Fundamentals

[Amanda]

Freeday, K9 Jake, and others...

 

I'm curious to know if the Bible was meant NOT to be read as a literal story, but mostly as an allegory with meaningful "hidden" messages...

 

And if these messages make sense, keep them, and if they don't... throw them away.

(BTW, IMO, it is NOT blind faith but tried and tested convicted faith)

 

What if heaven and hell are states of mind?

 

What if spiritual life is what gives one the will to thrive, and spiritual death is what takes it away?

 

What if it is these principles and values that are presented in this story, even through a crucifiction, is what gives us the best state of mind possible? By all means, use reason.

 

What if these laws written on paper mean nothing, but only the intent of these laws are the importance?

 

What if there is NO exclusive club, but only a totally inclusive one?

 

What if these benefits we get are here and now?

 

If these benefits of a teaching only came after we died...

I would find that hard to swallow.

 

IMO, the idea is to have abundant life...

so wouldn't everything be legal as long as everyone and self is respected?

[Dhampir]

I have a question for you Amanda: if all your beliefs consist of is speculative assessments about what the bible (and I suppose whatever other holy books you've gotten a hold of) could possibly have concievably maybe meant, based solely on your point of view, why do you bother with any of it?

[Abiyoyo]

Why does someone have to be saved?

 

Every man has his appointed time. I believe thats what getting saved really is, though the term saved has been exploited and coined differently. I believe a man/woman is saved through the realization and instant knowledge of God, and His presence.

 

What are they saved from?

 

They are saved from the lie that God isnt real. In conjunction with the above statement, If God is and the realization of Him is apart of the process of salvation; then the unknowing and confusion of living in a world that we saw a certain way prior would conclude that Gods presence and realness to someone in their life. In lue, of seeing a different life altogether, saving themselves from the unknown and unsureness of their life.

 

 

And what makes someone saved

 

 

The real, working, genuine, everyday presence of God in the heart of that person. I will add to which we really have no clue because we cant see the thoughts of a person. That points back to some scripture that says, " as the wind blows from the east and west and nobody knows where it comes from, so does every person born the spirit".

[Amanda]

You want contradictions? We have plenty.

 

Let me pick one randomly from the pile:

 

The Nephilim, the giants that is a result of copulation between Fallen Angels (or Sons of God) just before the Flood. And they appear again later after the flood. Was Noah a Nephilim Giant himself, or one of his sons (adopted?) or one of the sons' wives? Or is the Giants considered a "kind" of animal? Somehow they survived according to the Bible, maybe the explanation is that it was not a Global flood? But then the Bible is wrong again by claiming it was a global flood.

 

Ge 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

 

13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

 

Nu 13:33

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

 

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

 

Heck, while you're at it, can you explain Paul's comment about the Epimenides statement about Cretans? The so called Liars Paradox. Why does Paul say "it's true", when every philosopher and logician knows that it can't be? He's wrong, but is he wrong because he's stupid or because the author intentionally put this contradiction in the Bible to hint to the smarter people that the Bible is NOT truly inspired by God? God wouldn't make this mistake, unless he also intended us to know that we shouldn't trust the book fully.

 

Titus 1:12 Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true.

 

HanSolo, of course I think the Noah's Flood story is a fable... as I think it was alluding to it being so in the NT. However, IMO, the Nephilim are just people that have set themselves high to worldly standards... just to fall. Check here and click onto the prime root meaning.

 

As far as the Cretans, they can be liars and still not lie ALL the time. Heck, they can be liars and not know it! BTW, I think the Cretans were the religous right (fundamentalist) of those days that were reading the Bible literally and urged not to be that way in these verses....

 

Titus1:13

This witness is true. Wherefore * * * rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

1:14

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

1:15

Unto the pure all things are pure *: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

1:16

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

[Dhampir]

Titus 1:12 Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true.

This statement is paraphrased from Epimenides of Knossos, Crete, who was a satirist. The statement was meant as an hyperbole, which means it was supposed to be an absolute. So when he said Cretans are always liars, he meant always. This is the reason why Paul screwed up there, because ol' Ep meant this statement as a joke; being a Cretan, how could that testimony be true if all Cretans lie?

As far as the Cretans, they can be liars and still not lie ALL the time. Heck, they can be liars and not know it! BTW, I think the Cretans were the religous right (fundamentalist) of those days that were reading the Bible literally and urged not to be that way in these verses....

