To the point (which you did not answer):

The fact remains that you said the laws of the old testament were abolished by the coming of the Christ, when this is NOT what He said. Indeed, Paul, who never knew the human Jesus, did make pronouncements on OT law, specifically that Gentile followers of Jesus did not have to follow it's provisions.

Later, there have been continued interpretations in the Western church on such things as homosexuality and usary. The former has retained it's "sinful" nature, while the later has not.

So we have continued interpretation or "revelation" if you will, on God's will, always using Jesus as our standard.

In this modern time, we now know that true homosexuality is NOT a "choice", but a biological trait...yet we call it sinful for people to act as God made them.

Again, going to the standard, What Would Jesus Do? Would he condemn two men (or women) who were in a committed, loving relationship or would he bless them? I and many other committed Christians believe it would be the latter.

So yes, I will say, without appology, that I think Paul was wrong in this particular. That doesn't subtract from who he was or what he did, but it testifies to the fact that God continues to reveal Him/Herself to us and that it is up to EACH generation to struggle to understand the Creator.

Oh, and faith alone is not enough.

For without works, faith is dead.

i think we might agree more than is apparent. maybe not...let me know.

what i intend to say is that if you read part of the pseudo-Pauline letters, you would get the idea that women were not to teach.

if you read 2 corinthians, it's quite apparent that the teachings of women, namely Chloe’s, save Paul's entire ministry. had she not done so...and the church in Corinth had failed, Paul wouldn't have been remembered as an Apostle...for someone to tack a message of women's silence on to Paul's name.

See what i mean? It's not that i don't read 2 timothy. but i don't treat some parts of it as scripture, because a more reliable source, namely Paul, indicates by word and experience that such a command is not in keeping with the work of the Holy Spirit.

Wow have you read the new testament? By grace you are saved not works. How many times is this repeated in the bible? The man who died on the cross next to Jesus had done no works, he was a sinner, a criminal. Yet Jesus said to him surely I will see you in paradise today.

Works is not what it is about. It is about grace. In the verse you are quoting Jesus is talking against the hypocritical Pharisaical legalism. Jesus fulfilled the law by giving it meaning. If Jesus did not free us from the law then he himself broke it by healing on Sundays, preaching to gentiles, not following dietary requirements, ect.

Works do not make us better in heaven. As a christian you are forbidden to even compare yourselfs to others in such a way because if you do so you have already had your reward. God wants us to be humble in what we do. We do works not because we have to but because we want to. It is our love for God that has us do works.

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselfs, it is the gift of God -- not by works, which God prepared in advance for us to do"

Romans 4:1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the ma who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Psalm 32:1-2 Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.

Galations 3:10-14 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who des these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becomeing a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on the tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to hAbraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Eph 2:5 It is by grace you have been saved.

I could probaby find a verse about Gods grace saving us not works in every chapter in the new testament if I had time or desire to do it.

Jesus said, I have come not for the righteous but for the sinners.

Look at the parabel of the talents. It is not the amount of work you do that get's you your reward. Or the parabel of the workers. It isn't how long you work, God made us a promise.

Jesus said "Believe and be baptised" in response to what must I do to be saved. He didn't say "Believe and go do all of these great works in my name"

Funny, Rekna, he was actually paraphrasing the New Testament ;)

James 2:20 "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?"
or 2:26 "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Of course, none of these contradictions are really a problem if one doesn't try to take all of the bible literally. There is a consistant message throughout BOTH statements re: faith and works if you look beyond the words themselves.

If one simply has faith and does not seek to do (note, I said seek to do, not necessarily just do) good works, one's faith is dead (as "James" says to correct the misunderstanding of Paul's statements.) Paul's point is that one cannot just follow some rulebook of works and expect to find God while not having any faith, not that one needn't worry about doing good works merely because one HAS faith. The latter interpretation is that of the Christian slaveholders in America and I don't think it's difficult to see their hypocrisy.

Or, to take a bit from the Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church's Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,No, the works themselves are not what grants one what we call heaven, but one cannot have faith without works, for it is dead.

I disagree with not having faith without works. You can have faith without works. Faith gets you the reward in heaven, works bring you a reward here on earth.

I am not saying that christians should all be lazy and do no good works, no I think they should all do good works. But people need to realize that God's grace is a gift, and if you have to work for a gift it is no longer a gift.

This is a truly interesting interpretation. I am intrigued as to the implications for those with "Faith" who decide to ignore other aspects of biblical teachings. This understanding sets the stage for much of what we see in the current incarnation of Christianity as a whole (at least the version predominant in non-christian minds). The lack of compassionate works by the leadership we see in the church, is reflected in this disregard for many who decide to take a different path. I personally find the " Holier than thou" attitude quite degrading to those of a different belief, and thus have taken the path I am currently on.
I do know quite a few of the faith that interpret this part of scripture in a more benign way, and find them much more pleasant to associate with. Perhaps this is one of the underlying misunderstandings between Christians and the rest of us......or perhaps it goes far deeper.

