Born Again – Again

[Soulman]

After twenty-two years as a card-carrying fundamentalist I’m throwing in the towel.

Reasons:

1) The “bold” print says that in order to be “saved,” all we have to do is “believe in Jesus.”

2) The “fine” print says we have to believe in the “inerrancy” and “infallibility” of a book of “history” based on the plagiarized myths of Persia, Egypt, and others. We are asked to believe that the Bible is unique. It’s not.

3) We are asked to believe that the Church “fathers” of the first three centuries of the Christian Church were just as divinely inspired as the Old Testament prophets in discerning which “gospels” and religious tracts in circulation at the time were “authentic” and which were “of men.”

4) We are asked to believe that the men developing Church doctrine and “interpreting” the Bible were, and are, as divinely inspired as the Book itself. In other words, since everything we know about Jesus is found only in the Bible, believing in Jesus is only possible if you first believe in the accuracy and authority of the Book. Anyone who can read can discover for themselves that the “Jesus Myth” was cobbled together from various religious traditions preceding Jesus (in the case of Zoroasterism) by two thousand years, and in particular by the Roman cult of Mithraism, which was Christianity’s main “competition” until the fourth century. The Roman god Mithra (who Constantine continued to worship after his “conversion”) was born of a virgin, died, resurrected after three days in a cave, ascended into heaven with a promise to return, was born on Dec 25th, and had twelve disciples. Followers of Mithra shared a communion meal of bread and wine. The Vatican, in fact, is built on the site of a major Mithraic temple.

5) We are asked to believe in the “glorious family history” of the Church, including the banning and excommunicating of “heretics” and “heretical” gospels, the burning of the “pagan” library in Alexandria, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the “witch” trials (naturally, Inquisitors becoming sexually aroused when torturing women blamed the women). After two thousand years of fighting among themselves (and with everyone else), members of this glorious family won’t even sit down and eat a communion meal together. If the Church is a family, it’s a dysfunctional family. The notion that Christianity ended human sacrifice fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children “sacrificed” by the Church for the glory of Jehovah-Jesus.

6) The “fine print” also asks us to disbelieve our senses, science, and the historical record. It took the Church three hundred years to admit Galileo was right. The Church of the 21st century insists on a “young earth,” in defiance of our senses, and insists on a “historical” Jesus even though there is not a single extra-biblical source of biographical information independently verifying his existence.

Given its track-record of intolerance, suppression, and genocide, if Christianity didn’t exist, the “Devil” would have invented it.

Soulman

[Sozo]

sayonara... :wave:

[PureX]

The good news is that in throwing away all this religious oppression and fear-mongering, you'll be able to "see" God so much more clearly. Just look for the love and kindness and joy in life, and there will be God, fully expressed.

Welcome home.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Soulman

After twenty-two years as a card-carrying fundamentalist I’m throwing in the towel. I'm glad to hear this. Now, simply be a believer in Christ.

Reasons:

1) The “bold” print says that in order to be “saved,” all we have to do is “believe in Jesus.”

Jesus did say that belief in Him would allow you to have eternal life....

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

[Soulman]

Man lost his "free will" the moment God said, "You shall not." Adam exercised his (not so) "free" will and, according to the biggest brains of Christianity, the human race has been paying for that freedom ever since.

Man, for no fault of his own, is born with one leg shorter than the other -- and condemned to hell for walking with a limp!

[Granite]

Soulman, considering your limited time at TOL, fair warning: most here won't react as PureX did (and considering he's hardly a card-carrying fundy, no surprise there).

Not that I think this really matters to you, but the dung and vitriol will eventually be thrown. Now: if that's all that happens, and if no one really takes to task the reasons you've outlined, I think the silence will speak for itself. Really, these are all issues Christians by and large either a) don't think about b) aren't aware of c) choose not to dwell on or d) have suppressed for centuries. Why is that, exactly?

[Mateo]

I'll bet that was better than a good dump...






... just don't forget the prodigal.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Soulman

After twenty-two years as a card-carrying fundamentalist I’m throwing in the towel.

Reasons:

1) The “bold” print says that in order to be “saved,” all we have to do is “believe in Jesus.”

2) The “fine” print says we have to believe in the “inerrancy” and “infallibility” of a book of “history” based on the plagiarized myths of Persia, Egypt, and others. We are asked to believe that the Bible is unique. It’s not.

3) We are asked to believe that the Church “fathers” of the first three centuries of the Christian Church were just as divinely inspired as the Old Testament prophets in discerning which “gospels” and religious tracts in circulation at the time were “authentic” and which were “of men.”

4) We are asked to believe that the men developing Church doctrine and “interpreting” the Bible were, and are, as divinely inspired as the Book itself. In other words, since everything we know about Jesus is found only in the Bible, believing in Jesus is only possible if you first believe in the accuracy and authority of the Book. Anyone who can read can discover for themselves that the “Jesus Myth” was cobbled together from various religious traditions preceding Jesus (in the case of Zoroasterism) by two thousand years, and in particular by the Roman cult of Mithraism, which was Christianity’s main “competition” until the fourth century. The Roman god Mithra (who Constantine continued to worship after his “conversion”) was born of a virgin, died, resurrected after three days in a cave, ascended into heaven with a promise to return, was born on Dec 25th, and had twelve disciples. Followers of Mithra shared a communion meal of bread and wine. The Vatican, in fact, is built on the site of a major Mithraic temple.

5) We are asked to believe in the “glorious family history” of the Church, including the banning and excommunicating of “heretics” and “heretical” gospels, the burning of the “pagan” library in Alexandria, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the “witch” trials (naturally, Inquisitors becoming sexually aroused when torturing women blamed the women). After two thousand years of fighting among themselves (and with everyone else), members of this glorious family won’t even sit down and eat a communion meal together. If the Church is a family, it’s a dysfunctional family. The notion that Christianity ended human sacrifice fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children “sacrificed” by the Church for the glory of Jehovah-Jesus.

6) The “fine print” also asks us to disbelieve our senses, science, and the historical record. It took the Church three hundred years to admit Galileo was right. The Church of the 21st century insists on a “young earth,” in defiance of our senses, and insists on a “historical” Jesus even though there is not a single extra-biblical source of biographical information independently verifying his existence.

Given its track-record of intolerance, suppression, and genocide, if Christianity didn’t exist, the “Devil” would have invented it.

Soulman

Very good points one and all.

Therefore, you should be a Marian. No believing in a receding and blurry History. Mary is current Religious Revelation. The Miracles of the Catholic Church are recent and verifiable.

The other Higher Religions of the World, who approach Christ as a Spiritual Reality, also receive the Fruits of the Vine of Christ and manifest Saints. But Mary has been the Most Active Revelation in all corners of the World.

It would be worth becoming a Catholic just to take the Holy Sacrament, and then do what I do -- ignore the fat, stupid and venal Bishops and become Third Order in one of the Marian Societies.

[Chileice]

Soulman,
I'd like to take some time to chat about some of your points. You may be throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Let me ask you a few questions and make a few comments.

Originally posted by Soulman

After twenty-two years as a card-carrying fundamentalist I’m throwing in the towel.
How old are you? Are you 22 or have you been in a fundamentalist church that long, or both? How long would you have claimed to have had a relationship with Christ?

Originally posted by Soulman
Reasons:

1) The “bold” print says that in order to be “saved,” all we have to do is “believe in Jesus.”
I think that many evangelical churches are screwed up. They proclaim salvation by grace (which they should) but then say you better work like all get out to keep that salvation. That is unbiblical and manipulation. It cheapens the sacrifice of Christ and makes it null and void.

Originally posted by Soulman
2) The “fine” print says we have to believe in the “inerrancy” and “infallibility” of a book of “history” based on the plagiarized myths of Persia, Egypt, and others. We are asked to believe that the Bible is unique. It’s not.
I would still say the Bible is unique. While not for a moment denying the influences it has from other cultures and religions, it is quite different in tone and unity across a number of centuries, in a way that does differ greatly from other writings you mention. Those who oppose the Bible always pull qutes from here or there to "prove" the Bible incredible or deficient. But if you read those entire passages in context, you may be surprized how much they vary in content, tone and meaning from the Bible.

I don't believe the Bible is a book of science. I don't think it was given to us a geology text or as a manual in astrophysics, but rather as a compendium of God making himself known to mankind in tangible ways. Much of it is poetic, very beautiful poetry as a matter of fact. There are parables and proverbs and songs and prayers and accounts of the interchange between God and man and I believe it is God's word to us.

Originally posted by Soulman
3) We are asked to believe that the Church “fathers” of the first three centuries of the Christian Church were just as divinely inspired as the Old Testament prophets in discerning which “gospels” and religious tracts in circulation at the time were “authentic” and which were “of men.”

I think very few Christians believe they were any more inspired than you or me. They were closer to the time of the original writers and perhaps had a better knowledge of who wrote what. But I think more than anything, they used their judgement to determine which books "rang true" if you will.

I have no doubt that it was not some pogrom against Ethiopians that kept the gospel of Thomas out for example. Maybe it was unknown to them. Maybe we have been duped to believe it is as old as the other Gospels. Maybe common sense left it out. It is a highly disjoint work that just repeats phrases almost totally without context. Maybe they felt such a work was confusing and not inspired by God.

We often feel so "modern" and so "know it all". Man science changes all the time. In my lifetime the number of "facts" that have changed would boggle your mind. Wow, carbon-14 dating was the certain proof of how old everything in the universe was. Many people left the church over carbon-14. But now it is the scientists, not average Joe Christians who question its value. How many medicines were supposed to be "wonder-drugs" that turned out to cause birth defects. When I was young cocaine was the drug of the rich because it had no bad side effects. Can you believe that?! It's true.

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape by Joe Blow's theory of the history of the Bible or their being inside the minds of the writers. In the days of internet, anyone can say anything about any subject and be quoted as some kind of expert without ever checking the info. For example weapons of mass destruction from a university term paper.

What I am saying is you weren't there. I think we have to assume the average third century Christian was not some 21st century conspiracy theorist trying to find ways to doctor Christianity. I guess I afford them at least the same power of reasoning and faith that I have.

Originally posted by Soulman
4) We are asked to believe that the men developing Church doctrine and “interpreting” the Bible were, and are, as divinely inspired as the Book itself. In other words, since everything we know about Jesus is found only in the Bible, believing in Jesus is only possible if you first believe in the accuracy and authority of the Book. Anyone who can read can discover for themselves that the “Jesus Myth” was cobbled together from various religious traditions preceding Jesus (in the case of Zoroasterism) by two thousand years, and in particular by the Roman cult of Mithraism, which was Christianity’s main “competition” until the fourth century. The Roman god Mithra (who Constantine continued to worship after his “conversion”) was born of a virgin, died, resurrected after three days in a cave, ascended into heaven with a promise to return, was born on Dec 25th, and had twelve disciples. Followers of Mithra shared a communion meal of bread and wine. The Vatican, in fact, is built on the site of a major Mithraic temple.