Think, think, think! It's fine to think, problem is you have no substantiation for any of these things. Same as with Freeday, and SOIL before him.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, of course I think the Noah's Flood story is a fable... as I think it was alluding to it being so in the NT. However, IMO, the Nephilim are just people that have set themselves high to worldly standards... just to fall. Check here and click onto the prime root meaning.

I know you don't.

 

Very possible interpretation. But people did that many times before and after the flood, and yet God didn't punish the Earth those times. The Nephilim must have been something extraordinary different. If they only were giants because of DNA, then Noah or one in his family must have carried the DNA. But there's no mention of it. And how could the people hundred years later all of a sudden "remember" that these new giants they met were the same as the long-dead Nephilims before the flood?

 

As far as the Cretans, they can be liars and still not lie ALL the time. Heck, they can be liars and not know it! BTW, I think the Cretans were the religous right (fundamentalist) of those days that were reading the Bible literally and urged not to be that way in these verses....

I think you're missing the point.

 

You know, I'm a Swedish guy.

 

So if I say: "All Swedes LIE ALWAYS."

 

If I'm telling the truth that all Swedes lies all the time, then since I'm a swede, I'm lying too, and the statement is suddenly false instead. It's a conflict. A contradiction. And it can't be solved without saying the sentece is false or neither true or false.

 

The real truth is that all swedes do not lie all the times. But they can lie sometimes, and my statement is a lie in this case.

 

But the problem is that Paul don't recognize this little sentence of logical trickery...

 

Paul say, "Hans is telling the truth."

 

But we just concluded that I must be lying in this particular instance. And it is obvious that I do, by any logical means. So Paul is completely wrong about me and what I say. Paul is contradicting the paradox by misunderstanding its meaning and taking it as a general statement.

 

Another way of solving the problem is to say that "always" doesn't mean "always" but "sometimes" or "most of the time". Which is basically taking a screwdriver and twisting the words until they fit the "truth" we want to, instead of it being obviously true or false.

 

If always don't mean always in all instances in the Bible, then maybe it doesn't mean that when Jesus use the word either, or Paul in the other letters? Maybe God doesn't "always" hear your prayers? The implications are enormous if we go that path.

[Antlerman]

Why does someone have to be saved?

 

Every man has his appointed time.

This sounds like it’s lifted straight out of the Greek mythology of the Fates. So which one of the Three in heaven has the scissors?

 

I believe thats what getting saved really is, though the term saved has been exploited and coined differently. I believe a man/woman is saved through the realization and instant knowledge of God, and His presence.

So are you saying salvation is a spiritual awakening in this life? I would say I agree with you. Where I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with me is when I say that for many that spiritual awakening comes when we realized that teachings of the historical church were more chains than wings. There are many stages of spiritual awakening, being “born-again”, not one. I assume you limit “salvation” to a single legally prescribed method, a doctrine, a belief, a God-Box?

 

What are they saved from?

 

They are saved from the lie that God isnt real.

Here’s why I disagree. Salvation, to use that term, is not about a specific knowledge of a particular deity. It would be a spiritual awakening. That spiritual awakening can come as a result of placing faith in a particular deity, or it make come about in a moment of deep self-realization with no theology as a vehicle to that born-again experience. “Salvation” is being brought out of a personal state of deep lacking, into a fuller experience of Life. Some people achieve this with the symbol of Jesus, Mary, YHWH, or Allah, others with the disciplines of the Buddha, others through art, others through music, etc. Many times it just happens without any external thought or object as a catalyst. “Salvation” or being “Born Again” is a very common human experience that we call in language, “divine”, and it transcends any one single creed.

 

In conjunction with the above statement, If God is and the realization of Him is apart of the process of salvation; then the unknowing and confusion of living in a world that we saw a certain way prior would conclude that Gods presence and realness to someone in their life. In lue, of seeing a different life altogether, saving themselves from the unknown and unsureness of their life.

Well, again God may or may not be a part of someone’s “salvation”. But I do agree that afterwards we see life with a new radically changed perspective. One thing I disagree with you on though is what you seem to suggest that salvation saves you from the “unknown and un-sureness of their life.” I don’t know any Christian who can lay claim to knowledge of their own future in this life. If anything in “salvation” someone can find a new center, or a new sense of confidence in themselves to be able to deal with the uncertainties of life.