The holier than thou additude is definatly not christian. Christians are to be humble in all aspects of their life. Humbly love your wives, humbly love your neighbors, humbly love your enemies. Just be humble.

Now to further explain my position.

Salvation is a gift, and nothing short of a gift. There is no legalism to get into heaven, we just need to accept Gods love. See Galations for talk on legalism of the church.

Works are not what is required to get into heaven, but God does want us to do good works, it pleases him. God's love is unconditional ours is not. God chooses to love us even when we don't love him. But when we truely love God we will do good works because who doesn't want to please those they love? Strong faith will produce good works but in no way is it required. If works are still required did Jesus die for nothing? He died so we could be forgiven, he died so we could be saved. In his death he saved every one who believes in him.

Now to the verse mentioned earlier James 2:14-16 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead.

What was James saying here? Was he saying we need faith and works? If it does say that doesn't this directly contradict what Paul taught? Before I answer that lets look a little bit at the history of the bible. When Martian Luther split from the church creating the beginning of protestant churches he recompiled the bible (notice the catholic bible is different than the one everyone else uses). James was almost cut from the bible because it seemed to be a direct contradiction to what Paul taught. But through studying it closer they decided it wasn't a contradiction and kept it. So what is James saying here.

Here is what my study bible says (NIV zondervan version) "faith" is not used in the sense of genuine, saving faith. Rather, it is demonic, useless, and dead. It is a mere intellectual acceptance of certian truths without trust in Christ as Savior. James is also not saying that a person is saved by works and not by genuine faith. Rather, he is saying, to use Martin Luther's words, that people are justified (declared righteous before God) by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Genuine faith will produce good deeds, but only faith in Christ saves.

This is very simalar to what I am saying. We are saved by grace and grace alone. But those who have the strongest faiths will desire in their heart to do good works and will do them. But in the end it is not the works that are required, only the faith in God. So do good works because God desires it and so do our hearts. Live your life as a pillar so that you are salty and you make those around you thirsty. But never forget it is not you who gets you into heaven but only God. God is the only way to heaven we do not earn our way and cannot earn our way. None of us deserve heaven it is given to us freely. The second we start believing in ourselfs instead of God we have stopped being humble. And when we aren't humble God will make us humble.

Obviously.....you are correct.

And I am ...heh.....Humbled.


been here....done this.....dont wish to do it again

rekna, do attend to the quote SMethod posted. it directly goes to the question of faith/works, and challenges your reading of the text.

not to mention, you're also dropping Lebell's comments on Matthew. Matthew 10:40 to 11 is a problem by your theology, and 5:17-20 is a real thorn.

I affirm a steadfast insistance on grace, that it is not human virture that brings salvation. but i hold that grace is the starting note of a new relationship between God and the human. As we continue to recieve grace (charis) how else would we continue that relationship, but by action?

Martin I did address those quotes in my last posts. Reread them I talked directly about them. Grace is from love. God's love is unconditional. Works come out of love for God, love from God does not come from works.

Jesus came not to abolish the law but fulfil it. He did exactly what he said he fulfilled it. He fulfilled the law for us so that we would not have to.

Questions for those of you who think works are a requirement to get into heaven. Do you believe we are saved by God's grace? Is God's grace a gift? Do you work for a gift, or is it mearly given? If we have to work for salvation how much is enough? Do we have a checklist that we have to accomplish? Is there some scale we are weighed against that we must all pass? Isn't this legalism? Why did Jesus die for us if it was the law that we need and not grace?

Christianity needs to start with the knowledge that God loves you unconditionally. That your salvation is a gift and nothing you do can cause you to loose that or gain it. Because you beleive you will be saved. That is for the young christians. Then when you grow and start eating solid food you then learn about doing good for others. Being salty in your life so that you make those around you thirsty for god. You bring god to others through the way you live. Works bring glory to god and should not be just cast aside but the second we use works to justify our salvation we have taken away from god. We have taken the salvation out of God's hands and into our own. I'm sorry but I don't trust man enough to let them hold the key to salvation. I only trust in God.

you shouldn't take this possition either. (I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not but either way they are bad positions).

As childern of God we must always be willing to learn even as we teach others. We will never know all of God's intentions until we are in heaven. This is where being humble comes in.

So if you aren't sarcastic don't take everything I say as truth alone. Go to the bible and pray. It is God's wisdom that we need to seek not mans.