5) We are asked to believe in the “glorious family history” of the Church, including the banning and excommunicating of “heretics” and “heretical” gospels, the burning of the “pagan” library in Alexandria, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the “witch” trials (naturally, Inquisitors becoming sexually aroused when torturing women blamed the women). After two thousand years of fighting among themselves (and with everyone else), members of this glorious family won’t even sit down and eat a communion meal together. If the Church is a family, it’s a dysfunctional family. The notion that Christianity ended human sacrifice fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children “sacrificed” by the Church for the glory of Jehovah-Jesus.

I suggest you take the time to read all of the Avesta and all of the mithraic literature (which has of itself a much more dubious history than that of the Bible). There are even Zoroastrians that can't agree in which century Zarathushtra lived. I'm not saying there weren't effects on Israel and thus on the Bible; there must have been. However, you sound like a college or seminary student who has been challenged for the first time with the fact that his faith doesn't live in an hermetic bubble and you are so distraught you are ready to become and apostate. Its like some over-protected kid who gets to college and goes wild doing everything he was told would kill him. Give yourself the time to truly examine these things in depth and think you will become a stronger Christian.

Originally posted by Soulman
6) The “fine print” also asks us to disbelieve our senses, science, and the historical record. It took the Church three hundred years to admit Galileo was right. The Church of the 21st century insists on a “young earth,” in defiance of our senses, and insists on a “historical” Jesus even though there is not a single extra-biblical source of biographical information independently verifying his existence.

Given its track-record of intolerance, suppression, and genocide, if Christianity didn’t exist, the “Devil” would have invented it.

Soulman

I don't think a Christian should check his/her brain at the door. God created us with that brain so we ought to be entitled to use it. But don't get cocky or haughty. That brain also has limits. Any honest scientist, Christian, agnostic or atheist must admit they will never know it all. There are things that are too high for me to attain to. Who knows how old the earth is? NO ONE. NO ONE was there... except God (if you believe in him). Who CARES? What diff does it make if the earth is 7000 years old or 7,000,000,000 years old. It makes not one iota of difference to my life, how I live it, whom I love, the decisions I make, etc. The age of the earth is a straw man, a white elephant and a red herring all wrapped in the same cheap newsprint.

I think you are pretty hard on Christianity with your last statement. Although I do believe in a personal evil being that we call Satan or the Devil or whatever his name is, I believe his existence is proved by the few who in the name of a cause, a race, a religion or whatever wreek havoc on others. But you painting all of Christendom with that dark brush is like blaming all the Basques for everything ETA has ever done or blaming the Irish for every atrosity committed by the IRA. It is irresponsible and reprehensible. A million times more good has been done by Christians than the evil perpetrated by a few.

Don't throw Jesus out because you have discoved chinks in the fundy armour. Take your time to reflect and look anew. Jesus is tough. He can take your scrutiny and still love you for it. God bless you, Soulman.

[Soulman]

Freak, before you can believe in Jesus, you have to believe in the Bible. No Bible, no Jesus. Christians worship a book. Jesus is an afterthought.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Very good points one and all.

Therefore, you should be a Marian. No believing in a receding and blurry History. Mary is current Religious Revelation. The Miracles of the Catholic Church are recent and verifiable.

The other Higher Religions of the World, who approach Christ as a Spiritual Reality, also receive the Fruits of the Vine of Christ and manifest Saints. But Mary has been the Most Active Revelation in all corners of the World.

It would be worth becoming a Catholic just to take the Holy Sacrament, and then do what I do -- ignore the fat, stupid and venal Bishops and become Third Order in one of the Marian Societies.

Considering Soulman seems to have a serious beef with the church as an organization, a church that burns its enemies alive doesn't seem to be the ticket for him...

[smaller]

Greetings Soulman

You bring up a good point with Adam.

God said YOU MAY EAT FREELY "except for."

Adam is represented in The Word (*that I adore) as a SON OF GOD.

To a SON OF GOD there is no such thing as an eat FREELY "EXCEPT FOR"

So "humankind" has been attached to the "except for" our entire history...and this too has DIVINE PURPOSE...

God threw out a curve ball in the first inning...and we HIT on it.

When our mutual experiences with these things are completed we will certainly have had our experiences with the EXCEPT FOR portions eh????

As to your denigrations of The Word, it is a common affliction of those who get their fill of other peoples regurgitation of THE WORD.

The Word itself however is QUITE valuable and not even close to what "others" have obviously fed you from the anti-word side.

enjoy!

smaller

p.s. I believe ALL people are saved NO MATTER WHAT. Even if they are "CAUGHT" in the proverbial "act."

[Soulman]

Chileice, thanks for engaging.

I’m fifty. “Accepted” Christ when I was 27, Oct., 1981. The Bible is not unique because there is nothing unique in the Bible. The creation account, the Great Flood, Jonah and the whale, savior-god death and resurrection, there is not a single religious theme that is unique either to the Old Testament or the New. Yet, Christianity, a faith built on the graves and religious traditions of its vanquished enemies, demands exclusive obedience upon threat of eternal punishment.

The Bible is not “void” of spiritual truth, but that can be said of any religious tradition I can think of, which means that the Bible is hardly unique. Without the Bible, there is no Jesus. Faith in the Bible comes first, faith in Jesus follows. If there is some reason to believe that the Bible is “flawed” or not “true” in a historical sense, then faith in “Jesus” as a historical figure is wishful thinking. The bottom line of the Christian faith, tied as it is to the Book, is the Christian’s faith in the men who compiled the Book, not in the Jesus portrayed in the Book.

Men decided which books to include and which books to exclude not just based on “how close” the authors were to Jesus and the disciples in time, but how close the authors were to the “accepted wisdom” and favored doctrines of the moment.

Although I do believe in a personal evil being that we call Satan or the Devil or whatever his name is, I believe his existence is proved by the few who in the name of a cause, a race, a religion or whatever wreak havoc on others.

You have just described the history of the Christian Church, whom you now feel compelled to make excuses for. I would like to remind you that you do not have to be a “Christian” to “do good.” Evil done in the name of good is the ultimate evil. You don’t need the Devil to blame for the evil men do all by themselves in the name of the Christian God.

You’re well-intended, and I appreciate what you’ve said and the time you took to engage, but you “disbelieve” too much.

Soulman

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by granite1010

Considering Soulman seems to have a serious beef with the church as an organization, a church that burns its enemies alive doesn't seem to be the ticket for him...

Duh! Isn't your Protestant Church busy killing Iraqis to save them for Radical Islam?

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Soulman

Freak, before you can believe in Jesus, you have to believe in the Bible. No Bible, no Jesus. Christians worship a book. Jesus is an afterthought.

No! Not if you believe in the Christ of the Saints. You can take a full share of Divine Revelation without going back a minute before the 12th Century.

[Soulman]

I never gave Adam my permission to "represent" me. If, as a lower-case "god," Adam did not have the "free will" to eat or do whatever he pleased, then he never had a "free will" to begin with. In my alleged "ruined" condition as the inheritor of Adam's "sin" (that is, the sin of exercising free will), I am even less "free" than Adam. If I am not "able" ("free") to choose good over evil (or to choose my own god), then I am a slave, a slave convicted for the "thought crime" of rejecting the god of the Bible, and for the "sin" of being born a slave.

Soulman

[Soulman]

Here’s a thought: Maybe Christians should limit themselves to killing each other. Oh, yeah. Already have. Burning Christian “heretics” and World Wars I and II. Never mind.

[Soulman]

Leo said,

No! Not if you believe in the Christ of the Saints.

Without the Bible, there IS no "Christ of the Saints." Get it?

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Soulman

Leo said,



Without the Bible, there IS no "Christ of the Saints." Get it?

Your over 50, you say. So don't be childish. You can't make the reality of the Saints disappear because they are inconvenient to your peevish arguments. You adopted Atheism because you are sick of Protestantism but are disconcerted when you look to the side and see the Holy Spirit in the Saints. But denying their Reality doesn't make them dissolve away into oblivian.

The Saints prove there is a Supernatural and Providential God. The Truth they say they have Followed to Its Source would be as Valid as Any, don't you think? They demonstrate Miracles and explain where they come from. That is True Religion. That is Catholicism. It is the Religion you never experienced because your head was up the Bible all those years. Remember what you used to accuse the Catholics of -- that they did not read their Bibles. Well, now, you should see that as a virtue.

You can't have it both ways. When you loved the Bible you hated Catholics. Now that you hate the Bible, why is it you still hate Catholics?

The Hindus say that nobody changes in an instant. They use the Metaphor of a Caterpillar walking from one leaf to another. For awhile the Caterpillar isn't entirely off of one leaf or entirely on the other. He is on both. You have given up your Protestant Faith but not yet your Protestant Hate.

[Ya'nar#1]

Christians don't worship a book, Soulman. We worship the God of the book. That's it. Perhaps your disillusionment is with a lack of spiritual fulfillment; a hunger for God that you have not yet experienced. If this is the case, do not give up on the book yet--because THIS is the only place you will find God. Here, and with prayer to God for the Holy Spirit's discernment.

It will come; just keep hanging in there and BE PATIENT. I waited nearly 30 years before God revealed himself to me!

God Bless,

--Ya'nar

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Soulman

After twenty-two years as a card-carrying fundamentalist I’m throwing in the towel.

Reasons:

1) The “bold” print says that in order to be “saved,” all we have to do is “believe in Jesus.”

2) The “fine” print says we have to believe in the “inerrancy” and “infallibility” of a book of “history” based on the plagiarized myths of Persia, Egypt, and others. We are asked to believe that the Bible is unique. It’s not.

3) We are asked to believe that the Church “fathers” of the first three centuries of the Christian Church were just as divinely inspired as the Old Testament prophets in discerning which “gospels” and religious tracts in circulation at the time were “authentic” and which were “of men.”

