use discipline out of love, sometimes tough-love, but always love.

Interesting to note is that many religions have the same rule written after the Bible's (it first appeared in the Bible in 1450BC in OT book of Leviticus) but the other religions, about 1,000 years after, wrote the rule using negative language (not saying that's wrong…just an observation) and relying on passivity rather than using positive language as in the Bible:

• Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects15:23)
• Hindusim: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata5:1517)
• Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udanavarga5:18)

These religions are saying "do not", and to keep your behavior in check while the Bible says to "do", and look for ways to show love proactively.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12)

God's command of Christian ethics, to Love, is what separates His rule from the ethics of all other religions. In fact, God goes even further to say, "Love your enemy", which is unheard of in other religions.

“If someone says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20). This rule is unique to Christianity.

[YesNo]

Of course not. My argument (which I just thought up, by comparing the Bible with other man-made works of art) is not particularly telling in any practical way. However, many Literalist (and other) Christians call the Bible "infallible", so it is reasonable to make a logical argument attempting to refute that claim, although I'll grant it is a mere technicality.

I like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.

It is possible we don't disagree as much as I thought.

The problem with an explicit claim that a pope or a text or a Tarot deck is infallible is that it is a weak argument for a belief system. Most of us today live in liberal democracies which means that these kinds of arguments are easy to ignore. Today we are more subtle. We don't say our beliefs are infallible anymore. We say they are "scientific" or "rational" or "open-minded". But we still act as if they were infallible, that is, given evidence to the contrary, we hang onto whatever nonsense we originally believed in.

There are three things that characterize panentheistic religions that make them valuable to me and I was wondering if you think they are true or not. I also wonder to what extent Gnostic Bishop agrees with them since he does claim to be a Christian and he does use arguments from quantum physics to support his position.

1) There exists transcendent Consciousness. (This is a consequence of the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum physics. Rejecting it assumes one believes in some form of many worlds or superdeterminism.)

2) The universe is good. (Assuming it is not is a dead end.)

3) We have enough freedom to be at least partially responsibility for what we do.

Positions that reject one or more of the above ideas, I reject in turn probably because I consider those three ideas to be infallibly :) true.

[mona amon]

To Mona: I'm not a biblical scholar. I don't know how the Jewish scriptures were "canonized". Clearly, the Christian Orthodox church had little to do with that. The New Testament is different. My understanding is that there were a number of competing "gospels" (biographies of Jesus' life), and the church determined that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be canonized, as well as some letters of Paul, etc. etc. Also, as Whiffling points out, Christianity predates the Bible. So faith in the Bible CANNOT LOGICALLY BE essential to the Faith (unlike faith in the Quran or Book of Mormon).

Oh neither am I. I rely on Google and Wikipedia for most of my info but as long as the real scholars are not chiming in, this is as good as it gets! :D

Yes, the canon (OT and NT) involves a process of selection, but I can't help feeling that what got ultimately selected is the really great stuff, even if perhaps some good things slipped the net, and some not so good got included. Of course you were replying to those who considered the Bible infallible and I'm not one of them, but I do think that besides being a really great collection of texts it is also more than adequate for its purpose as Christian scripture. Indeed, it is perhaps the less than infallible nature of this scripture that makes it so suitable for me. I'm sure I'd have felt stifled with one of those infallible works. But with the Bible I truly feel that God meant us to figure out the truth without being dictated to, and it's really not that difficult, because at the centre and very heart of the scripture are the two basic commandments, unambiguously from God himself (at least to any believer), inscribed by him in stone, and reiterated by Christ - love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. And since the way to love the Lord is to love your neighbor, it's really all just one central commandment, and we only have to see if anything we do is in conflict with this.

[Iain Sparrow]

Oh neither am I. I rely on Google and Wikipedia for most of my info but as long as the real scholars are not chiming in, this is as good as it gets! :D

Yes, the canon (OT and NT) involves a process of selection, but I can't help feeling that what got ultimately selected is the really great stuff, even if perhaps some good things slipped the net, and some not so good got included. Of course you were replying to those who considered the Bible infallible and I'm not one of them, but I do think that besides being a really great collection of texts it is also more than adequate for its purpose as Christian scripture. Indeed, it is perhaps the less than infallible nature of this scripture that makes it so suitable for me. I'm sure I'd have felt stifled with one of those infallible works. But with the Bible I truly feel that God meant us to figure out the truth without being dictated to, and it's really not that difficult, because at the centre and very heart of the scripture are the two basic commandments, unambiguously from God himself (at least to any believer), inscribed by him in stone, and reiterated by Christ - love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. And since the way to love the Lord is to love your neighbor, it's really all just one central commandment, and we only have to see if anything we do is in conflict with this.

Really?
Mona amon, answer me this, besides humans... how many talking animals are there in the Bible?