If you were sarcastic you should be willing to listen to others because we will never know the full truth and we can learn things from our fellow man. Just remember what I said right before this.

edit - wrong thread ;)

Rekna,

Obviously I have read the new testament, so I take your comment rather as an insult.

That aside, SM thoughtfully provided the scripture I was paraphrasing and I stand by it. Your Bible's interpretation aside, I really don't disagree with you when you say that trust/faith in God is what gets salvation, but I can't disagree more when you say that good works are "not necessary".

Still, let me rephrase in an attempt to come to an understanding.

In otherwords, a faith that does not result in doing good works is not a faith at all, it is meerly empty words, "Lord, Lord!"

That is not to say that works are the key or the reason for God's grace. We are in complete agreement that God's love and grace are freely given gifts that we only need accept even as we cannot earn them.

Yet I believe in a way they are are requirement, even as it is written in James.

In a funny way, it's all very Tao :D

Were just going to have to respectfully disagree. I know exactly what your saying about doing works and I'm not trying to say works or bad or take them away in anyway. I'm not trying to discurage doing works, no I want everyone do to works. I want people to glorify God by the way they live. But as you said it is a gift and we need to remember that it is a gift, a gift is not something you earn.

For anyone who is a true christian and doesn't do works I feel sorry for them because they are missing out on all of the glory God has planned for them on earth. But at the same time I'm going to love them and rejoice that I will see them in eterinity for they are my brothers and my sisters.

another way of looking at it, is what is faith in God? we can't naturually be good at it, and we waver and doubt even after we think we've made up our mind.

so does our salvation waver, too? if it is *our* faith that saves us, i'm a bit worried.

translating romans, scholars are moving to rendering "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ* for all who believe" Rom 3:22 as:

"the righteousness of God through the faith *of* Jesus Christ"

I think this might be more to the point. Otherwise, that faith thing just becomes another legalism...a way of trying hard enough outside of a real relationship.

just a thought...

If you plan on that, i personally think you owe Lebell an apology for your previous choice of words.

You are right, I have been sitting on this a few days now letting my pride not let me post. Above I stated be humble but yet I have not been humble. God has corrected me on this one big time.

So Lebell, i'm sorry I used insultary language twoard you. We are all brothers in Christ, while we may disagree on all the details we have the most important one in common. Let us not forget that.

I have been watching this thread for a while and this is the best post in it. Of course we all have differences. And yes, we should share them with others. Slamming another's beliefs won't get us anywhere though.

I am a Christian as well and right now feel no need to state my position on the arguments going on here. Instead I will just say this: Christ called us to love one another and to love God. Be respectful. Be open. We could debate day about everything under the sun, but why cause divisions. We love the Lord, right? That makes us brothers and sisters. So thank you Rekna, for bringing this to an amicable solution.

I'm out...

Thank you...for an action both brave and just.

Thank you very much, Rekna.

I think it was in church where I heard, in the end, it doesn't matter if you believe in creationism or evolution, because we live in the here and now, and here and now is where Jesus expects us to love and respect each other.

So no harm done and peace.

I believe that the bible should be taken literally because God says that everyone is open to his grace. You don't have to be very itellectual to understand the bible. For example the very first verse of the bible. 'In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.' this tells us that there was a beginning, there is a God and he created the Heavens and the Earth.

If you don't take the bible literally, how do you determine what is true or happened to what is just a metaphor.

If God created the world in billions of years why does his word, the bible say that he created it in six days. Gods not a liar.

I heard a story from the Bible, where God was explaining to a shepherd boy what one day was to him. The boy would count the sheep that passed him by moving one small stone from one pill to another. When he had 10 small stones, he would replace them with a larger stone.
Then God explain that one day to him was equivalent to that process times 3 of human days (1,000 ).
I don't think i got that exactly right, but I'm sure you get the idea. A day in God's eyes is not the same as a day for us. So, both science and the Bible could be right.

Now, another note: The Bible, although it may have come directly from God, was written by men, who are not perfect. They may have put various ideas or prejudices into the book that God did not mean. So, if you take the Bible as The Word, you're going to be accepting those prejudices.
Accepting the general feel of the Bible, and interpreting it with the help of a theologian, will allow you to truly see what God meant.

All that said, I am NOT a Christian, and I don't believe in the Bible. However, I'm not ready to say that it's all a bunch of crap, either. I'm fully and unapolagetically agnostic.