4) We are asked to believe that the men developing Church doctrine and “interpreting” the Bible were, and are, as divinely inspired as the Book itself. In other words, since everything we know about Jesus is found only in the Bible, believing in Jesus is only possible if you first believe in the accuracy and authority of the Book. Anyone who can read can discover for themselves that the “Jesus Myth” was cobbled together from various religious traditions preceding Jesus (in the case of Zoroasterism) by two thousand years, and in particular by the Roman cult of Mithraism, which was Christianity’s main “competition” until the fourth century. The Roman god Mithra (who Constantine continued to worship after his “conversion”) was born of a virgin, died, resurrected after three days in a cave, ascended into heaven with a promise to return, was born on Dec 25th, and had twelve disciples. Followers of Mithra shared a communion meal of bread and wine. The Vatican, in fact, is built on the site of a major Mithraic temple.

5) We are asked to believe in the “glorious family history” of the Church, including the banning and excommunicating of “heretics” and “heretical” gospels, the burning of the “pagan” library in Alexandria, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the “witch” trials (naturally, Inquisitors becoming sexually aroused when torturing women blamed the women). After two thousand years of fighting among themselves (and with everyone else), members of this glorious family won’t even sit down and eat a communion meal together. If the Church is a family, it’s a dysfunctional family. The notion that Christianity ended human sacrifice fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children “sacrificed” by the Church for the glory of Jehovah-Jesus.

6) The “fine print” also asks us to disbelieve our senses, science, and the historical record. It took the Church three hundred years to admit Galileo was right. The Church of the 21st century insists on a “young earth,” in defiance of our senses, and insists on a “historical” Jesus even though there is not a single extra-biblical source of biographical information independently verifying his existence.

Given its track-record of intolerance, suppression, and genocide, if Christianity didn’t exist, the “Devil” would have invented it.

Soulman

Ouch, man, i feel sorry for you.

Too bad that fundy x-tianity ended your spiritual journey within the borders of christianity. Maybe i would be in the same state now, if i wouldnt got 4 year university studies on Theology.

:nono:

P.S. Christianity still can be "done" using right teachings, and commitment to the teachings of the Master w/o need of intolerance, supression, or genocide as by-product.

[Soulman]

So, Leo, there would be Catholicism [i]without[i/] the Bible? Better check with the Pope on that one.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Soulman

So, Leo, there would be Catholicism without the Bible?

Why not, there is now!

[Granite]

Originally posted by Ya'nar#1

Christians don't worship a book, Soulman. We worship the God of the book. That's it. Perhaps your disillusionment is with a lack of spiritual fulfillment; a hunger for God that you have not yet experienced. If this is the case, do not give up on the book yet--because THIS is the only place you will find God. Here, and with prayer to God for the Holy Spirit's discernment.

It will come; just keep hanging in there and BE PATIENT. I waited nearly 30 years before God revealed himself to me!

God Bless,

--Ya'nar

But the God we worship is defined by the church's interpretation and selection of the book, isn't it?

[Soulman]

Ya, you worship a God revealed by and contained in a Book. The "source" of your God is the Book. Without the Book, by your own reckoning, you would know nothing about God. No Book, no God. The distinction you're making between God and the Book is a rationalization for believing the Book, because you cannot believe in God if you don't believe in the Book.

The order of salvation, if you will, is, first the Book, then God. If you don't worship the Book, spit on it. If you don't worship the Book, curse the Book, or throw it away. You can't and won't because the Book has "become" God.

The Word was made flesh, but not until God became the Word. The Word is so entirely identified with God, that for all practical purposes the Book has become God.

[Soulman]

Sozo, good one.

[Soulman]

Cyrus said,

Ouch, man, i feel sorry for you.

Too bad that fundy x-tianity ended your spiritual journey within the borders of christianity. Maybe i would be in the same state now, if i wouldnt got 4 year university studies on Theology.

P.S. Christianity still can be "done" using right teachings, and commitment to the teachings of the Master w/o need of intolerance, supression, or genocide as by-product.

Don’t “ouch” me, I never felt better. Born again – again. Christianity has always been, and only is, “fundamentalist.” What is “fundy” about believing in the literal life, death and resurrection of Jesus? If you don’t believe at least that much, you have no business calling yourself a Christian. At least fundamentalists are honest about what they believe.

Liberals want the icing, but not the cake. I’ve got more respect for a hardcore fundamentalist than I do for a wishy-washy liberal. Sorry to hear you wasted your money (and four years) on mythological studies.

And show me where Christianity has ever followed the “right teachings” you’re talking about. Even Jesus said, “By their fruit you will know them.” Does Christianity need another two thousand years of “intolerance, suppression, and genocide” before it gets it “right”?

Soulman

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Soulman

Cyrus said,



Don’t “ouch” me, I never felt better. Born again – again. Christianity has always been, and only is, “fundamentalist.” What is “fundy” about believing in the literal life, death and resurrection of Jesus? If you don’t believe at least that much, you have no business calling yourself a Christian. At least fundamentalists are honest about what they believe.

Liberals want the icing, but not the cake. I’ve got more respect for a hardcore fundamentalist than I do for a wishy-washy liberal. Sorry to hear you wasted your money (and four years) on mythological studies.

And show me where Christianity has ever followed the “right teachings” you’re talking about. Even Jesus said, “By their fruit you will know them.” Does Christianity need another two thousand years of “intolerance, suppression, and genocide” before it gets it “right”?

Soulman

I see that you havent studied theology. Let me say that there are very liberal theologians who also believe that Jesus lived and died for us.

You have never seen those Christians who actually act more moral in some aspects than atheists? 1. Then your life experience is too narrowed. 2. You have never bothered to read sociological studies on that matter.

And if you think that my theological studies were as lame as you describe them, then believe it and follow your darkness and blindness even harder. You need time to get rid of your:
1. anger
2. narrow-mindness (first narrowed against things that went against christianity, now narrowed against christianity)
3. your ignorance what scientifical theology actually is.
4. your brainwashed idea that fundy christianity is the real christianity.

Educate yourself, and then we can talk on. Good bye until then.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Soulman

Freak, before you can believe in Jesus, you have to believe in the Bible. No Bible, no Jesus. Christians worship a book. Jesus is an afterthought.

Jesus existed prior to the Written Word. He is the truth and has revealed Himself through a variety of ways besides His Word. Were you aware of this? He is quite able to reveal His love to you outside His Word, and He does. Imagine that.

[Granite]

Why is it that anyone who questions conventional Christianity is patronized and assumed to be ignorant and mis-informed? Soulman actually seems to have a head on his shoulders.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by granite1010

Why is it that anyone who questions conventional Christianity is patronized and assumed to be ignorant and mis-informed? Soulman actually seems to have a head on his shoulders.

That tells us alot about where your head is.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Soulman
... What is “fundy” about believing in the literal life, death and resurrection of Jesus? If you don’t believe at least that much, you have no business calling yourself a Christian. At least fundamentalists are honest about what they believe.

Time out Soulman. I'm not following you on this key point.
Do you believe "in the literal life, death and resurrection of Jesus?"

I hope you do, but these tenets do not follow if you reject the veracity of the Bible.

Looking forward to your clarification.

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by Soulman

Ya, you worship a God revealed by and contained in a Book. The "source" of your God is the Book. Without the Book, by your own reckoning, you would know nothing about God. No Book, no God. The distinction you're making between God and the Book is a rationalization for believing the Book, because you cannot believe in God if you don't believe in the Book.

That is either a mis-understanding, or a mis-representation on your part there Soulman. We can see and learn about God all around us, His presence, His existence is there for us to see and know. It is called general revelation or natural theology. We can see from nature that He is intelligent, wise, good, the Creator of all things, just among other things.

However, if you want to know more specifically about Him, then, yes, you do have to go to His Word. Not the Word that any church created, rather the Word that God created and preserved, and we merely discovered. But that "book" is not our only source of information or clues to or about God. It is just the only detailed, intimate source of information that we have.

[Chileice]

Soulman,
Just a gentle reminder... Jesus preceded the Bible. There were thousands of Christians before the Bible was ever decided on. Paul and Peter were Christians before the New Testament was written. Millions of illiterate people have trusted Christ without being able to read a word of the Bible. The New Testament wouldn't have been written if the man had never lived. Nor would many writiings that were left out of the canon. People wrote and talked about Jesus because He was worth discussing. My faith isn't based on the Bible it is based on Jesus of Nazareth.

[Granite]

"My faith isn't based on the Bible it is based on Jesus of Nazareth."

It is based, though--as is mine--on what the Bible TELLS US about Jesus of Nazareth, and the Bible as we have it today was cobbled together, massively edited, and many books outright destroyed--not just rejected as non-canonical; destroyed--by the councils that settled on 66 books.

The Bible didn't just show up; it is the product of tinkering and the product of men. There's another thread at TOL that asks "Is the Bible reliable?" I'd have to say that it's as reliable as the men who handled it.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by granite1010

The Bible didn't just show up; it is the product of tinkering and the product of men. There's another thread at TOL that asks "Is the Bible reliable?" I'd have to say that it's as reliable as the men who handled it.

You have a very small god.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Sozo

You have a very small god.

Actually we all have the same one, Sozo, and I think you'd agree with me on that.

What in that last post isn't true? The Bible as we have it today was decided on by various church councils. Numerous potential books were rejected for a variety of reasons (they weren't just "heretical," so don't throw that argument at me). There were massive debates about canonicity even during the Reformation; Luther thought the book of Revelation and numerous epistles should be thrown out of the Bible because he was convinced they were uninspired.

Bottomline, Christians must believe the Bible is reliable as the men who handled it--otherwise, the reliability of the councils, church fathers, and others who have had a direct influence on the modern Bible's creation is called into question. I don't see what the problem is here. Either the translators, scribes, councils, and church fathers are to be relied on, or they are not. And that discussion is had even today.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Chileice

Soulman,
Just a gentle reminder... Jesus preceded the Bible. There were thousands of Christians before the Bible was ever decided on. Paul and Peter were Christians before the New Testament was written. Millions of illiterate people have trusted Christ without being able to read a word of the Bible. The New Testament wouldn't have been written if the man had never lived. Nor would many writiings that were left out of the canon. People wrote and talked about Jesus because He was worth discussing. My faith isn't based on the Bible it is based on Jesus of Nazareth.
Chileice ,
This would seem to contradict my contention. Hmmm. I thought you were a Biblicist. My bad.

Yes folks believed in Jesus before the NT was compiled, but they also had benefit of eyewitness testimony. Any testimony we have comes via the written word.

2nd Timothy 3:14-16

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your arguments would seem to undermine the scriptures regarding their authority.

What specifics do you know of Jesus that are not presented in the scriptures?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by granite1010

Actually we all have the same one, Sozo, and I think you'd agree with me on that.

What in that last post isn't true? The Bible as we have it today was decided on by various church councils. Numerous potential books were rejected for a variety of reasons (they weren't just "heretical," so don't throw that argument at me). There were massive debates about canonicity even during the Reformation; Luther thought the book of Revelation and numerous epistles should be thrown out of the Bible because he was convinced they were uninspired.

