Hopefully I'm misinterpreting this...because what I get is you're comparing yourself to Jesus because you're not following the "rules," whatever they may be. Hopefully I'm wrong, and this isn't what you meant.
Yeah that's not what I meant at all! I was saying that I'm like the blind man who was given his sight. People can say to me "According to the Torah Jesus is a sinner because he healed on the sabbath" And all I respond with is "I was blind, but now I see".
Quote:
I think the sentence was meant to say "Just because I do not always take the Bible literally does not mean that I don't think it contains spiritual truths," correct?
Yes.
Quote:
So you take the view that any Biblical scripture about hell and eternal punishment are just allegories and parables not to be taken literally? There will be no universal reconciliation. Sorry, I know it doesn't tickle your ears, but it's the truth. Were there to be universal reconciliation, Jesus' death, burial and resurrection were done in vain.
I think the Bible is a collection of writings, written by several different men, over a period of thousands of years. I think that which books were allowed in and which were cut out was decided by various Church Councils. So I believe that the scripture should be filtered through the Spirit, and not the other way around.
I know that many people believe that the Bible was perfectly inspired by God, so that every Word is just the way that God intended it, and it is perfect and complete, nothing is missing, or included erroneously. Why do they believe this? Because the Bible says that it is inspired by God is not enough, many manuscripts claim this. Because God watched over the process, and persuaded the men who who writing the words, and the men on the church council to do His will? I confess to being skeptical. God CAN do a lot of things, but He chooses not to. He could have prevented the Book of Mormon, or the Qu'ran from being written. Or the Holocaust. Or Glenn Beck from being born. He could stop every false prophet. But he doesn't. So I think that it's logical (and in fact prudent) to be skeptical of anything that claims to speak for God. (preachers, other Christians, and writings)
Quote:
If this includes people who have experienced salvation, it conflicts with scripture. Once someone repents, their past sins are washed away, never to be remembered. And those who haven't experienced salvation, the judgement is more than just seeing their lifetime sins played out before them.
So there's value in being a Christian....buuuuuuut it's not really necessary, since love wins and everyone will be reconciled anyway. Being a Christian is like being Mormon in my area - it's for the perks. Good business connections, elevated status in the community, endorsements, kickbacks, etc.
Again, if it doesn't matter, love wins, and we're universally reconciled...why did God make such a fuss about the Word becoming flesh, dwelling among us; the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost? I guess you'd just have to write off the Bible as a nice collection of parables and stories in order to believe this way.
I never said that the Death of Jesus wasn't necessary for the salvation of the world.
__________________
“There's such a lot of different Annes in me. I sometimes think that is why I'm such a troublesome person. If I was just the one Anne it would be ever so much more comfortable, but then it wouldn't be half so interesting.”
I never said that the Death of Jesus wasn't necessary for the salvation of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dichotomy Girl
So please believe me when I say that I believe there is infinite value in being a Christian (even if I don't believe you HAVE to be).
Well, if you don't HAVE to be a Christian then the whole Gospel was unnecessary. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, yes Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was necessary for the salvation of the world; then say, well, you don't HAVE to be saved. I mean, you can, but it's contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dichotomy Girl
I think the Bible is a collection of writings, written by several different men, over a period of thousands of years. I think that which books were allowed in and which were cut out was decided by various Church Councils. So I believe that the scripture should be filtered through the Spirit, and not the other way around.
I know that many people believe that the Bible was perfectly inspired by God, so that every Word is just the way that God intended it, and it is perfect and complete, nothing is missing, or included erroneously. Why do they believe this? Because the Bible says that it is inspired by God is not enough, many manuscripts claim this.
Let's look at the other manuscripts...
The Quran. Mohammed performed no miracles, though the Quran speaks of him cutting the moon in half. It teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father (God), Mother (Mary), and Son (Jesus). It also says Christians believe God had sex with Mary in order to conceive Jesus. There is not one, not one thing from the Quran which has been proven by history or archeology.
Mormon Bible. Joseph Smith preached the Second Coming would be in 1891. He also preached that New York, Albany and Boston would be destroyed for rejecting Christ. His writings also taught that the civil war would cause a world war with famine, drought, plagues and the end of all nations.
Catholic Apocrypha. None of these were ever used, quoted or referred to by Jesus, His disciples, or the later Apostles. None were written by a prophet.
The Holy Bible. Historical and archaeological discoveries have proven this book. From the discoveries in archaeology to the creation of Israel. From Acts to Azusa Street. This book, more than all others, has been proven to be real time and time again.
And yet you claim that it's just like every other manuscript which has claimed to be from God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dichotomy Girl
Because God watched over the process, and persuaded the men who who writing the words, and the men on the church council to do His will? I confess to being skeptical. God CAN do a lot of things, but He chooses not to. He could have prevented the Book of Mormon, or the Qu'ran from being written. Or the Holocaust. Or Glenn Beck from being born. He could stop every false prophet. But he doesn't. So I think that it's logical (and in fact prudent) to be skeptical of anything that claims to speak for God. (preachers, other Christians, and writings)
So because God didn't stop Glen Beck (whatever he has to do with this) from being born, we should be skeptical of the Bible? As some say, "wut?"