The Road Not Taken


Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. 20

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

Now, I admit Robert Frost is not God, but I am not about to call him a liar for saying the things he says here when they did not actually, literally occur. It is incredibly disingenuous to imply that the belief that the Bible ought not be taken literally is tantamount to calling God a liar. And, while this is *clearly* poetry, one can give many examples of poetic language that is not so obviously so. In fact, while it may not be clear to us now, the language in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, is quite poetic in the Hebrew language. Taking a translation of a translation literally brings up whole other issues that I won't even bother to get into because, frankly, they're obvious.

lindseylatch,

that story about the boy and the stones. do you know where in the Bible that is found because i have never heard of it.

God might live outside of our time zone but that doesn't mean that a day in the bible could mean a billion days for example. after the world was flooded and repopulated he said no one would live for more than 144 years. so if i go by what you were saying that would mean that people could live up to billions and billions of years. do you really think that would be possible?

The bit where you said how bits of the Bible could be wrong because it was written by men. God is in control. He chose his diciples, and he chose who he wanted to write the bible and he wrote it through them. sorry i'm not very good at explaining this but i don't think God would let his bible get stuffed up.

I'm not trying to pick on your views i'm just interested to know why people don't take the bible literally because i only recently found out that some people don't and that some people believe in both the Bible and evolution.

What do you think God is like? (his character) for example what does he mean when he says he is the way the truth and the life? because to me when he says he is the truth means he speaks the truth.

Personally, I think She just wants us all to get along.

You know...not kill each other, respect each other, be kind.....that kind of stuff.
She didnt write the books.....but she may speak through them to a certain extent.

since when was God described as 'she'?

Plenty of times. God's female persona in the Bible is referred to as Wisdom (or Sophia) IIRC. Aside for that, the majority of Christian churches acknowledge that God has no gender. The Catholic Church, for example, uses the pronoun he only in recognition of the tradition behind it, but asserts that God is not a he or she. Most Christian churches agree (although, I admit, sheer number is not proof of anything).

To answer a slightly different, but, I think, related question as to what I think God is like....I think it is terribly delusory to assert that something as basic and simple as text can even begin to fully embody the essence of the Ultimate Reality, or God - that which is beyond all that is tangible, including words.

Not trying to pick on you, but if you only recently discovered this, it seems to me you may not be in a position (not to say that I am) to be making judgments regarding various religious beliefs.

I didn't just discover the bible or evolution and I am not trying to make judgements I am just interested in why people believe in both the biblical view and scientific view. personally I think it takes more understanding of these to see how they don't work together than thinking they do because it is easier to analyse something when you have something to compare it to. For example i know two professors of evolution that became Christians and no longer believe anything that they were teaching. (once they had more understanding of the bible)

thanks for telling me your opinions. sorry if I have come across offensive in any way

But, man has free choice, so he couldn't be FORCED to write the Bible in a specific way. AND the Bible has been translated and re-written by scribes so many times, there were many oportunities for mistakes are prejudices to get in. Believing that the Bible today is exactly the same as the Bible written 1200 years ago is just ignorant. And which edition are you taking literally? There are tons of editions, so having more or less than others, and some translate sections in a COMPLETELY different way.

As for the story, that was like third-hand, and i was using it to make a point that perhaps God has a different sense of time than humans. Doesn't mean he can't think in human terms, like the 144 years, just that perhaps that's not what they meant with the 6 days thing. Just a different viewpoint.

And if you take the Bible so literally, do you wear clothing made from more than one fabric, and eat shellfish, and do you stone adulterers? Did you know the Bible says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery?

If the Bible isn't taken as a general guide, then it's being used just to justify whatever behaviors one feels like performing, and is being ignored for every other part.

You've obviously never seen Dogma... :D

You obviously have not done your homework. All of the points you make have been adequately answered and demolished by scholars who have taken the trouble to look at the actual evidence and to get their facts straight. I suggest you visit a good theological seminary library or Christian bookshop and start reading!

Ahem.......no Not Amen.

There are those of us here who have indeed....studied much of the scripture....from many differing faiths, and likely deserve a somewhat higher level of respect than is projected above. Simply because one interprets these texts in a way that differs from yours, does not mean they are wrong.
I use the female term for God to get people to think......

or to get people to argue...

Now im not sure if I should be coming in on this. Am i a christian? ask me again in the future because I think Im at a personal crossroads . Ive only recently started to look at christianity , mainly because of a new friendship but I think Ive been heading towards it for a while.
So I know very little at present about the Bible and I could not quote anything from it im afraid.
I just wanted to say I like what I perceive to be rekna's views about the need for doing good deeds to get into heaven.It was one of the problems I had with Christianity, I couldnt understand how it seemed to say that a person could live a good honest caring life and yet not be accepted into heaven if he didnt accept Christ , yet someone who lived a selfish , hurtful towards others kind of a life yet believe in Gods love and have a guaranteed place in heaven.