Bottomline, Christians must believe the Bible is reliable as the men who handled it--otherwise, the reliability of the councils, church fathers, and others who have had a direct influence on the modern Bible's creation is called into question. I don't see what the problem is here. Either the translators, scribes, councils, and church fathers are to be relied on, or they are not. And that discussion is had even today.

Well, we know that the OT is holy, which makes it fully reliable in every aspect. It is as if God wrote it with His own hand. Beyond that, I believe that we have exactly what God wants us to have in the New, not because of men, but because God chose it to be as such. Men may have been involved, but God is the author.

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by granite1010
Either the translators, scribes, councils, and church fathers are to be relied on, or they are not. And that discussion is had even today.

I don't rely on them, I rely on the God who moved and used them. I've been working on Bibliology lately,and this is my own personal statement of what I believe about the Bible.

All Scripture is God's breathed-out revelation of truth, by the Holy Spirit, and through human agency, which produced origanl manuscripts that are innerant, infallable, and sufficient to provide man with all that is nescasary for life and Godliness.

A few Scriptures pertinent as internal evidences: 2 Tim 3:15-16, 1 Peter 1:18-21, Math 5:17-18, Matt 22:43, 1 Cor 2:13 ... there are others as well, but I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't have time to get into all of the external arguments for the Bible's reliability, but suffice it to say that when God promised to preserve His Word, He not only purposed to do so, bud has accomplished doing so.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by LightSon

Chileice ,
This would seem to contradict my contention. Hmmm. I thought you were a Biblicist. My bad.

Yes folks believed in Jesus before the NT was compiled, but they also had benefit of eyewitness testimony. Any testimony we have comes via the written word.

Your arguments would seem to undermine the scriptures regarding their authority.

What specifics do you know of Jesus that are not presented in the scriptures?

I´m not trying to undermine the scriptures in any way. All I am saying is that we would have had Christianity with or without the Bible. Our faith would be useless if it were just based on some novel about God. The man preceded the writings. Without Jesus the Bible would be meaningless drivel and it would seem all the more amazing to have survivied all the persecution if the Jesus of the Bible weren´t the foundation of it.

Originally posted by Granite 1010
It is based, though--as is mine--on what the Bible TELLS US about Jesus of Nazareth, and the Bible as we have it today was cobbled together, massively edited, and many books outright destroyed--not just rejected as non-canonical; destroyed--by the councils that settled on 66 books.

The Bible didn't just show up; it is the product of tinkering and the product of men. There's another thread at TOL that asks "Is the Bible reliable?" I'd have to say that it's as reliable as the men who handled it.
I suppose that is true. But it also the intepretation of the experience men and women have had with the Christ over those years that gives the book any real meaning. If lives were never changed by the Christ, all writing in the world about him would be of very little temporal value. It is the experience that keeps the writing alive to be experienced by future generations.

[Soulman]

I see that you haven’t studied theology. Let me say that there are very liberal theologians who also believe that Jesus lived and died for us.

Fundy or liberal, it’s all the same thing. You’re stuck on the Word. Your faith (assuming you have faith), everything you think you know about God, depends on the written Word, right?

You have never seen those Christians who actually act more moral in some aspects than atheists? 1. Then your life experience is too narrowed. 2. You have never bothered to read sociological studies on that matter.

I spent the last twenty-two years around Christians. You’re right. My life experience WAS “too narrow.” That gave me a lot of time to witness despicable behavior on the parts of Christians, and “Christian” behavior on the parts of atheists and assorted pagans. That point is a waste of time. As for reading sociological studies, I know Church history, and I understand the devastating impact the Church has had on the “sociology” of cultures resisting Christianity, and I understand the sociology of the Inquisition, and the sociology of Prohibition. I understand that, sociologically, since Constantine, the Church has always been perfectly comfortable using the power of the State to enforce its will, and I understand that when the un-churched ignore the Church’s appeal for reform, Christians are the first ones in line to lobby the government to pass a law prohibiting behavior they personally disapprove of.

You need time to get rid of your:

1. anger

Not angry with you. Not angry at the Church. Angry with myself for not reading the fine print.

2. narrow-mindness (first narrowed against things that went against christianity, now narrowed against christianity)

Naturally, if someone disagrees with you, it’s because they’re narrow-minded. Everyone’s narrow-minded in their own ways. Are you saying that you’re open to the possibility that Christianity is not the exclusive and only way to God? If not, then you’re as narrow as the next person. If you are, then you are not a Christian, liberal or otherwise.

3. your ignorance what scientifical theology actually is.

Scientifical theology? Scientifical isn’t even a word. You’re making this up, right? Four years, down the drain.

4. your brainwashed idea that fundy christianity is the real christianity.

You don’t need a four year degree in theology to know that a Christian “liberal,” at least as popularly understood, is a “Christian” who believes in the God of the Bible (more or less) but leaves out the scary parts.

In common usage, I think it’s fair to say that a “liberal” Christian is a Christian who does not take the Bible literally, but is personally convinced that there is sufficient “truth” in the Bible to warrant further investigation and so exercises a kind of faith, if not in a “historical Jesus,” then at least in the “idea” of Jesus, and in the concept of redemption pictured in the story of the gospel.

The liberal wants to be “saved,” and wants to please God, even on the off chance that God might not exist. The “liberal,” as I’m using the term, is not exactly a skeptic, but reads books – sometimes dangerous books – and has a head full of “heretical ideas.” Without a real, supernatural, personal encounter with God or Jesus, the liberal is left to depend on his intellect and is hedging his bets. He believes in the “probability” of a God, and wants to stay on God’s good side, so long as he doesn’t have to be a kook about it.

If a Christian does not believe in a literal hell, for example, he or she is not a Christian. That’s fundamentalism. There is no Final Judgment without the Lake of Fire. Christianity has always held that the damned “unsaved” are going to a real, fiery Hell. That’s not just “fundamentalism,” that is the history of the theology of the Christian Church. If you believe in the Final Judgment, an idea as old as Christianity, then you have to believe in Hell. That’s one of the “rules” of Christianity. You can say that you don’t “believe in” a particular doctrine or rule, but rules are rules. How many “rules” can you ignore and still be “Christian”? Do you have to believe in a literal virgin birth to be a Christian? Or a literal resurrection? If not, Christianity is meaningless. If you don’t believe in the Final Judgment, or the Lake of Fire, but still believe in God, and say you are a Christian, you are a “liberal,” which means you don’t really believe any of it, but won’t take no for an answer.

Christianity has always been “fundamentalist.” Christianity is the product of a “literal,” word-based faith. The Word may have became flesh, but the Word also became incarnate in the form of a book. What is “fundamental” to the fundamentalist, and to the liberal, is the Word.

Everyone knows that the King James Bible is the only Bible ‘cause that’s the Bible Jesus used. The veracity and authenticity of the Bible is the heart and Achilles heal of the Christian religion. Fundamentalist Christians accuse liberals and atheists of attacking the Bible and lacking faith, and liberals and atheists blame Christians for taking the Word “too seriously.” In the end, the faith of the liberal is no different from the faith of the fundamentalist.

Faith in – what? Jesus? From whence came Jesus? From a book? From whence came the book? From…God? Oh. Really. The Book of Revelation almost didn’t make the cut. Too bad. Would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble. Luther detested the Book of James, thought it was “too Jewish.” If he’d been at Nicea, he probably would have “voted” agin’ it. Seems like a pretty screwed up way to run a railroad.

So, the Word of God and the meaning of the Word was decided by majority rule, no doubt by a panel of approved theologians, like yourself, with at least four whole years of schooling. Interesting. Bishops with vested interests impartially ruled on matters of faith, that’s that, and we’re supposed to trust their judgment. Now we have – God incarnate in the Word, “speaking” to men from a book, no questions asked.

A lot of people would call that pretty gullible.

Soulman

[Soulman]

Berean,

That is either a mis-understanding, or a mis-representation on your part there Soulman. We can see and learn about God all around us, His presence, His existence is there for us to see and know. It is called general revelation or natural theology. We can see from nature that He is intelligent, wise, good, the Creator of all things, just among other things.

Yes, but what men believe about God through natural revelation is insufficient to save them. It is enough to “accuse” them, but not “excuse” them. Salvation comes by hearing (reading) and believing the Word of God, not by enjoying a sunset and giving credit to some ambiguous deity. Can a man come to a saving knowledge without the assistance of the written Word, or without confessing Jesus as Lord? If you say no, so much for general revelation. If you say yes, you have contradicted the message of the entire New Testament.

Soulman

[Soulman]

LightSon:

Time out Soulman. I'm not following you on this key point. Do you believe "in the literal life, death and resurrection of Jesus?" I hope you do, but these tenets do not follow if you reject the veracity of the Bible. Looking forward to your clarification.

Cyrus brought up the fundy issue (as if fundies were somehow responsible for my de-conversion), and I was trying to make the point that even Christian liberals have to do something with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, even if its allegorized away.

Believing in the resurrection, then, isn’t a “fundy” thing, because even liberals believe that the story of the resurrection means something to their faith, even if they don’t believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. As a Christian fundamentalist, I believed in the literal life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which would not have been possible had these Jesus stories not been written down. The “liberal” is tied to the same storyline, thus, there is nothing fundamentally “different” about either take, literal (fundy) or allegorical (liberal).

Both come to their positions by assuming that the written Word is authoritative, otherwise liberal Christians would move along and start their own religion, minus all the scary stuff.

Soulman

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Soulman

Fundy or liberal, it’s all the same thing. You’re stuck on the Word. Your faith (assuming you have faith), everything you think you know about God, depends on the written Word, right?


Wrong.



I spent the last twenty-two years around Christians. You’re right. My life experience WAS “too narrow.” That gave me a lot of time to witness despicable behavior on the parts of Christians, and “Christian” behavior on the parts of atheists and assorted pagans. That point is a waste of time. As for reading sociological studies, I know Church history, and I understand the devastating impact the Church has had on the “sociology” of cultures resisting Christianity, and I understand the sociology of the Inquisition, and the sociology of Prohibition. I understand that, sociologically, since Constantine, the Church has always been perfectly comfortable using the power of the State to enforce its will, and I understand that when the un-churched ignore the Church’s appeal for reform, Christians are the first ones in line to lobby the government to pass a law prohibiting behavior they personally disapprove of.


And you didnt saw any Christians acting out their faith in Biblical way along all those years? Sad.

I meant studies on moral behaviour when i referred to Sociology.