 

When I hear people say “Christ gives me the strength to face the world”, what I really hear is their belief system offers a center for themselves to be able to process the things that happen to them in life. In other words, they are finding the strength in themselves through focusing their thoughts and emotions on an idea. The problem is that that system that works for one, may not work for another. I can’t kneel before a statue of Mary and light a candle to find hope. My mind won’t allow me to identify with that object. That last statement is key to understanding why there are many religions in the world, all valid, none the single truth.

 

 

 

And what makes someone saved

 

 

The real, working, genuine, everyday presence of God in the heart of that person. I will add to which we really have no clue because we cant see the thoughts of a person. That points back to some scripture that says, " as the wind blows from the east and west and nobody knows where it comes from, so does every person born the spirit".

I agree that the potential of the human heart and mind can be mind-blowingly transcendent. The power of God, is born out of man. When someone moves beyond the mundane into an “awakened” sense of higher life it is seemingly “divine”. Our own divinity, so to speak is unique and as free as the wind. Institutional religion and doctrines tend to wall in that wind of the divine human spirit.

[freeday]

i would strongly urge you not to read anti-christian books. there arguements can be very persuasive. remember, christianity is based on faith. not proof.

Oh freeday, you make this far too easy! Say this comment out loud to yourself substituting the word "science" for "chirstianity", and "fact" for "faith" as you hold up the book you bought to learn about science as properly taught by a Theologian/Car Mechanic: "Dismantling Evolution"

 

This is quite the double-standard you have here. Given a race to the finish line, I would put Jake's approach to faith easily the one that will survive the long haul, because he doesn't nurture it by building walls around it and burying his head in the sand.

 

Why not read books criticizing religion? Unlike criticizing science which requires specialized training and knowledge, everyone is a philosopher on some level and choosing a philosophy that suits you is totally based on subjective preferences. When it comes to religious beliefs, everyone on the planet is an expert by virtue of living. So read away, since unlike science "Christianity is based on faith, not proof."

 

you have to question God with the right motives and right heart. because once the seed of doubt is planted, it will grow till you don't believe anymore. i would imagine that everyone on here would say it was a slow process of deconverting. not an overnight thing.

 

mat 16:12Then they understood that he[Jesus] was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

that is all i was trying to say. i question the motives of people who write books concerning the proof of no faith. you do the same, shouldn't I.

[freeday]

what contradictions have you found in the bible? remember, there are always two sides of the story. it is up to you to decide what is right or not. every one on here that i have seen, i have given a reasonable explanation for. some will say it's not, but i think it made sense to me.

You want contradictions? We have plenty.

 

Let me pick one randomly from the pile:

 

The Nephilim, the giants that is a result of copulation between Fallen Angels (or Sons of God) just before the Flood. And they appear again later after the flood. Was Noah a Nephilim Giant himself, or one of his sons (adopted?) or one of the sons' wives? Or is the Giants considered a "kind" of animal? Somehow they survived according to the Bible, maybe the explanation is that it was not a Global flood? But then the Bible is wrong again by claiming it was a global flood.

 

Ge 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

 

13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

 

Nu 13:33

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

 

 

i have actually discussed this with someone before, he seemed to think this is where greek mythology arised from.

 

i personally think that Nephilim was nat a race of people, but a type of person. example, he was a STRONG king.

 

i think the nephilum was a word used to describe the persons non-physicall caracteristics. it states they were heroes of old, men of renown. kind of like the egyptians calling there ruler pharoe, or the greeks calling there ruller ceasar. i think it is a term to indicate power and influence or political stature.

 

i don't buy into the whole angels breeding with women and whatnot creating some super demon race.

 

and lastly there is no contradiction. in gen 6:4 it specifically states "were on the earth in those days--and also afterward." So they were on the earth before and after the flood, regardless of what they were.

[Ouroboros]

i personally think that Nephilim was nat a race of people, but a type of person. example, he was a STRONG king.

Really? So the phrase "Sons of God" is not to be take literal but figurative, and yet "Son of God" is to be taken literal and not figurative? Maybe "Jesus Son of God" only mean "Jesus of Royal Blood"?

 

i don't buy into the whole angels breeding with women and whatnot creating some super demon race.

Neither do I. But Jewish writers before Jesus did.

 

and lastly there is no contradiction. in gen 6:4 it specifically states "were on the earth in those days--and also afterward." So they were on the earth before and after the flood, regardless of what they were.

"Afterward" what? After the mixing with the women, or after the flood, or after the Boston Tea party? And the Noah story say very specifically that the flood would kill ALL living things, not some.