But reading what Reknas writes I feel I understand it a bit better , the logic of it.How can God offer you unconditional love and yet keep a tally of your good deeds.And how would you measure good deeds, after all someone who has spare money would not find it as hard to give financial help to someone as a poor person giving someone his last few pounds would be and yet in itself it seems like the same act of generosity.

I also believe that if you have that trust and Love for Jesus then the need to do good deeds for others would come naturally .

As I say Im a novice so I cannot join in any debate over it , Im glad this thread has calmed down a bit. acceptance of others personal relationship with God and being non judgemental should be a basic task for Christians I think

Just an aside,

I also frequently use "She" along with "He".

I don't use it to "start an argument", but rather to acknowledge that God is beyond one gender and that the nature of God encompasses us all.

A perfect example of what Tecoyah was talking about, thank you.

And yet you never realized not all people take the Bible literally? It seems that, although you've researched your own point of view, you have failed to research the point of view of others. Perhaps you should go to a good college class on comparative religion. The best way to argue your point, is to know where the other person is coming from. Then you can head them off at the pass, so to speak.

But that ignores several things. First of all, the scribes believed they were transcribing the word of God, so they were probably pretty careful. Second, their culture was much more of an oral culture than ours is (especially when we start talking about the OT). Third, and perhaps most importantly, when we've discovered manuscripts earlier than what we've had previously, there were almost always only minor differences (the sort where one person says hills and the other mountains).

Yeah, I don't remember that story being in the Bible either. There is a verse which says "A day in your courts is as a thousand elsewhere", but that's pretty clearly metaphorical (it's in Psalms). There's another in the NT that says "A thousand years to the Lord is as a single day", but when taken in context, it's clear that it just means to emphasize God's patience.

Purity laws were explictly revoked in the NT. Wrt slavery, that's a difficult issue. Most people I know would say that God was going easy on a people whose moral sensibilities weren't the same as ours; Christ says explicitly that this was the case with OT divorce law.

Funny, I'd say the same thing about people who say that the Bible should just be taken as a general guide, without having any principled way of distinguishing between passages we should follow and those we should ignore.

How DO you decide which passages to follow and which to ignore, if they ALL come from God?

And, like I said, I'm not Christian. I don't follow the Bible in any way, and I fully admit that I'm a relativist (meaning I don't have any specific rules for what's right or wrong), so I don't need an excuse to do whatever I want, I just do it. I don't hide behind a book or an organization.

Like THAT's not a biased source of information, please. And scholars, pff. Give me some evidence--tell me which scholars, where.

While it IS hard to find non-biased sources regarding religious study, there are a few out there. If you haven't already, I recommend checking out works by Dr. Marcus J. Borg. He's a leading scholar in the concept of the historical Jesus, among other theological issues. He is, notably, also a professor at my university, and I have had the opportunity to see him speak on multiple occasions.

I should note that I am a Christian, and I too refer to God as "she" from time to time.

I don't argue religion in groups like this, prefer one on one since its easier to understand the other person and make your points known.

That said, my only reason for posting here is because I laughed when I read onesnowyowls post.

It says on one line:
"I am a Christian"

and her sig says:
"100% Pure Evil"

:lol:

Funny stuff :thumbsup:

Yeah, a certain friend of mine ' round the TFP claims I am 100% Pure Evil for various reasons. *cough* Trampoline.

After reading through the thread I thought I would post my own statement of faith as to where I am with God.

If you refer back to ShaniFaye's post you'll get a good sense of how I live my life. If I screw up and ask for forgiveness, I am forgiven. I believe much more in the concept of a loving and forgiving God than some vengeful God that wants to send me to Hell. Secondly, I take the words of Jesus Christ himself far more seriously than I do anyone else's (which, IMO, is how it should be). Paul has deliberate reasons for saying what he said--Paul was a huge fan of asceticism and in fact encouraged people to live an ascetic lifestyle. Therefore, most of what Paul has to say about religious life I read very cautiously. As for the OT...they're great stories, and there are some really awesome tales to be read there.

As for my own behaviors: yes, I swear, I drink, I have premarital sex, I engage in homosexual behaviors from time to time. I fully admit to being a sinner. I would rather be honest with myself and with God than live a life I would find a) stifling and b) unfulfilling. I do my best, though, to make up for my shortcomings through a fullness of faith.

Me in a nutshell...though it's really hard to encapsulate my faith in a nutshell--I think it's a living, vibrant thing, and I also think that's exactly how it should be.

Ok so I've skimmed through this thread..wondering if I should indeed jump into this. Since Secret and Tec are involved (them knowing where I stand) I think I might. Let me just put this disclaimer out there. *I do not believe in some god, I do not believe in some supreme diety, I do not believe in salvation* Ok. Now I was raised in a "Christian" home until I was 17. The one thing that I didn't understand was "Free Will". How can someone have free will when god already knows what's going to happen, and has predetermined the outset of mankind. If god knows everything then he knows who is going to get saved and who is going to do what. So does that really give anyone free will?