Naturally, if someone disagrees with you, it’s because they’re narrow-minded. Everyone’s narrow-minded in their own ways. Are you saying that you’re open to the possibility that Christianity is not the exclusive and only way to God? If not, then you’re as narrow as the next person. If you are, then you are not a Christian, liberal or otherwise.


Maybe you give me a quote from the Bible, where universalism is non-christian belief?

I mean by narrow-mindness, that peole are ignoring some facts. I do the same, unfortunately, from time to time.



Scientifical theology? Scientifical isn’t even a word. You’re making this up, right? Four years, down the drain.


Have you heard about Humanities? Or did you thought that natural sciences are all the science what excist in the academical world? I dont know how it's in your country, but here in our universities we study lot of disciplines that are labelled under science too: history, sociology, linguistics, psychology, theology, etc.

And about the word "scientifical". I'm sorry that my English is too week to give you 100% full picture what i mean. Especially in those forums you want to express yourself as clearly as possible, but my inability to speak 100% fluent English is my pain in the butt, unfortunately. I can, yes, speak to you in Estonian, but i think it would be pretty hard to understand for you :p

But that word i meant Theology, what is done as is done History, Hermeneutics, etc - using scientific methods on old manuscripts, learning the culture of biblical times, etc.




In common usage, I think it’s fair to say that a “liberal” Christian is a Christian who does not take the Bible literally, but is personally convinced that there is sufficient “truth” in the Bible to warrant further investigation and so exercises a kind of faith, if not in a “historical Jesus,” then at least in the “idea” of Jesus, and in the concept of redemption pictured in the story of the gospel.

The liberal wants to be “saved,” and wants to please God, even on the off chance that God might not exist. The “liberal,” as I’m using the term, is not exactly a skeptic, but reads books – sometimes dangerous books – and has a head full of “heretical ideas.” Without a real, supernatural, personal encounter with God or Jesus, the liberal is left to depend on his intellect and is hedging his bets. He believes in the “probability” of a God, and wants to stay on God’s good side, so long as he doesn’t have to be a kook about it.


Pretty true, yes. Except that personal experience part. Many liberal christians experience God in same extent, or even in greater way than many fundamental christians. Although, it depends on person, and some liberals might experience God not at all.



If a Christian does not believe in a literal hell, for example, he or she is not a Christian. That’s fundamentalism. There is no Final Judgment without the Lake of Fire. Christianity has always held that the damned “unsaved” are going to a real, fiery Hell. That’s not just “fundamentalism,” that is the history of the theology of the Christian Church. If you believe in the Final Judgment, an idea as old as Christianity, then you have to believe in Hell. That’s one of the “rules” of Christianity. You can say that you don’t “believe in” a particular doctrine or rule, but rules are rules. How many “rules” can you ignore and still be “Christian”? Do you have to believe in a literal virgin birth to be a Christian? Or a literal resurrection? If not, Christianity is meaningless. If you don’t believe in the Final Judgment, or the Lake of Fire, but still believe in God, and say you are a Christian, you are a “liberal,” which means you don’t really believe any of it, but won’t take no for an answer.


So basically you say that Adventists for example are not Christians?

I dont think that you can compare belief in hell with belief in resurrection. Hell is not central message of Christianity (only maybe in primitive christianity), when resurrection actually is essential part.



Christianity has always been “fundamentalist.” Christianity is the product of a “literal,” word-based faith. The Word may have became flesh, but the Word also became incarnate in the form of a book. What is “fundamental” to the fundamentalist, and to the liberal, is the Word.


Describe me the process how that Word also incarnated in the form of a book? The fact that early christians were mostly literalists doesnt mean that we also need to believe that what Book of Enoch says is true. Nor didnt their "literalism" forbid them to interpretate the OT however they wanted to. Look how allegorically does it Paul sometimes. And look how eager they were to interpret many OT passages been fulfilled in Christ, when at the same time Jewish scholars meant the same passages in different way.



Everyone knows that the King James Bible is the only Bible ‘cause that’s the Bible Jesus used.


Are you just ironical, or do you really believe that?? If ironical, then it doesnt fit into the context of your argumentation.




Faith in – what? Jesus? From whence came Jesus? From a book? From whence came the book? From…God? Oh. Really. The Book of Revelation almost didn’t make the cut. Too bad. Would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble. Luther detested the Book of James, thought it was “too Jewish.” If he’d been at Nicea, he probably would have “voted” agin’ it. Seems like a pretty screwed up way to run a railroad.


Do you even bother to read what others are posting in your thread? If so, then why do you keep saying the arguments disproven by others here?


So, the Word of God and the meaning of the Word was decided by majority rule, no doubt by a panel of approved theologians, like yourself, with at least four whole years of schooling. Interesting. Bishops with vested interests impartially ruled on matters of faith, that’s that, and we’re supposed to trust their judgment. Now we have – God incarnate in the Word, “speaking” to men from a book, no questions asked.


If you really have studied enough history, and sciences you would know that theology back then isnt the same as it is today. If you dont believe me, then look how Astronomy, and every other discipline has developed since then.


I apreciate that you bothered to reply in more serious manner. But if you want serious discussion, then dont slip into too light arguments.

[Granite]

"Do you even bother to read what others are posting in your thread? If so, then why do you keep saying the arguments disproven by others here?"

Soulman's observation about some books almost making the cut (or not) doesn't need to proven or disproven; it's just a matter of church history. It's in the record.

What he seems to be saying (or what I'm taking from it) is that the Bible as we have it today almost didn't make it, for one reason or another. And that the accepted book of Christianity seemed to go through a lot of tweaking...so why is the idea that the same thing could be or even should be done again so abhorrent?

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by granite1010

"Do you even bother to read what others are posting in your thread? If so, then why do you keep saying the arguments disproven by others here?"

Soulman's observation about some books almost making the cut (or not) doesn't need to proven or disproven; it's just a matter of church history. It's in the record.

What he seems to be saying (or what I'm taking from it) is that the Bible as we have it today almost didn't make it, for one reason or another. And that the accepted book of Christianity seemed to go through a lot of tweaking...so why is the idea that the same thing could be or even should be done again so abhorrent?

What i meant by the comment you are quoting was: He kept telling that Jesus came from a book. Earlier many commantators already told that Jesus was before the Bible was even written. So because he kept his old argument going on, i made that statement.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Soulman

After twenty-two years as a card-carrying fundamentalist I’m throwing in the towel.

Reasons:

1) The “bold” print says that in order to be “saved,” all we have to do is “believe in Jesus.”

2) The “fine” print says we have to believe in the “inerrancy” and “infallibility” of a book of “history” based on the plagiarized myths of Persia, Egypt, and others. We are asked to believe that the Bible is unique. It’s not.

3) We are asked to believe that the Church “fathers” of the first three centuries of the Christian Church were just as divinely inspired as the Old Testament prophets in discerning which “gospels” and religious tracts in circulation at the time were “authentic” and which were “of men.”

4) We are asked to believe that the men developing Church doctrine and “interpreting” the Bible were, and are, as divinely inspired as the Book itself. In other words, since everything we know about Jesus is found only in the Bible, believing in Jesus is only possible if you first believe in the accuracy and authority of the Book. Anyone who can read can discover for themselves that the “Jesus Myth” was cobbled together from various religious traditions preceding Jesus (in the case of Zoroasterism) by two thousand years, and in particular by the Roman cult of Mithraism, which was Christianity’s main “competition” until the fourth century. The Roman god Mithra (who Constantine continued to worship after his “conversion”) was born of a virgin, died, resurrected after three days in a cave, ascended into heaven with a promise to return, was born on Dec 25th, and had twelve disciples. Followers of Mithra shared a communion meal of bread and wine. The Vatican, in fact, is built on the site of a major Mithraic temple.

5) We are asked to believe in the “glorious family history” of the Church, including the banning and excommunicating of “heretics” and “heretical” gospels, the burning of the “pagan” library in Alexandria, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the “witch” trials (naturally, Inquisitors becoming sexually aroused when torturing women blamed the women). After two thousand years of fighting among themselves (and with everyone else), members of this glorious family won’t even sit down and eat a communion meal together. If the Church is a family, it’s a dysfunctional family. The notion that Christianity ended human sacrifice fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children “sacrificed” by the Church for the glory of Jehovah-Jesus.

6) The “fine print” also asks us to disbelieve our senses, science, and the historical record. It took the Church three hundred years to admit Galileo was right. The Church of the 21st century insists on a “young earth,” in defiance of our senses, and insists on a “historical” Jesus even though there is not a single extra-biblical source of biographical information independently verifying his existence.

Given its track-record of intolerance, suppression, and genocide, if Christianity didn’t exist, the “Devil” would have invented it.

Soulman

I'm not big on organized religion either, but one can choose to still believe in God's Word without the interpretation of religion. Be careful! Dismissing God's Word is opening up a big can of worms that may cause you to stumble big time!

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

Be careful! Dismissing God's Word is opening up a big can of worms that may cause you to stumble big time!

How long must a baby use a Walker before it gets up and walks without support? Does a man use crutches when he is not crippled? The Hindu Gurus ask why a man should suck the drops of spiritual water out of the Vedas when there is about him everywhere a Flood. You "Word Only" Christians have apparently well given up on ever having the Holy Spirit. You not only despise the Saints but have renounced ever becoming One.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

How long must a baby use a Walker before it gets up and walks without support? Does a man use crutches when he is not crippled? The Hindu Gurus ask why a man should suck the drops of spiritual water out of the Vedas when there is about him everywhere a Flood. You "Word Only" Christians have apparently well given up on ever having the Holy Spirit. You not only despise the Saints but have renounced ever becoming One.

Leo, I don't believe in saints and never will, nor do I ever wish to become one. The day I become a saint will be the day that I have dismissed our Lord and everything He stands for. Although this would be moot anyways, as there is no such thing as "saint" in a biblical sense. Saints are man-made, and as far as I'm concerned, the belief in saints is blasphemous.

I am more in touch with the Holy Spirit than you will ever be. I don't rely on saints, Mary, or any other mere fallible human to be at one with the Holy Spirit or to communicate with God. It's a shame you do. :(

Also, I believe this is the Exclusively Christian Forum and not Exclusively Mary Forum. :p

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

Leo, I don't believe in saints and never will, nor do I ever wish to become one. The day I become a saint will be the day that I have dismissed our Lord and everything He stands for. Although this would be moot anyways, as there is no such thing as "saint" in a biblical sense. Saints are man-made, and as far as I'm concerned, the belief in saints is blasphemous.