 

What is happening here Freeday, is that you are learning to read parts of the story allegorical and figuratively instead of literal. And where do one draw the line? Who decides that the Noah story is just a myth to illustrate a larger meaning of religious understanding in contrast to decide that the story is a 100% historical event? You, me, science, the historians, who?

[freeday]

i personally think that Nephilim was nat a race of people, but a type of person. example, he was a STRONG king.

Really? So the phrase "Sons of God" is not to be take literal but figurative, and yet "Son of God" is to be taken literal and not figurative? Maybe "Jesus Son of God" only mean "Jesus of Royal Blood"?

 

how can we know what sons of God is, man in flesh, angels, demons, who the hell knows. There are all kinds of ideas of what they were. but no difinite answer.

i don't buy into the whole angels breeding with women and whatnot creating some super demon race.

Neither do I. But Jewish writers before Jesus did.

 

well, at least we agree on something.

 

and lastly there is no contradiction. in gen 6:4 it specifically states "were on the earth in those days--and also afterward." So they were on the earth before and after the flood, regardless of what they were.

"Afterward" what? After the mixing with the women, or after the flood, or after the Boston Tea party? And the Noah story say very specifically that the flood would kill ALL living things, not some.

 

that is why i think it is just a term to indicate a person of power. i am not alone on this, other study bible say this, and i have looked up the other stuff.

 

What is happening here Freeday, is that you are learning to read parts of the story allegorical and figuratively instead of literal. And where do one draw the line? Who decides that the Noah story is just a myth to illustrate a larger meaning of religious understanding in contrast to decide that the story is a 100% historical event? You, me, science, the historians, who?

 

there will always be verses in question, when it was written, they used a different language, and different expressions. listen to some old people talk, they will use expressions i have never heard of. to them the point is clear, to me, it is not.

[Ouroboros]

there will always be verses in question, when it was written, they used a different language, and different expressions. listen to some old people talk, they will use expressions i have never heard of. to them the point is clear, to me, it is not.

This puts you in the danger of believing something your whole life, and one day you discover it was supposed to be understood completely different. It happened to me many times during my Christian years.

 

I see no problem for a Christian to believe the Genesis story or the flood story to be allegories, but I'm so fascinated that Christians fight so hard to demand these stories to be taken literal and historical records, and when someone like me or my friends here start to point out the contradictions and problems, all of a sudden piece by piece becomes "oh, that's just figure of speech."

 

Look up the meaning of the root word to Nephilim, naphal. And tell me if that really means "Kings".

[freeday]

there will always be verses in question, when it was written, they used a different language, and different expressions. listen to some old people talk, they will use expressions i have never heard of. to them the point is clear, to me, it is not.

This puts you in the danger of believing something your whole life, and one day you discover it was supposed to be understood completely different. It happened to me many times during my Christian years.

 

I see no problem for a Christian to believe the Genesis story or the flood story to be allegories, but I'm so fascinated that Christians fight so hard to demand these stories to be taken literal and historical records, and when someone like me or my friends here start to point out the contradictions and problems, all of a sudden piece by piece becomes "oh, that's just figure of speech."

 

Look up the meaning of the root word to Nephilim, naphal. And tell me if that really means "Kings".

 

the hebrew meaning of it is "fallen ones" were they fallen because some angels had there way with the daughters of men, were they fallen because it was people of great physical or political power that had fallen from God's grace. maybe they needed to get right with God.

 

in the following verses it say that the "Lord saw how great man's wickedness on earth had become." so it could very well be great powerfull people who had become fallen ones.

 

i don't think what i have said is totally irrationall.

[Ouroboros]

You got the correct translation. It's not irrational, but your interpretation is is just an interpretation. You read it as you want to read it, right?

 

Nephilim, or the Fallen ones, is also mentioned in the Book of Enoch, as Angels. Granted the book is apocrypha. But it predates Jesus, and also remember apocrypha is not "unholy" or "heretic" scripture, but really just "other good scriptures, but not necessarily needed".

 

Anyway, some Gnostics believe these Nephilim to be real fallen Angles, so they read this part more literal than you do. Or lets ask a Raelian how he connects the Nephilim with Aliens.

 

Many ways of reading this part, how do you know your way is the right way?

[freeday]

You got the correct translation. It's not irrational, but your interpretation is is just an interpretation. You read it as you want to read it, right?

 

Nephilim, or the Fallen ones, is also mentioned in the Book of Enoch, as Angels. Granted the book is apocrypha. But it predates Jesus, and also remember apocrypha is not "unholy" or "heretic" scripture, but really just "other good scriptures, but not necessarily needed".