Genesis 3, which relates the most crucial moral tale of the entire Bible, the story of the fall of the human race: "Now the serpent was more subtil (crafty) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden" (Gen. 3:1)

The Bible kicks off an entire religion with a talking snake!
In literary terms that is what we call a 'fable', it does not qualify as anything beyond storytelling.
Aside from the obvious, the fall of humanity is highly unflattering to the female of our species. It is why from that first tale in the Bible onward, that women are to be silly submissive role players.
You can believe all that is contained in the Bible, or none of it. There is no middle ground.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Again I have to laugh --just a little. Not once did I ever invoke free will in the equation. I do not believe the will. Mankind can NOT make a decision that isn't tainted by self interest or outside causes. Our 'freedom' was destroyed when Adam disobeyed ONE commandment from God. This disobedience represents the entirety of God's relationship with man. My view is this. Yes fallen mankind deserves punishment from a holy and righteous God because being God He created and made us in His image. When man fell from grace thru sin He provided the CURE. Reading your comments from above it appears and if I am mistaken -apologized in advance- but God provided the means to SAVE mankind -totally and leave us blameless. This proves--to me anyway-how magnificent a Saviour He is thru the sacrifice of the Lord Christ who paid for eternity the price of sin--which is always Death--be it physical or spiritual. Adam and Eve had the ability to choose good or evil --without bias. We do not and our fallen natures will always choose evil unless grace intervenes. This will always be a problem until our own departure from this veil of tears. Again--this is all based on a faith in the Bible as I believed revealed there is one studies carefully and with a view to be TAUGHT and NOT a view to have pet theories or ideas explained away to one's personal satisfaction. If I may say so--I have many complaints and whines about God's providence in my life but at the end of the day--God is still good. :)

Mankind would not have needed saving if your God had not unjustly condemned it.

If you think such a prick to be a good God then you show how your religion has corrupted your morality.

Only a satanic mind would adore a God who intentionally, and without a need, would have their own child murdered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Oh btw and aid with a smile--yes it is all man's fault--put me down on THAT side of the equation. Said with respect for the truth. I have only one real talent. I freely confess sinfulness both willful and stupid. I also confess being a believer in a merciful and loving God who Judges correctly with much more patience then I would ever have and I live with very spoiled cats. :)

So then you should be able to do as Jesus did as he says that with you believing in him, you can do what he did and more.

What are you waiting for?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

The main problem there is that unlike Milton, who was a physical presence seen and heard by everyone, God is an invisible presence seen and heard by, well, people who claim to have seen and heard him. Some undoubtedly do believe that; others have been following no muse but their own.

In the end, the Bible was:

* written by men who claim to have been channeling God's words;

* assembled from books chosen and ordered by men, who often disagreed on the validity of certain books--hence the Apocrypha, included in some Bibles but not others, and numerous other excluded books whose authors presumably claimed the same divine inspiration as those whose books were included, but other men didn't think so.

* translated into English and other languages by men who were and are often at cross purposes (witness the arguments about gender neutrality, Old Testament translations that don't take later New Testament references into account, etc.), resulting in dozens of different translations into English alone;

So who decides which men were and are feeling it and which weren't? Well, other men. As a result, when it comes to the Bible, you're putting your faith in men rather than in God.

But-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI

At least that is what men have said.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Calidore: "If God makes the law and is above them himself, then why did he need to create a human aspect to be sacrificed in order to absolve our sins rather than simply absolving them himself?"

God does not "need" anything for himself. The incarnation is for human benefit, to satisfy our needs.
God could certainly absolve all sins without our knowing anything about it - but then we would not know that he had done so.
It is our perception of justice that makes it hard to acknowledge infinite forgiveness without recompense. We need a scapegoat - God says, "Let that scapegoat be Me."
It is our sense of being the plaything of the gods that can best be allayed by God's presence and suffering amongst us.
It is our bewilderment over the problem of evil in a good universe that may not be resolved but is at least made manageable if we believe that the creator of the good universe is willing to experience evil from our side.

Infinite forgiveness!

How can such a concept exist while the concept of hell exists?

If infinite forgiveness is true then hell cannot be. Right?

That would make this link speak a truth. Right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

I also wonder to what extent Gnostic Bishop agrees with them

*Facepalm*

[Gnostic Bishop]

Gnostic Bishop: "If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin."

That is the crux of the matter. On the one hand there is Adam, standing symbolically for the natural tendency to sin. On the other hand there is Christ, showing that sin is not universal in the human species.
The sin nature is not dominant. At every moment, not being bound by sin, each human has the option of choosing the good or the evil.

Wrong.

We can never choose to not sin as can be shown by scriptures and reality which means that we are doing and being exactly what God created us to be and for him top punish or condemn us for being as he created us to be would be quite immoral.

Do you agree?

To say that Jesus, a man/God, is that same as a man is quite the lie so you might want to stop lying to us.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Interesting discussion.


As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I thank you; and testify of my utmost and unequivocal faith in Jesus, who is the Christ and Heavenly Father's only begotten son, the head and corner stone of my faith as well.

Gold plates: an article on eye witness accounts - https://www.lds.org/new-era/2007/07/what-did-the-golden-plates-look-like?lang=eng .

Angels have appeared throughout scripture. I find it hard to believe the word of God to man died with Jesus and His Apostles in the early years A.D.; and am grateful for His restored gospel and word through latter-day Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

For those who haven't read the Book of Mormon I invite you to do so. For even the casual reader the Book of Mormon is an uplifting book of the human condition: faith (or no), war, struggles, etc... 600+ years of scripture in the Book of Mormon predates the New Testament. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ as the subtitle of the Book of Mormon so states.