I am more in touch with the Holy Spirit than you will ever be. I don't rely on saints, Mary, or any other mere fallible human to be at one with the Holy Spirit or to communicate with God. It's a shame you do. :(

Also, I believe this is the Exclusively Christian Forum and not Exclusively Mary Forum. :p

Oh my, the Seething Hatred you have for Those who have become One in the Vine of Christ -- the Saints. You say the Saints are Man Made. You do not understand the Word, then. A Saint is one who bears the Fruits of the Holy Creator Spirit -- they walk the Earth with the Power of God at their Disposal. Even Christ was awed at the Power they would have. "And Greater things then these you will see from my Saints" said Christ, didn't He?

Catholicism has had a Dozen Historical Saints that have shown Christ-Like Powers in the First Magnitude -- probably more! But Christ is a Spiritual Reality and has never hid Himself from Sincere Mystical Pursuit -- and so their have been Other Saints who have Found Him, from the Other Higher Religions. Protestantism, the Anti-Religion, is the only Major Corporate Entity, that calls itself a 'Religion' that has NEVER produced one Saint. And you seem to be very proud of such Spiritual Sterility.

[Freak]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

Leo, I don't believe in saints and never will, nor do I ever wish to become one. The day I become a saint will be the day that I have dismissed our Lord and everything He stands for. Although this would be moot anyways, as there is no such thing as "saint" in a biblical sense.

...being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves...

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Freak

...being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves...

Sounds like Paul in his Sheep's Clothing mood.

Actually Paul's Congregations would complain that they in fact WEREN'T "being strengthened with all power according to His glorious might". Satan had not given Paul the power to confirm in the Holy Spirit as Christ had done for the True Apostles. To quell the Complaints, Paul wrote a Letter which Redefined the Holy Spirit as just an awakening of normal human attributes. Instead of Walking on Water and Raising the Dead, Paul's congregations would have to claim the Holy Spirit in their patience and fortitude and in their Wisdom in looking both ways before crossing the street. However, paul avoided the issue that any pagan with common sense and decency had the same "Holy Spirit" that he defined for his dues paying members. I would say they were... are... being ripped off.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Soulman


Everyone knows that the King James Bible is the only Bible ‘cause that’s the Bible Jesus used.

:crackup:

:doh:

:down:

:chuckle:

:help:

:darwinsm:

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Freak

...being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves...

That doesn't say we are to worship saints or to place them above God, which I don't and never will.

The importance which is placed on saints by the RCC makes me sick! It's twisted and nothing more than man's (religion) attempt at becoming more than what we are which is not much.

Freak, you don't strike me as a brother in Christ who would defend the ridiculous notion of sainthood as practiced by the RCC. :confused:

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Sounds like Paul in his Sheep's Clothing mood.

Actually Paul's Congregations would complain that they in fact WEREN'T "being strengthened with all power according to His glorious might". Satan had not given Paul the power to confirm in the Holy Spirit as Christ had done for the True Apostles. To quell the Complaints, Paul wrote a Letter which Redefined the Holy Spirit as just an awakening of normal human attributes. Instead of Walking on Water and Raising the Dead, Paul's congregations would have to claim the Holy Spirit in their patience and fortitude and in their Wisdom in looking both ways before crossing the street. However, paul avoided the issue that any pagan with common sense and decency had the same "Holy Spirit" that he defined for his dues paying members. I would say they were... are... being ripped off.

:yawn:

[LightSon]

The RCC view and treatment of the concept of "saint" is unknown to the scriptures. The NT words "saint" and "holy" are both translated from a form of the Greek word "hagios" and carries the concept of being "set apart". God has called His children to be "set apart" from sin, so that we might be vessels fit for His use.

The Lord says, "Be ye holy, for I am holy" as recorded in 1st Peter 1:16
Paul routinely addressed the various local church members as "saints."

A thorough study of the NT will show that God views all Christians as "saints", and charges us to behave like it. Eph. 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called.

[Soulman]

Chil said:

Just a gentle reminder... Jesus preceded the Bible.

I’m making a distinction between what we know about Jesus as a Bible character and a “literary” figure (Jesus feeding the five thousand, Jesus carrying a lamb on his shoulders, laughing Jesus, The Passion), and what is known about Jesus as a historical figure. It can only be said that Jesus “preceded” the Bible because the Church has developed a theology of a pre-incarnate Christ based on the Bible. We have a theology of the pre-incarnation of Christ that can be proven from the Bible, so the Bible proves that Jesus proves that the Bible is true. I suppose…
There were thousands of Christians before the Bible was ever decided on. Paul and Peter were Christians before the New Testament was written.

That’s taking a lot for granted. Not everyone, not even the disciples, interpreted or understood the events of Jesus’ life the same way. For example, there was an early split between the gentile and Jewish church. Paul’s confrontation with Peter over circumcision is a classic example. The so-called “Gnostic” gospels portrayed Jesus in a very different, more mystical, less “literal” light. Gnostic theology was suppressed and eventually outlawed. Gnostic literature was sought out and burned. The “winners” (gentile “Paulists”) took their time selecting which gospels would “speak for God” and which gospels were “of the devil.” With the power of Rome at the Church’s disposal, opposing views were eliminated. If the Gnostic or “Jewish” factions of the church had “won,” we would have very different looking Bibles.

Millions of illiterate people have trusted Christ without being able to read a word of the Bible. The New Testament wouldn't have been written if the man had never lived. Nor would many writings that were left out of the canon. People wrote and talked about Jesus because He was worth discussing.

When you say that millions of illiterate people have trusted Christ without being able to read the Bible, I can only agree with you. I do not question their faith, or your faith, in Jesus. The Jesus myth is a sweet myth, if you ignore reality.

In my Jesus myth, Mary Magdalene and Jesus are married, with Magdalene representing the Church as the literal bride of Christ. (Jesus, as a literal man, requires a literal bride; otherwise, the marriage metaphor is only a metaphor and nothing actually “happens.”) I have come to this conclusion because I’m a romantic at heart and see no other way to avoid Jesus being stood up at the altar. We can’t ALL rush the stage. But, it’s a myth, partly because I can’t “prove” it from Scripture, and partly because it’s an obvious escape into fantasy. You said yourself that Christians shouldn’t check their brains at the door. Many myths were written about the Roman Pantheon of gods, and the exploits of the gods were discussed among the “illiterate” as if they were true, but no one is arguing today that Apollo actually existed.

My faith isn't based on the Bible it is based on Jesus of Nazareth.

When you say that your faith isn’t based on the Bible, but on Jesus of Nazareth, you make an impossible distinction that is (unconsciously, at least) the first act of faith: believing the messenger. Believing that the story is true, has credibility. In this case, that the Bible is true. But can we conclude that because a story is committed to writing, or even attracts a following, that the story is automatically “true”? Buddhists could say the same thing about Buddha. Buddha was a historical figure (with a biography very similar to Jesus’), whose followers recorded his life and teachings for posterity. Therefore, Buddhism is true. If Buddhism, or Islam, or Judaism, is true on the basis of a written history, what of the exclusive truth claims of Christianity?

It’s not that Christianity is saying that Jesus is one of MANY ways to God; Christianity is saying that the Jesus way is the ONLY way to God. Universalists, who believe that everyone is saved, and “liberals,” who don’t believe in hell but do believe in heaven, have their own way of looking at it, but both are considerably outside mainstream, orthodox, Triune Christianity. You believe in Jesus, but your first act of faith is to believe that the Bible is uniquely God’s word to man; not a book “about” God, but a book “written” by God, an incredible claim given what we know about how the Bible came to be.

Can you give me one example, NOT from the Bible, of ANYone claiming to have encountered the living Christ without FIRST having been exposed to the Bible?

Thanks.

Soulman

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Soulman


Can you give me one example, NOT from the Bible, of ANYone claiming to have encountered the living Christ without FIRST having been exposed to the Bible?

Thanks.

Soulman

I'm confused :confused:

First you make a great effort to discredit the bible as a reliable source of information about Jesus, and then you ask for an example of someone outside of the bible to testify of their encounter with Christ. Objectively, the bible is the writings of those who had an encounter with Christ. Historically, Luke records those encounters in the book of Acts and his own letter of the gospel, as do Mark, Matthew, and John.

I suspect that you do not accept their writings, because they do not agree with your heroes of Gnosticism, which is more suited to the desire of your own heart. Nobody's stopping you from believing what you want, but please don't give us any swan songs about ever having a relationship with Jesus based on the message of Christ that Paul proclaimed.

You never knew Him.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Sozo

I'm confused :confused:

First you make a great effort to discredit the bible as a reliable source of information about Jesus, and then you ask for an example of someone outside of the bible to testify of their encounter with Christ. That's to attempt solicit an argument against his point made early on that without the Bible there would be no Christians.

His point is that the Bible is necessary for Christians to exist.

IMO, the history of the early Church disproves, or at least seriously weakens, that idea. The "Christian Bible" didn't exist for almost 300 years, yet Christianity existed.

[Freak]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

That doesn't say we are to worship saints or to place them above God, which I don't and never will. I never said we are to worship saints. I merely pointed out that we, who know Christ, are considered saints in the Scriptures.

...being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves...

The importance which is placed on saints by the RCC makes me sick! If they know Christ I too would consider them a saint. For example: Athanasius is considered a saint by the RCC, rightly so, for he knew Christ, defended orthodoxy which resulted in exile and persecution. He loved the truth--Jesus--so much he willing laid his life down for Him. He was a saint. Not all those considered saints by the RCC are truly saints for they never knew Jesus.

Freak, you don't strike me as a brother in Christ who would defend the ridiculous notion of sainthood as practiced by the RCC. :confused: I believe sainthood is acheived through faith in the person who shed blood on the cross for us and who rose again-- Jesus Christ.

In the days of the apostle Paul there were saints, through faith in Christ....And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Zakath


His point is that the Bible is necessary for Christians to exist.



I suppose that I will hear next how math didn't exist until someone wrote a book about it. :D IMO, the history of the early Church disproves, or at least seriously weakens, that idea. The "Christian Bible" didn't exist for almost 300 years, yet Christianity existed. True.

[Zakath]

It'll be interesting to see what Soulman has to say... :think:

[Granite]

Originally posted by Sozo

I'm confused :confused:

First you make a great effort to discredit the bible as a reliable source of information about Jesus, and then you ask for an example of someone outside of the bible to testify of their encounter with Christ. Objectively, the bible is the writings of those who had an encounter with Christ. Historically, Luke records those encounters in the book of Acts and his own letter of the gospel, as do Mark, Matthew, and John.