 

Anyway, some Gnostics believe these Nephilim to be real fallen Angles, so they read this part more literal than you do. Or lets ask a Raelian how he connects the Nephilim with Aliens.

 

Many ways of reading this part, how do you know your way is the right way?

 

now thats the million dollar question, i don't know for sure i am right, just as you don't either. i view the apocrypha a little different than you do, i don't think it was not needed, but more didn't fit the rules established when deciding if a book was canonical or not.

[Ouroboros]

now thats the million dollar question, i don't know for sure i am right, just as you don't either. i view the apocrypha a little different than you do, i don't think it was not needed, but more didn't fit the rules established when deciding if a book was canonical or not.

You might have the same view as me, I'm not sure. I just didn't bother explaining what Apocrypha is. In the beginning they were considered important to the religious studies too, and was viewed as books good to read and learn more about the faith. During the 16th century Apocrypha changed meaning and became synomynous to "spurious writings". Which is how most Christians view it today, that Apocrypha is bad or maybe even evil and not inspiried words at all. Which I think is not how it used to be.

 

But the point with Book of Enoch isn't so much if it was approved or voted into a canon, but that there existed Jewish religious writers predating Jesus that interpreted "Nephilim" as "Fallen Angels". In the same way as the Morning Star. And most likely the real meaning behind the word is "Fallen Stars", since many old religions saw the stars as angels, the small gods, next the the big god the sun. And the morning star and evening star which is the brightest on the sky besides the sun and the moon got the myth that it was a leader angel. And meteorites etc, fallen (shooting) stars, was of course then stars/angels that were thrown down to Earth for rebellion against God (the Sun, Ra).

[freeday]

now thats the million dollar question, i don't know for sure i am right, just as you don't either. i view the apocrypha a little different than you do, i don't think it was not needed, but more didn't fit the rules established when deciding if a book was canonical or not.

You might have the same view as me, I'm not sure. I just didn't bother explaining what Apocrypha is. In the beginning they were considered important to the religious studies too, and was viewed as books good to read and learn more about the faith. During the 16th century Apocrypha changed meaning and became synomynous to "spurious writings". Which is how most Christians view it today, that Apocrypha is bad or maybe even evil and not inspiried words at all. Which I think is not how it used to be.

 

i view the appocrypha as something to read into the history of people, not for spiritual guidance. i have read a couple of them, not all. in reading them, i get the distinct feeling that it doesn't belong, be it theme, writing style or whatever it was.

 

But the point with Book of Enoch isn't so much if it was approved or voted into a canon, but that there existed Jewish religious writers predating Jesus that interpreted "Nephilim" as "Fallen Angels". In the same way as the Morning Star. And most likely the real meaning behind the word is "Fallen Stars", since many old religions saw the stars as angels, the small gods, next the the big god the sun. And the morning star and evening star which is the brightest on the sky besides the sun and the moon got the myth that it was a leader angel. And meteorites etc, fallen (shooting) stars, was of course then stars/angels that were thrown down to Earth for rebellion against God (the Sun, Ra).

 

i am trying to find it but can't currently, you know in the bible their are some words that they aren't a 100% sure what was writen, some suggest the word could have been meaphilim, or something like it. i can't find it right now, but other words that sound like it, have the meaning i was portraying to you.

[Antlerman]

you have to question God with the right motives and right heart. because once the seed of doubt is planted, it will grow till you don't believe anymore. i would imagine that everyone on here would say it was a slow process of deconverting. not an overnight thing.

I really want to discuss this with you in several posts if we can? First this is not questioning God. This is questioning beliefs about a god. There is a big difference. For many people it's breaking away from unhealthy ideas about God, that's both damaging to the sprit and their minds. You refer to "seeds of doubt" as something that grows like a weed choking the life out of faith. Another way to put it is glimmers of light that lead you out of a dark pit that is created by theology, that "box" that walls in the human spirit.

 

What I seem to be hearing in your comment is what I've heard preached repeatedly to the faithful to make them afraid of questioning their beliefs. "If you entertain thoughts of doubt, it will rob you of your faith." Ploys of calling it the devil planting seeds of doubt, etc work well to make people push out any sort of thought that questions teaching. This again kills the spirit by imprisoning their minds.

 

If it has truth, it will stand on its own to a sincere examination. The question is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fear is the end of both.