I would agree that as far as ministers, Christians, and other writings (not including the Bible) we should be skeptical and try the Spirit. I don't believe that simply because God has allowed some things to happen (some of which has been according to His plan), we should write off the Bible as some manuscript like the Quran.
n david...i'll try to respond to you later. I just found out that the guy who lives directly behind us is a registered sex offender, and I am kind of freaking out.
__________________
“There's such a lot of different Annes in me. I sometimes think that is why I'm such a troublesome person. If I was just the one Anne it would be ever so much more comfortable, but then it wouldn't be half so interesting.”
I miss SheltieDad (Brad) at times like these because he was always so good at pointing out the fallacy of this argument.
How is being born on this earth, in a human body, and being subject to it's laws and limitations a crime? And why should we be tortured for all humanity for something we can't control?
Sing it, sis. That is just the line fed to us by the Empire Builders, those interested in the dominance/submission model, and has absolutley nothing to do with God. The rest of Christianity, btw, does not even adhere to this. Pitch it.
In order to understand this, you would have to believe the Bible is the Word of God. IIRC, in a previous post you say the Bible is a collection of writings and not the Word of God. Because of that, you can't understand what was stated above.
The Bible says all have sinned; we were born in iniquity, conceived in sin. The reason Jesus came was to fulfill OT prophecy and to be the once and for all payment for sin. Without his death, burial and resurrection, we would be without hope of eternal life.
Contrary to your universal reconciliation belief, the Bible clearly states the wages of sin is death (which is permanent); it does not say the wages of sin is a stint in rehab or some temporary judgement.
There is a literal Heaven. There is a literal Hell. People can make up beliefs and doctrines to make themselves feel better, but it doesn't change the truth.
Hmm, people can also misinterpret to suit an agenda, yes? And I must disagree that there is a literal heaven, or hell. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for saying this; in fact, quite the opposite, at "The rich man and Lazarus," (read correctly), and at Samual's discussion with...the first king, forget his name; I can provide Scripture there if needed. "Heaven" and "hell" were obviously treated as conceptual, and existing right next to each other, and by degrees, no less.
Also, there is a pretty strong argument that "eternal" might mean forever recurring? Or, iow, "that cause will always bring that effect." What do you think?
I had a rough day yesterday, so please try to go easy on me, more than or , pretty please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
Well, if you don't HAVE to be a Christian then the whole Gospel was unnecessary. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, yes Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was necessary for the salvation of the world; then say, well, you don't HAVE to be saved. I mean, you can, but it's contradictory.
Is it really a contradiction to say that the world and mankind needed to be saved, and that salvation occurred independently of our acceptance of it?
Let's look at the other manuscripts...
Quote:
The Quran. Mohammed performed no miracles, though the Quran speaks of him cutting the moon in half. It teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father (God), Mother (Mary), and Son (Jesus). It also says Christians believe God had sex with Mary in order to conceive Jesus. There is not one, not one thing from the Quran which has been proven by history or archeology.
Mormon Bible. Joseph Smith preached the Second Coming would be in 1891. He also preached that New York, Albany and Boston would be destroyed for rejecting Christ. His writings also taught that the civil war would cause a world war with famine, drought, plagues and the end of all nations.
Catholic Apocrypha. None of these were ever used, quoted or referred to by Jesus, His disciples, or the later Apostles. None were written by a prophet.
The Holy Bible. Historical and archaeological discoveries have proven this book. From the discoveries in archaeology to the creation of Israel. From Acts to Azusa Street. This book, more than all others, has been proven to be real time and time again.
And yet you claim that it's just like every other manuscript which has claimed to be from God.
Actually I wasn't claiming that at all! I was saying that my skepticism in the belief that the Bible is inerrant or completely authoritative is in part founded by the fact that God has ALLOWED other writings to exist. (Many claim that he watched over the choosing of the Canon, my question was if HE was going to make sure that there was no error in his writings, he could have prevented those other writings from existing. )
So basically, God allows thing that are error to exist, He even allows people to put His name on them. Therefore, I think blind allegiance to ANY writing is dangerous. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the Bible contains more spiritual wisdom then other writings. A large part of that is because I believe the purpose of the Bible is to lead us to relationship with Jesus in the form of Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
But I worry that so many Christians seem to elevate the Bible ABOVE God.
Quote:
So because God didn't stop Glen Beck (whatever he has to do with this) from being born, we should be skeptical of the Bible? As some say, "wut?"
I would agree that as far as ministers, Christians, and other writings (not including the Bible) we should be skeptical and try the Spirit. I don't believe that simply because God has allowed some things to happen (some of which has been according to His plan), we should write off the Bible as some manuscript like the Quran.
LOL the Glenn Beck thing was my way of saying that God allows messed up things to happen on this earth.
__________________
“There's such a lot of different Annes in me. I sometimes think that is why I'm such a troublesome person. If I was just the one Anne it would be ever so much more comfortable, but then it wouldn't be half so interesting.”
you are horrible. Right on target, tho.
than 
or 
, pretty please.
Linear Mode