I suspect that you do not accept their writings, because they do not agree with your heroes of Gnosticism, which is more suited to the desire of your own heart. Nobody's stopping you from believing what you want, but please don't give us any swan songs about ever having a relationship with Jesus based on the message of Christ that Paul proclaimed.

You never knew Him.

Sozo, Soulman's not making an "effort"; all he's done is draw from church history. There were divisions, there were splits, and certain movements and books were suppressed. That's just a matter of the record. If going through church history is somehow a threat to the Bible's reliability, what does that say about church history?

By the way, considering that Soulman seems to have had a long row to hoe, you might not want to dismiss him completely...

[Soulman]

Cyrus,

I asked you, “Your faith (assuming you have faith), everything you think you know about God, depends on the written Word, right?” and you said, “No.”

Tell me something about God:

1) That you didn’t learn from the Bible, and
2) That pagans don’t know from natural revelation

And you didn’t saw any Christians acting out their faith in Biblical way along all those years? Sad.

I didn’t say I didn’t see “any” Christians living in a biblical way, I said I saw Christians acting in despicable ways, and atheists and pagans acting in very “Christian” ways. It is pointless to argue comparative behavior. Christians do not have a monopoly on being nice people.

Maybe you give me a quote from the Bible, where universalism is non-christian belief?

It doesn’t matter what the Universalists believe, if you want Scripture proofs, ask them. The fact is, universalism has never been an “official” doctrine of the Church. Hell is the official doctrine of the Church. If Christians can believe whatever they want, and use the Bible to prove it, the Bible is worthless as a source of universal, God-breathed “truth.”

So basically you say that Adventists for example are not Christians? I dont think that you can compare belief in hell with belief in resurrection. Hell is not central message of Christianity (only maybe in primitive christianity), when resurrection actually is essential part.

Adventists don’t believe in hell? News to me, but who can keep up with these things. I would say that hell is THE central message of Christianity. Without hell, what are we saved FROM? Without hell, the work of the cross becomes unnecessary.

Describe me the process how that Word also incarnated in the form of a book? The fact that early christians were mostly literalists doesnt mean that we also need to believe that what Book of Enoch says is true. Nor didnt their "literalism" forbid them to interpretate the OT however they wanted to. Look how allegorically does it Paul sometimes. And look how eager they were to interpret many OT passages been fulfilled in Christ, when at the same time Jewish scholars meant the same passages in different way.

Sounds like a friggin’ mess to me. So, you put a hundred different “Christians” in the same room, let them fight it out, and debate, and insult and kill each other, and you call that “Christianity.” Interesting.

As for the “Jesus only uses the King James Bible” remark, yes, I was being “ironical.”

Do you even bother to read what others are posting in your thread? If so, then why do you keep saying the arguments disproven by others here?

What arguments have been disproved? Given the historical circumstances of the Bible’s compilation, whether the Bible is or is not “God breathed” is the ultimate question. Maybe one of the Gnostic gospels was “God breathed,” but the compilers and editors of the Bible didn’t like what it had to say, so dumped it. You are “assuming” this wasn’t the case, because you choose to believe that God wouldn’t “allow” that to happen. You choose to believe that whatever the motives of the men compiling the Bible might have been, God superintended over the process and therefore the Bible is the Word of God.

That’s part of the fine print I’ve been talking about. Christianity isn’t about believing in Jesus. It’s about believing in the unbelievable and calling it “faith.” In the words of Church Father, Tertullian, “I believe because it is unbelievable.”

Hard to argue with that kind of "logic."

Soulman

[Soulman]

Hmmm...kinda quet in here.

I believe I’ve already conceded to Chil the (obvious, now) point that there were “Christians” prior to the invention of “the Bible,” although the Christians of the first three centuries can hardly be described as a homogenous group. But, they, too, had the Word, a Bible, the Old Testament. Christianity followed in the previously existing religious and word-oriented tradition of the Jews. The Old Testament is subject to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism and honest skepticism regarding authorship and authenticity and inspiration as the Scriptures of the New. God may reveal himself in the created world, but let’s face it, everything that “counts” – the “scary” parts, – are all in the book. If you don’t know the punch-line, according to Christianity, joke’s on you. Personally, I don’t get it.

Christianity has never been content to rest on its laurels. It is, by design, an agent of historical change. To live and let live is a foreign creed. World domination – “dominion,” as Christians like to put it, a slightly “feminized” form of “dominate” – is the “earthly” goal of Christianity, in Jesus’ words, to “disciple” (and discipline when necessary), the nations. That’s the program. That’s how Christians have been building the kingdom of God for over two thousand years. Acre by acre. Soul by soul. Like a mustard seed, or a mountain, filling the earth. And here we are, twenty centuries later, still waiting, still praying, still looking up, still a dues paying member of a club any decent person would be ashamed to be identified with, still making excuses, theologians still arguing about it, trying to explain it.

(Q: If Christianity is true, why, after 2,000 years, does Christian theology read like a Japanese-to-English technical manual written in 16th century jibberish? Some assembly required? I guess!)

This may be the new and improved Church, a kinder, gentler Church, not the mean old “evil” Church of the past, but Christians are still God’s chosen people, the world still belongs them, and St. George the ‘Dagon’ Slayer is proving it, right now, fighting evil in the name of Jesus, a stone’s throw from where it all began. Do the math.

I’m confused. First you make a great effort to discredit the bible as a reliable source of information about Jesus, and then you ask for an example of someone outside of the bible to testify of their encounter with Christ.

It’s been argued that it’s possible to know God independent of the Bible, for example, via the “natural revelation” of creation. But natural revelation says nothing about the “holiness” of God, or the Fall of man, or original sin, or “propitiation,” or how man can be made “right” with God. The “fine print” of salvation is found only in the “special” revelation of God, found in the Bible. How is a man saved? By accepting Jesus. Where is Jesus? Not in creation, not in the natural world, and not, apparently, springing spontaneously in the hearts of men.

Knowledge of Jesus can come in only one of two ways: By someone “telling” us about Jesus, or by “reading” about Jesus in the New Testament. One way or another, knowledge of Jesus must be imparted to the prospective believer, otherwise, not hearing, and not knowing, he or she would die in their sins and go to hell. That, I think, is classic Christianity, and the motivation behind foreign missions. “How can anyone be saved if they haven’t first heard?” If someone has come to a saving knowledge of Jesus without hearing or reading the Word, I’m asking that person to step forward and tell us how it’s done. We’ll sit in judgment of you, and decide if you’re crazy, but give it a shot.

My position is that faith is impossible without the Word, in which case believing the Word – the Bible – is prerequisite to knowing Jesus. If the Word is proven unreliable in ANY way, it can’t be trusted to be the Word of God. Simple premise. Nothing original here. Not my only “issue,” but made the short list.

Soulman

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Soulman

Cyrus,

I asked you, “Your faith (assuming you have faith), everything you think you know about God, depends on the written Word, right?” and you said, “No.”

Tell me something about God:

1) That you didn’t learn from the Bible, and
2) That pagans don’t know from natural revelation


Your questions are not appropriate. My faith and knowledge about God doesnt DEPEND wholly on the written Word. I experienced the inner peace that came to me when i first entered to the church where some days later i gave my life to Christ. I havent read earlier in the Bible that God is the giver of such peace. Later when i started to study about God from the Bible, i got both intellectual knowledge (from the book) and intuitious knowledge + knowledge from experiences about God. But the knowledge (i never limit it with intellectual only) i get every day is not limited to the picture what Bible gives to me. I somehow see God even bigger, smarter, closer to my breath than the letters can teach me. And i see Him even bigger than my head can catch it, even when if i read some experiences God is giving to very different people in those boards.



I didn’t say I didn’t see “any” Christians living in a biblical way, I said I saw Christians acting in despicable ways, and atheists and pagans acting in very “Christian” ways. It is pointless to argue comparative behavior. Christians do not have a monopoly on being nice people.


I didnt wanted to start to argue with you over the matter. You only pointed out that you saw christians acting in despicable ways and i asked did you saw any christian acting out the true christianity, because sociology and some others experience shows it differently. And i have never claimed that Christians have such a monopoly. Why do you feel need to say things that way? Do you think i'm your moronic enemy and in my head there are nothing that can agree with some things you believe?



It doesn’t matter what the Universalists believe, if you want Scripture proofs, ask them. The fact is, universalism has never been an “official” doctrine of the Church. Hell is the official doctrine of the Church. If Christians can believe whatever they want, and use the Bible to prove it, the Bible is worthless as a source of universal, God-breathed “truth.”


Real Christians are located only in official church in your opinion? I dont think it makes any point to argue with you over that matter, as you got one understanding what the bible is, and i got the other.



Adventists don’t believe in hell? News to me, but who can keep up with these things. I would say that hell is THE central message of Christianity. Without hell, what are we saved FROM? Without hell, the work of the cross becomes unnecessary.


I'm saved from my old nature and the sin what keeps me in lower level. It's my way to develop the new nature with me and break the links with the lower level of life.


Sounds like a friggin’ mess to me. So, you put a hundred different “Christians” in the same room, let them fight it out, and debate, and insult and kill each other, and you call that “Christianity.” Interesting.


Who of us is making trying to argue hard here over his ideas? Has God saved me so that i can argue with you over the stuff that really doesnt matter much? Or has He saved me to act out the new life within me? Go and figure. And it's not my bad that you use only intellectual knowledges to argue over christianity and bible (i must admit honestly, that your approach to the bible lacks much of academical strenght at the same time anyway).



What arguments have been disproved? Given the historical circumstances of the Bible’s compilation, whether the Bible is or is not “God breathed” is the ultimate question. Maybe one of the Gnostic gospels was “God breathed,” but the compilers and editors of the Bible didn’t like what it had to say, so dumped it. You are “assuming” this wasn’t the case, because you choose to believe that God wouldn’t “allow” that to happen. You choose to believe that whatever the motives of the men compiling the Bible might have been, God superintended over the process and therefore the Bible is the Word of God.


Why are you lying? If your main purpose is here is to waste my time and to mock the Christianity you havent heard about, then go on without me. I find satisfaction in other things than lying about what others might assume, or not assume about how biblical canon was made.



That’s part of the fine print I’ve been talking about. Christianity isn’t about believing in Jesus. It’s about believing in the unbelievable and calling it “faith.” In the words of Church Father, Tertullian, “I believe because it is unbelievable.”

Hard to argue with that kind of "logic."

Soulman

I might add: useless, time-consuming, pointless to argue with somebody who believes that there is only ONE way how Christianity can excist, and there is only ONE logic everybody must follow, ignoring the importance of intuition, experience, inner knowledge, revelation, personal walk on the spiritual path you are talking about.