Ok.. I need to do some work but there's also one other thing that bothers me. I don't understand the belief in a book written by man that is said to be holy considering man is so flawed. If the Bible is the authority of god.. then why didn't he just make it instead of using a flawed figure?

This question has been discussed before on the board. To discuss it here would only take the thread off track.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/search.php?searchid=282985

asaris wrote an interesting post a while back:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ight=free+will

whoops.. sorry I just thought this whole thread was about the broad spectrum of christianity.. I knew I shouldn't have come in here..

As the OP I'll emphatically say that this thread most certainly can be about the broad spectrum of Christianity. I am vehemently opposed to being a "thread nazi", because I would much rather a thread be a "discussion" rather than a string of monologues. Any real discussion is fluid and may contain many twists and turns. Just think of this as "a really slow chat" :D

I didn't mean to be a 'thread nazi'....honest!

It's just that things can sometimes get very unfocused and off topic. With something so complex as free will vs omnipotence, it seems reasonable to devote an entire thread to it. Especially when there has already been plenty of quality posts written on the subject.

I should probably tell you that I didn't write this comment. Someone I live with did because I showed him what you said and instead of him going into every point you said and saying what the bible says about these he wrote what he did. He has very high qualifications in both science and theology so I like to ask for his opinion.
Anyway I am doing a course in comparing all the world views.

Is the Bible believable? read Luke 1:1-4
although Luke and other writers of the books of the bible have taken great pains to accurately record the events within, some people have tried to point out alleged contradictions or inconsistences in the Bible. these same people argue that the Bible is not credible based on what they believe to be contradictions.
Here are three reasons why the Bible is believable.
1. God is the author. Despite the fact that the Bible was writtin by more than forty authors, we must recognize one important fact: the people who put the pen to paper were but instruments in the hand of God. the real author of the Bible is God. As the apostle Paul wrote, "All scripture is inspired by God" (2 timothey 3:16). God chose to speak through these different people much like an artist uses different brushes to paint on a canvas. Each one had his own unique style, but the truth was the same.

2. The main story of the Bible is too complex to be a hoax. the renowned historian Will Durant, who devoted his life to the study of records of antiquity, made his observation concerning the accounts of Jesus and the early church in Scripture- if you want info from the book just ask but heres the reference. (caesar and Christ, in the story of civillisation, vol 3( New York: Simon & Schuster, 1944)]

3. Scientific Evidence Supports the Bible's accuracy. Archaeological findings have supported many of the complex historical passages found in the Bible. in addition, the Bible has greater doccumented accuracy than any other ancient literary work {see Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General introduction to the Bible (chicago: Moody Press, Moody Bible institute, 1986)]

In spite of evidence, Gods Word must be excepted by faith. You, as an individual, must come to recognize that the words of the Lork are perfect, trustworthy, and right (see Psalm 19:7-11). Your belief in and practice of the truths found in the book -God's message to us- will make the most profound impact on your life for time and eternity.

Also if you want a reference for understanding the simplicity of the gospel look at 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

how do we decide what to believe in the bible if we can't take it all literally? Do we pick to follow only what we like? If you can't believe in the small parts how can you believe in the big parts?

or, i happen to use it for devotion. calling God she is not baiting or flaming. it's a theological practice and claim that has every right to grace these pages.

all i wanted to say...i think the literallism/ "read the whole thing" debate already got settled.

I just felt I should weigh in. I'm not going to address all the many different aspects discussed here as it would take me all night. I do feel that I should in brief tell how I personally view things and why I do what I do.

I am a Christian. I call myself such because I do believe in a supreme being such as described in the Bible. I do trust that there is a heaven and hell. I also believe that the God I believe in created a way to live with him in the afterlife by sacrificing his Son/part of himself. Now I do not believe the entire Bible literally. I do not follow every letter of the law - especially the law expressed in the Bible. Part of the reason is that, as was stated earlier, the New Testament amends the Old Testament laws. In the New Testament Christ stated as follows.

Matthew 22:36 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

To me that says that so long as I am loving my neighbor in word and dead and the same for God that I am within the law.

Now my husband and I are swingers. This I have not rectified with my at least previous beliefs. I still struggle with it. For now I view my lifestyle as such: No matter what the Bible says about coveting your neighbors wife or leaving your spouse for another person as being adultry - my husband and I are one in agreement in our lifestyle. We do not covet to live or be married to another's wife or husband or to replace our current spouse with another single person. We have found that our lifestyle has created a bond for us that seems stronger than other trials we've faced has ever formed for us. If this is all true then can you define our lifestyle as such, sin?? I'm not sure where that line is drawn. I think that if ever I was convinced that our lifestyle was truely contrary to "loving the Lord" my God. Then I would probably end that lifestyle.