 

mat 16:12Then they understood that he[Jesus] was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

that is all i was trying to say. i question the motives of people who write books concerning the proof of no faith. you do the same, shouldn't I.

A fantastic example citing the corrupting influence of the religious institution. This is exactly what I argue against in everything I say on this site freeday. Never have I told you belief in a god is necessarily bad, but the sorts of beliefs that come out of literalist, Pharisee church most certainly is. A good choice of scripture.

 

Yes, I think questioning the credibility of any author speaking authoritatively about a subject is prudent. Not the content of what is being said should be a criteria (which is most certainly frowned upon in Christianity to read challenges to their faith in literature - book burning is no stranger to the Church), but the reliability of the person's credential should be considered.

 

But if you are suspicious of people’s motives who write books simply because they are critical of religions, maybe you should read why they are writing them. I make my motives very clear in nearly every other post I make. I wouldn’t first assume they have some secret, hidden agenda. Atheists don’t have a religion to sell. Christians on the other hand, as my experience has shown, most definitely are trying to sell something, and more often than I would care to think about, it is usually done through dishonest, disingenuous, and insincere means, all justified by the “righteousness” of the cause, sad to say.

[freeday]

you have to question God with the right motives and right heart. because once the seed of doubt is planted, it will grow till you don't believe anymore. i would imagine that everyone on here would say it was a slow process of deconverting. not an overnight thing.

I really want to discuss this with you in several posts if we can? First this is not questioning God. This is questioning beliefs about a god. There is a big difference. For many people it's breaking away from unhealthy ideas about God, that's both damaging to the sprit and their minds. You refer to "seeds of doubt" as something that grows like a weed choking the life out of faith. Another way to put it is glimmers of light that lead you out of a dark pit that is created by theology, that "box" that walls in the human spirit.

 

i have sat and thought about this, in one way i see your point. there is one God that has many beliefs, some of which you find unhealthy. but isn't it the belief that vindicates the God, or for lack of better words makes the God. i believe in the bible God, thus my belief creates the God, i don't believe in alah, so he doesn't exist to me. i am not sure if you can separate the two.

 

What I seem to be hearing in your comment is what I've heard preached repeatedly to the faithful to make them afraid of questioning their beliefs. "If you entertain thoughts of doubt, it will rob you of your faith." Ploys of calling it the devil planting seeds of doubt, etc work well to make people push out any sort of thought that questions teaching. This again kills the spirit by imprisoning their minds.

 

If it has truth, it will stand on its own to a sincere examination. The question is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fear is the end of both.

 

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

 

mat 16:12Then they understood that he[Jesus] was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

that is all i was trying to say. i question the motives of people who write books concerning the proof of no faith. you do the same, shouldn't I.

A fantastic example citing the corrupting influence of the religious institution. This is exactly what I argue against in everything I say on this site freeday. Never have I told you belief in a god is necessarily bad, but the sorts of beliefs that come out of literalist, Pharisee church most certainly is. A good choice of scripture.

 

well at least we can agree on something, just asking, what literalist ideals do you find wrong. obviously the literal hell and eternal torment, but what else.

 

Yes, I think questioning the credibility of any author speaking authoritatively about a subject is prudent. Not the content of what is being said should be a criteria (which is most certainly frowned upon in Christianity to read challenges to their faith in literature - book burning is no stranger to the Church), but the reliability of the person's credential should be considered.

 

But if you are suspicious of people’s motives who write books simply because they are critical of religions, maybe you should read why they are writing them. I make my motives very clear in nearly every other post I make. I wouldn’t first assume they have some secret, hidden agenda. Atheists don’t have a religion to sell. Christians on the other hand, as my experience has shown, most definitely are trying to sell something, and more often than I would care to think about, it is usually done through dishonest, disingenuous, and insincere means, all justified by the “righteousness” of the cause, sad to say.

 

i will be the first to admit that the churches are quick to condem certain material. but lets be real about this, anyone who publishes a book concerning religion, is trying to make money off of their ideas. or any book for that matter.

[Vigile]

you have to question God with the right motives and right heart. because once the seed of doubt is planted, it will grow till you don't believe anymore. i would imagine that everyone on here would say it was a slow process of deconverting. not an overnight thing.

I really want to discuss this with you in several posts if we can? First this is not questioning God. This is questioning beliefs about a god. There is a big difference. For many people it's breaking away from unhealthy ideas about God, that's both damaging to the sprit and their minds. You refer to "seeds of doubt" as something that grows like a weed choking the life out of faith. Another way to put it is glimmers of light that lead you out of a dark pit that is created by theology, that "box" that walls in the human spirit.