Do a favour for your sake and for some else: please educate yourself with books what give you better overview what Christianity and religion overally is.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Double-posted: too late here - too tired. Please delete this message.

[Chileice]

Well soulman,
Although you are in no mood to be convinced otherwise, I just received an intersting email this week about a guy who had a dream of a man who came from God to save him. He asked God to send someone to tell him about that man and the very next day a young Christian arrived in his village and told him about Jesus and what he told him matched what he had seen in the dream and he accepted Christ.

Now the man who came to the village knew about Jesus, that is true and you could say he knew from the Bible. But the other man had never heard about Jesus, but God prepared his heart without any Biblical intervention. This happened this year... 2004. Maybe it was all a big coincidence, but it isn't the first time I've seen or heard the same type of story.

I will say the norm has been as you described to be taught by someone who had knowledge of the Bible. But I have quite a good relationship with Christ apart from the Bible. I find the Bible helpful in relating to Christ, but I do not only communicate with him through written pages. I would say if you expect God to talk to you only when you read the Bible, you will miss 90% of what he wants to teach you. That being said, I DO believe the Bible and I don't think it is a pure accident of fourth century redaction. I believe it rings true and its reality speaks to my reality 20 centuries later. That, in itself, is pretty amazing.

I am sorry that you have such a problem with it that you are giving up at your age. (Mid life crisis? I went through mine. It was pretty weird.) Anyway, it would be a bummer to waste what Jesus did for you, Soulman. But, of course, I can do nothing to help other than to pray and encourage you to listen to the still small voice and see if it isn't the voice of the Christ. Blessings on you whether you accept what I say or not.

[LightSon]

Soulman,
Since you undermine the Bible, may I assume you also eschew the concept of God? If not, then please tell us about your God.

In short, having rejected the Bible, what is your replacement world view?

[Chileice]

Soulman,
I thought I was done posting to this thread but I heard this oldie but goodie this morning and couln't stop thinking of you. Although the song was written from a man to a woman, I couldn't help but hear Jesus singing to Soulman. I think you will recognize this song from Dan Fogelberg:

If I could ever say it right
And reach your hostage heart despite
The doubts you harbor then you might
Come to believe in me.

The life I lead is not the kind
That gives a woman peace of mind
I only hope someday you'll find
That you can believe in me.

Those other loves that came before
Mean nothing to me anymore
But you can never be quite sure
And you will not believe in me.

Too many hearts have been broken
Failing to trust what they feel
But trust isn't something that's spoken
And love's never wrong when it's real.

If I could only do one thing
Then I would try to write and sing
A song that ends your questioning
And makes you believe in me.

Too many hearts have been broken
Failing to trust what they feel
But trust isn't something that's spoken
And love's never wrong when it's real.

If I could only do one thing
Then I would try to write and sing
A song that ends your questioning
And makes you believe in me
Oh, you can believe in me.

I know it sounds corny and that Dan never had this application in mind. But since I couldn't get you and the song out of my head I decided to post it. Just in case it was a non-biblical way the Lord wanted to say something to you :-)

[PureX]

I think most of Soulman's objections to organized Christianity are well considered and ligitimate. I do agree with those who are tryng to point out that religious Christianity is not necessarily actual Christianity. The problem with that, though, is that once we allow this sort of relativism into the picture, the definitions become personal and subjective, which in fact they always were, anyway. And that makes for a whole different kind of discussion: one that many "Christians" can't allow themselves to even contemplate.

I'm not sure yet why Soulman has put forth his feelings and ideas about this so it's hard to choose how to respond. Not being a "Christian", I feel no need to defend the religion against these very reasonable assertions. Yet I'm not sure what else I could contribute as I can't tell what Soulman is seeking, here. I guess all I can say is that I agree with him, and that I think Christ has been hijacked by religion, and the result is useless - at least it is to me. The only way I can find value, there, is to drop the religion all together and contemplate the spirit that the stories about Jesus seem to be trying to convey.

[Soulman]

This is for anyone who’s interested in engaging

Cyrus asked.

Real Christians are located only in official church in your opinion?

If “real” Christians aren’t “official” Christians, what are they? If someone claims to be a Christian, he or she belongs to the Church, which is the Body of Christ. That’s as official as it gets, folks. You are Christ’s “official” ambassador in the world. What distinction is being made? If “real” Christians can’t identify with “official” Christianity, what does that say about Christianity, or the individual Christian who hears no evil, sees no evil, and speaks no evil? There are as many different kinds of “Christianity” as there are Christians, the precise point PureX made, and an excellent and troubling point it is. Christians brag about being absolutists, but can’t even agree enough with one another to sit down and have a communion meal together. The distinction that’s being made is between the reality of Christianity, and the “Jesus myth.” It’s a sweet myth. I like the myth. What happens when myth and reality collide? You’re looking at him.


I’m not looking for someone to blame for Christianity’s short-comings. I’m just saying that the “short-comings” have been so enormous, and so utterly “un”-Christian, it begs the question of how an institution devoted to bringing the message of God’s love to the world is instead remembered as one of the cruelest, greediest, longest-lived, and most blatantly hypocritical abusers of human rights in the history of the world. Who’s responsible for that? As a Christian, I was. You are. You all are.

I can’t defend it, because it is indefensible. There is no excuse. Say what you will, they were “Christians.” Only “modern” Christians can look back in horror and say, yeah, that’s “official Christianity” for you, ain’t it a shame. Where were the “real” Christians when “official” Christianity unleashed its reign of terror and attempted to conquer the world? Holding a bible study? Handing out “the end is near” tracts? Where are the Christians now? Backing St. George, the “Dagon” killer? The is no Christianity other than the one organic historic multi-generational apostolic body of Christ which has been the body and “official” representative of Christ in the world since Pentecost, and that body has been a menace to free speech, the free exercise of religion, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to “think” since the day it was born. That’s not anger talking. That’s “history” talking. That’s “Christianity.”

Of course, there are many “good” Christians, who believe the myth, who don’t read dangerous books, and live their lives according to the myth. Good for them. For good people, it’s a good life. Mankind has been enriched by their selflessness. Just as mankind has been enriched by every good person of every other religious belief. They are “godless heathen” only to "good Christians."

“Good” Christians are “special,” but they’re not that special. The problem is, Christians are a little “too special” for everyone else’s good.

Soulman

[Soulman]

Chil,

I’m not going to belabor the you-can-only-know-Jesus-from-the-Bible argument, since that’s not really the “thesis” of my de-conversion. Seems to me if the credibility of the Bible is questioned, it questions the Jesus story, too, but that’s where Sozo’s “Big God” comes in.

Thanks for the story of the fella who had a dream. I know I’m being argumentative, but there are zillions of anecdotal stories like that I’m not going to pretend I can explain them away, other than to say that converts to Islam and Buddhism or native religions, or psychotics, have similar dream experiences. I asked, though, and you delivered, and I appreciate it. I don’t have everything figured out.

Thank you SO much for the “poim,” you are an ol’ softy and it was the nicest thing anyone’s done for me in a long time. To imagine you hearing that song and thinking of me, and typing it all up, and encouraging me, a total stranger, was good news from a far country.

That, by the way, is what “real” Christianity looks like.

Soulman

[Soulman]

Lightson,

Since you undermine the Bible, may I assume you also eschew the concept of God? If not, then please tell us about your God. In short, having rejected the Bible, what is your replacement world view?

Good question. That’s a toughy. Not sure I have to” replace” the Bible, or God, with anything. As George Castanza said, “Why do I always have to be the center of attention? Why can’t I just ‘be’?”

Heathen, maybe? Deist? See, it’s a philosophical choice now. Philosophically, I don’t care much for atheism. Too – dogmatic. Agnostic? Don’t like the sound of that either. Too – non-committal.

Sun worship. The mother of all religion. Sunrise (birth), sunset (death), sunrise (resurrection). Kinda like the sound of that. Golden rule, do no harm, live and let live, be a good neighbor, give a guy a break, help who I can. Just like always.

I do not eschew the concept of God, just the “Jewish-Christian-Islamic” monotheistic, authoritarian, believe-in-Me-or-off-with-their-heads concept of God.

What has been interesting is the re-evaluation of my positions on the “social” issues. Now that I’m not a Christian, what do I “believe” about…fill in the blank. It’s actually got me – thinking for myself.

Soulman

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Soulman

Where were the “real” Christians when “official” Christianity unleashed its reign of terror and attempted to conquer the world?


There were many christians who opposed Crusades. If you mean the Crusade here? And if my memory is correct some of them were persecuted because of the opposing the mainstream Church.

Besides, how many Christians did actually engaged in those battles, or organized them? Majority just sit in their homes and spend their life as usual peasants.

Do you think those peasants could have much chance to have their voice to be heard in Church leadership?

[Soulman]

PureX --

Dug what you had to say. Been in here three or four years, originally under the name “BoGGled,” even sent TOL a check for 25 bucks once, big spender. After 22 years as a card-carrying fundamentalist-Calvinist-postmillennialist-‘Reconstructionist’-theonomic-presuppositionalist (deep breath) “Christian,” thought leaving the faith might be worth mentioning.

If all you have to do is mention the name of Jesus to be a Christian, Christianity is a personality cult, not a “religion.” To me, the “savior-god” myth is the only story there is, but made the mistake of thinking the savior-god story was unique to Christianity. Lot of that going around. I now believe that all religions are attempts to cheat the certainty of death by ritualizing the cycles of the natural world, in particular the cycles of celestial events. Sunrise, birth. Sunset, death. Sunrise, rebirth, the resurrection, life after death. If the oldest religion is the truest religion, sun worship wins.

Everyone has their own “Jesus,” not sure where you’re coming from, but speaking as an ex-Christian, trying to make a distinction between “true” Christianity and “official” Christianity is a red herring (will someone please update that metaphor?). True Christianity is “official” Christianity, and vice versa. If the Christian contributors to TOL don’t represent “real” Christianity, who does? Other than their refusal to accept responsibility for 2,000 years of persecution for what amounts to "thought crimes," in what way does “TOL” Christianity differ from “official” Christianity?

Thanks for engaging.

Soulman

[Granite]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

There were many christians who opposed Crusades. If you mean the Crusade here? And if my memory is correct some of them were persecuted because of the opposing the mainstream Church.

Besides, how many Christians did actually engaged in those battles, or organized them? Majority just sit in their homes and spend their life as usual peasants.

Do you think those peasants could have much chance to have their voice to be heard in Church leadership?

The fact that the "peasants" DON'T have a say is part of the problem. The church leadership has acted and continues to act in our name and in the name of our faith without the endorsement or support