As for cuss words - If I'm not using names of God in every day conversation and only using them in reference to him then I see no problem in any other cuss words.

I hope this explains my personal actions and words in light of my profession of faith which I am obviously still attempting to define.

my point on arguing was when I read what was said, it seemed to me to be subltle attempt to bait people into commenting on it (which worked). The gender of god (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with the conversation at hand and that comment seemed to be added with the sole intent of baiting people into the conversation. Assigning a gender to god is pretty silly in itself because it suggests god is part of procreation and that there is a counterpart to god that he can procreate with. He is mearly the normal pronoun to use when refering to god and it doesn't imply gender. It doesn't work as a pronoun because it implys a non-living object and Christianity is about a living God. I stand by my statement that he used the pronoun she only to strike an argument if you wish to use a euphamism and call it "discussion" or "thinking about it" go ahead and do it but that wording was clearly chosen for a reason.

What are "high qualification"? And comparing world views on what?

I agree. So I don't believe in any of the Bible.

I think saying she may have just been an automatic gesture. Like many Wiccans say Goddess instead of God automatically. I don't know why we're trying to read ulterior motives in the use of a pronoun...Maybe her hand just slip.

It is simply amazing to watch the results of a simple change in wording. I Use She simply because it has the effect (sometimes) of making people consider the actual form of this GoD entity. If you decide to argue about it (which I have not seen in this thread) that is more a picture into your own personality than anything else. Most people I have found simply ask Why?
In answer.....Why is God a He?

Should you decide to consider this question....perhaps some measure of enlightenment on the authors of these books will come to light....or perhaps not.

Because it says so in the Bible?

Well.....guess that puts that question to rest.

Just to make mention of the He/She God persona

I went to a Baptist Bible College and took a number of doctrines classes. From what I understand the names given to God in the Bible are more gender neutral. Jehovah and some other Hebrew and Greek names for God don't express any gender at all. The choice of He over She was made when the Bible was first translated and the term "HE" held authority in the home and government in that time period so it was the natural term to use. If you really find it necessary to debate this subject I can find you some sources when I visit my in-laws. That's where my Doctrines books are stored.

Technically God is genderless so whether we use a male or female name does not matter much in the grand scheme of things.

There were serious battles in the early church about the correct way to make the sign of the cross on oneself. Three fingers, two fingers, left shoulder first, right shoulder first, etc.

To me, the "He" vs "She" argument is just as silly.


"On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. Tis a silly place..."

Owl..... this was a fantastic little post. You said it all for me... that's pretty much where I'm at, too, but my story won't fit so neatly in a nutshell!

I will say that I believe confession and forgiveness are the best things we can do for each other down here, and I'm not talking about "sins" in the traditional sense. I mean hurting ourselves and each other with our own selfishness. Confession is the sacrifice of self for the sake of relationship, for the sake of love. I think this can be done regardless of one's religion or sexuality or whatever the hell we humans like to divide ourselves up as.

Masters in science, phd in chemistry and masters in theology.

Its called the world view course and it looks at 9 main area of life. its a new topic each week. (theology, philosophy, biology, phycology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, history) and it compares all the different world views but its mainly secular huminism, marxist/lennist and biblical.

All that completely depends on where it's from. For example, if it's a masters in theology (or science and chemistry for that matter) from a place like Moody, then I hardly think the education was impartial. Just pointing out that those degrees, objectively, mean nothing in terms of universal theological authority.

I attend a Catholic university, for example, where I have taken many classes on theological issues and where I have had multiple professors (all with doctorates in theology) teach things quite the opposite of most anything you have stated in this thread. If two different groups of people - all with graduate degrees in theology - say two completely different things...the issue is obviously not as clear as you think or would like it to be.

Fortunately, understanding God is not solely the realm of Pharasees or phd's. This was one of the things Jesus taught us.

It starts with love of God and love of neighbor as oneself and moves on from there.

This principle seems so simple that most people can't quite believe it and thus fulfill the saying that the way to Heaven is narrow while the way to hell is broad and easy.

Yet, it also states that Eve was the one at fault for the forbidden fruit being eaten...God forbid anyone - man or woman - who is capable of free will and thought should actually open their eyes and see the world as it really is and, in that, learn things (the truth, perhaps?) for themselves. The truth it has shown me is that we're not supposed to open our eyes (so-to-speak), see things as they really are or learn anything other than what the Bible tells us.