Respectfully,
tailor STATELY

Mormonism began like all religions do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jF1EG8o-Q

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

See, this is when some of us atheists begin to get annoyed at the condescending tone Christians have concerning belief and faith... when you write, "With respect to those that disagree that the Bible is word of God there is very little one can say to change a mind other then to remind them they can ignore it at their peril if they choose to give it the authority of Grimm's Fairy Tales or perhaps wonder at the God that can write a book that can be studied and taught to ANYONE at any level of intelligence or emotional maturity"; we haven't "ignored" the Bible, we've studied it, wanted to believe it, but in the end cannot because there is nothing there that seems remotely God-like. Indeed, in every regard the Bible portrays creation, good and evil, events, and every aspect of existence in archaic terms.

I'll ask you as I do any Christian, to give me one paragraph or just one line from the Bible that could only have come from God.

"It is I who am God; there is none apart from me."

When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, "god of the blind."

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Not to enter into the fray, but to clarify the truth of this thread topic as you might find it interesting:

The phrase, "Golden Rule", doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible (not that it matters), nor does "His Best Rule"…the latter being in error because there is no "God's best rule"…all of God's rules are perfect, ALL are "best". The "golden rule" is referring to Matthew 7:12 ("So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.") God follows that rule…but keep in mind that God is our heavenly Father, our parent so to speak, and we are His children, so He will use discipline out of love, sometimes tough-love, but always love.

Interesting to note is that many religions have the same rule written after the Bible's (it first appeared in the Bible in 1450BC in OT book of Leviticus) but the other religions, about 1,000 years after, wrote the rule using negative language (not saying that's wrong…just an observation) and relying on passivity rather than using positive language as in the Bible:

• Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects15:23)
• Hindusim: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata5:1517)
• Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udanavarga5:18)

These religions are saying "do not", and to keep your behavior in check while the Bible says to "do", and look for ways to show love proactively.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12)

God's command of Christian ethics, to Love, is what separates His rule from the ethics of all other religions. In fact, God goes even further to say, "Love your enemy", which is unheard of in other religions.

“If someone says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20). This rule is unique to Christianity.

Is it moral for a God to see us as his children, as you indicate he would, yet be a deadbeat dad who never shows up?

As above so below.

Would you be a deadbeat dad if you had God's power?

Not likely if you are a good parent.

So why is your God being a deadbeat dad?

As to loving ones enemy.

Would you have told the Jews lined up for the ovens to love the ones who were going to burn them alive?

If you would then you are not much of a moral person.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

It is possible we don't disagree as much as I thought.

The problem with an explicit claim that a pope or a text or a Tarot deck is infallible is that it is a weak argument for a belief system. Most of us today live in liberal democracies which means that these kinds of arguments are easy to ignore. Today we are more subtle. We don't say our beliefs are infallible anymore. We say they are "scientific" or "rational" or "open-minded". But we still act as if they were infallible, that is, given evidence to the contrary, we hang onto whatever nonsense we originally believed in.

There are three things that characterize panentheistic religions that make them valuable to me and I was wondering if you think they are true or not. I also wonder to what extent Gnostic Bishop agrees with them since he does claim to be a Christian and he does use arguments from quantum physics to support his position.

1) There exists transcendent Consciousness. (This is a consequence of the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum physics. Rejecting it assumes one believes in some form of many worlds or superdeterminism.)

2) The universe is good. (Assuming it is not is a dead end.)

3) We have enough freedom to be at least partially responsibility for what we do.

Positions that reject one or more of the above ideas, I reject in turn probably because I consider those three ideas to be infallibly :) true.

I have never used quantum physics to explain anything.

I do believe in the evolving perfection of what we have around us in reality. We demonstrably can say we live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world.

I would say that we have enough freedom to be fully responsible for everything we adults do and that yes, we are partially guided by all around us.

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

To Yes No: I have no opinion on transcendent consciousness, nor do I even know what it means. I don't know what "the universe is good" means, either. I do think we're responsible for our actions, whether or not we live in a pre-determined universe. I think predetermination is irrelevant to responsibility: the murderer who was predetermined to commit murder is still guilty of the crime.

To Mona: I basically agree with you. Although I am not a Christian, I think that God "created" me, in the sense that the Christian ethos is largely responsible for my ethos.

[Gnostic Bishop]

To Yes No: I have no opinion on transcendent consciousness, nor do I even know what it means. I don't know what "the universe is good" means, either. I do think we're responsible for our actions, whether or not we live in a pre-determined universe. I think predetermination is irrelevant to responsibility: the murderer who was predetermined to commit murder is still guilty of the crime.

To Mona: I basically agree with you. Although I am not a Christian, I think that God "created" me, in the sense that the Christian ethos is largely responsible for my ethos.

Speaking of Jesus and his so called sacrifice.

Are you saying that you hold the same morality as Christians when it comes to embracing human sacrifice and the notion that it is somehow good justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

"Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?" -- Hamlet