 

What I seem to be hearing in your comment is what I've heard preached repeatedly to the faithful to make them afraid of questioning their beliefs. "If you entertain thoughts of doubt, it will rob you of your faith." Ploys of calling it the devil planting seeds of doubt, etc work well to make people push out any sort of thought that questions teaching. This again kills the spirit by imprisoning their minds.

 

If it has truth, it will stand on its own to a sincere examination. The question is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fear is the end of both.

 

Freeday, let me ask you a related question. At one point in my life I was wholly dedicated to the xian path. I desired with every bone to be nearer to christ, to understand him, and to be a good witness for him. I even toyed with dedicating my life to overseas missions. Meanwhile, as I grew older, some heavy questions started to bombard me. One was related to the justice of hell and the imbalance between those in the world exposed to the gospel. Another was a seeming inconsistency between Paul's exhortation to pick up your cross and Solomon's exhortation to eat, drink, and be merry.

 

The questions I had are either here, nor there. The issue is my response to these questions. I prayerfully and humbly asked god to give me wisdom and show me that which is truth. I wrote in my journal that "from this day forward, I will be a student of life... ...I will question everything and that which I find to not be true, I will discard, and that which can stand the test of honest questioning will remain." I approached this with a great deal of sincerity and a heart that desired truth, which I believed was honorable and god's will.

 

My question to you is, was I wrong to test that which I didn't not understand? That which seemed unjust or inconsistent to me? Do you think that it is more honorable to burry one's head in the sand and just believe?

 

 

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

 

Perhaps they lack sincerity or objectivity, or perhaps it's an IQ issue as harsh as that may sound.

[Ouroboros]

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

 

Perhaps they lack sincerity or objectivity, or perhaps it's an IQ issue as harsh as that may sound.

I think it's more about if a person puts more importance to how they feel about something rather how they can rationalize about it. The reasons and arguments they use in apologetics is not based on finding a common, universal or independent truth that can be supported outside the Bible as such, but they reason and argue based on what they feel has to be true within the Bible only. Which means, as we've seen many times, that a contradiction or weird phrase etc, can be "apologized" through re-interpretation. Some of these people are extremely intelligent, but the way I see it, their intelligence is a slave to their emotions. For them, emotion is king, and rationality is just a tool.

 

I've noticed that apostates like me, who break out of religion, still have the same chain of command in their life. And I can feel sometimes how emotions still drive me. But the more I study, the more reason becomes master, and the emotions become slave more and more. It's nothing wrong to have emotions, but when it sits in the driver's seat, that's when it's so easy to go astray.

[Vigile]

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

 

Perhaps they lack sincerity or objectivity, or perhaps it's an IQ issue as harsh as that may sound.

I think it's more about if a person puts more importance to how they feel about something rather how they can rationalize about it. The reasons and arguments they use in apologetics is not based on finding a common, universal or independent truth that can be supported outside the Bible as such, but they reason and argue based on what they feel has to be true within the Bible only. Which means, as we've seen many times, that a contradiction or weird phrase etc, can be "apologized" through re-interpretation. Some of these people are extremely intelligent, but the way I see it, their intelligence is a slave to their emotions. For them, emotion is king, and rationality is just a tool.

 

I've noticed that apostates like me, who break out of religion, still have the same chain of command in their life. And I can feel sometimes how emotions still drive me. But the more I study, the more reason becomes master, and the emotions become slave more and more. It's nothing wrong to have emotions, but when it sits in the driver's seat, that's when it's so easy to go astray.

 

Yes, this would fall under the lack of objectivity explanation I offered. I guess I should have made it clear that I was offering several different reasons for this phenomena; lack of intelligence being only one. Certainly it is true that there are believers that are highly intelligent. I guess I can envision a scenario, however, where one is objective and sincere, yet his/her intelligence fails them.

[Antlerman]

i have sat and thought about this, in one way i see your point. there is one God that has many beliefs, some of which you find unhealthy. but isn't it the belief that vindicates the God, or for lack of better words makes the God. i believe in the bible God, thus my belief creates the God, i don't believe in alah, so he doesn't exist to me. i am not sure if you can separate the two.

You are almost talking my language here. You are saying what I always say that God is subjectively real, or “collectively” real in the case of a common belief (i.e. “he exists for them”), but that still is dependent upon people believing. If those people quit believing in that god, he would cease to exist. In other words that god doesn’t exist independently as a conscious being. People created him, give him life, sustain him, shape him, utilize him, or discard him.