God was spoken of in the masculine form in the Bible because that particular period in history was very gender-biased. Women had no voice, made no decisions, and held a status much lower than men. Women weren't sought for their wisdom or guidance - men were. An all-knowing, forever-powerful entity such as God could only be a man - so that stories grew popular, be believed, told so that no one would question, worthy of respect. Men represented (and still do, regardless of how much then vs. now) strength, endurance, pride, protection, sustenance, etc. Women were seen as fragile, dainty, frail, ignorant, shrewd, crafty and deceitful. A masculine God was the suitable choice.

Christianity has grown in popularity and has adopted many holidays; giving some a new meaning, purpose.
One example is the holiday Easter, as recorded in early history, was first said to be the Goddess "of the act of love, creation, promiscuity, consummation"; more recently she's construed as a giver of prosperity, fertility and abundance. She was often described as enchantingly beautiful, soft, vivacious, incredibly alluring. She was often drawn holding a small rabbit. The Easter bunny: represents consummation, love; Easter eggs: symbolizes birth, new beginning.

Now, before this is replied to with attempts to discredit, insult or admonish myself or the contents of this post, understand that I'm merely sharing what I know to be true. I've read the Bible cover-to-cover more than once and at one time, I believed in God and accepted Jesus into my heart as a Christian. I found, on my own, that I had questions no one could answer - human or heavenly. The end result was my realization that I will forever be, first and foremost, Wiccan.

My Goddess, Cerridwen, doesn't turn from me if I'm bi-sexual, gay, fat, thin, popular, dirty, clean, pretty or ugly...she is there to protect me, guide me, teach me. I live and let live, I love unconditionally, I take time to learn who I am, I respect everything around me. It's not about who you believe in, what sex represents the focus of your belief, how long your religion has existed, or if your God can beat up my Goddess.

It's about co-existing peacefully, picking your battles and not telling someone they're not getting into your version of a Heaven just because they don't believe what you believe, have the same opinion as you, or choose to do things you see as sinful or blasphemous.

Your actions directed at or directly influencing another person or any number of people, harmful or helpful, will reciprocate itself and it's effect upon it's original source...

One must look at the Bible as a whole. Honestly, Eve was at fault for eating the forbidden fruit and was punished accordingly. The MAN was punished as well for his mistake in ALSO eating the fruit. It wasn't forced on him either. The Serpent/Satan was punished for his part in tempting and trying to decieve the humans. The humans had they truely "opened their eyes" and carefully looked at the situation could have percieved the deception clearly themselves. It's possible though that the desire for the forbidden allowed them to ignore the obvious error in their ways and proceed down that forbidden road. So often we choose a path that is obviously filled with stones and problems simply because we see only the silver lining or the fact that it is forbidden is just to appealing for us to willingly open our eyes.

I do not in the least follow the Bible to the letter. I DO believe though that there are a multitude of lessons to be learned from the Bible. I believe that seeing things clearly will always be a constant struggle for humans as we consistently view things for the glasses of personal experience and desire. A pure glass to view things from rarely if ever exists.

I am Christian, in that I believe in Christ, and I believe in his teachings.

I believe in love for God, fellow man, enemy and self. I believe that I am a sinner. I believe in His forgiveness.

As for how this meshed up with the TFP, well... It may be 'right' for me to be here, and for some reason, it may be 'wrong'. But it is a sin that I can choose to live with, and it isn't at all hurtful to anyone. To me, these sins, these minor transgressions are the most forgivable.

And as onesnowyowl said, I would much, much, much rather err on the side of a little fun and eventual forgiveness, than a life of stifled boredom.

Christians are human with temptations and blemishes like the rest of us. However, they have something that non-Christians do not. They have the Bible and Christ's forgiveness to support their choices. When I went to church, the preacher would not help a lady being hit by her husband in church.

For Catholics, the Second Vatican Council says that they are supposed to "live in the world." I take it to mean that it includes participation in forums such as these.

Moreover, I wanted to add that there was some discussion far up in the thread that Catholics should be content not indentify themselves as Christians. However, this characterization ignores history (at least from the Catholic's perspective regarding what happened during the Schism and Reformation): for the first thousand years or so Catholics were the only Christians.

First of all Does it really matter what everybody believes? I mean that decision is usually a personal one. If you think about it nobody can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that what they believe is 100% correct. Thats why they call it faith.
Think about. God exists through faith. If he revealed himself to all then we no longer need to have faith and if we ceased to have faith then god would cease to exist because there is no faith.
Makes no sense right. Well maybe. Anyway kind of a pointless thread that really makes no differance one way or another and really does not present any means of unbiased intellectual discussion. It's religion. Politics however is another story.