 

So in response to your question, “isn’t it the belief that vindicates the God, or for lack of better words makes the God?”, the answer is yes. If I am rejecting Bob’s belief in YHWH, in a sense I am reject “YHWH”, but it’s really HIS YHWH, or his particular collective’s interpretation of YHWH. In a more practicle sense though, because there is no objective, single definition of YHWH, what is being cricitized is the individual’s or his collective’s belief – or to state it another way – their concept of a particular diety. If they were the only ones who defined who YHWH was, then I suppose one could say we are rejecting YHWH, but since many others define YHWH in many other ways that Bob and his group do, it would be inaccurate and inappropriate to say we are rejecting YHWH when the context is a criticism of one way of defining him.

 

Footnote: this is one instance in which I will apply the word “arrogant” to groups who say “If you don’t accept what it says here, you are denying God.” One does not necessarily mean the other, but to them, their belief consitiutes the single truth to the exclusion of all others. That is what I call arrogant . They are not the only group who believes or defines who YHWH is, so they are not entitled to tell someone if they reject their beliefs they are damned. Do you see?

 

What I seem to be hearing in your comment is what I've heard preached repeatedly to the faithful to make them afraid of questioning their beliefs. "If you entertain thoughts of doubt, it will rob you of your faith." Ploys of calling it the devil planting seeds of doubt, etc work well to make people push out any sort of thought that questions teaching. This again kills the spirit by imprisoning their minds.

 

If it has truth, it will stand on its own to a sincere examination. The question is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fear is the end of both.

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

It does not stand up to criticism. Put another way, in light of what I just said above about the many and varied beliefs, the literalist interpretation of the Bible does not stand up to criticism. If however you accept the Bible as a collection of historical perspectives, spiritual poetry and teaching, mythologies, etc, written by men as expressions of their spiritual ideals and national sense of history, of course it will stand up to examination. That’s what it is. What fails to stand up to criticism is not the bible itself, but how people approach it. The Bible is inconsistent when it’s read as literally, factually, objectively, historically, and scientfically accurate.

 

As to why is it some peoples faith becomes stronger and others fail? Huge question!!! Lot’s of reasons. First of all, is their faith failing, or changing? You see what I mean? From whose perspective are we saying their faith, per se’ failed? Their “beliefs” about a particular thing may no longer hold meaning for them, but do they suddenly lack the capacity for “faith”?

 

Someone may choose to believe in Krishna instead of Jesus, and it may have nothing whatsover to do with believing or disbelieving a set of doctrines. Krishna may speak to something in them that their particual cultures views expressed in faith to Jesus did not. It will have to do with many things: personality, family, education, cultural exposure, etc.

 

Someone’s willingness to change their beliefs has nothing whatsoever to do with objective “truth”, when it comes to religious beliefs. (check out this map to see how non-objective theses sorts of “truth” really is: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=8415&hl= ). In my particular case, because I was taught it was “the Truth” and was presented with all sorts of “evidence” to corrobrate this “objective faith” is what killed it for me. It killed it for me because of how my mind works in approaching “rational arguments”. They should never have told me it was rational, which it is not. Someone else may stay with it, but rationality isn’t a strong suit with them. But for me rational and emotional thought carry equal weight. That’s why I rejected belief offered in that version.

 

Here's the key: If the belief is examined and it is right for the person, they will continue to believe it and it will stand up for them based on their own personal criteria for what "truth" needs to be for them. Here's the second key: If they are examining it, something inside of them is not being addressed by their adopted belief system. If upon examination they find satisfaction, then the system worked for them, if they don't then they need to find something else. If they need to find something else, are they wrong?? In realitiy all faith systems are about personal relationships. In this sense, there is no one magic bullet truth for all people. Is the girl I loved when I was 18, the girl who is right for me in my 40's? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. People change, people have personalities, etc. Religion is 100% personal choice and 0% objective truth.

 

i will be the first to admit that the churches are quick to condem certain material. but lets be real about this, anyone who publishes a book concerning religion, is trying to make money off of their ideas. or any book for that matter.

I post on this forum nearly every day and haven’t received one penny for my thoughts. Not everyone who publishes a book on religion is trying to make money. I produced an album of my music and really didn’t do so to make money off it. I might someday publish a book on my perspectives that I post here, but that doesn’t mean my motives are greed. I’m usually the first to be a cynic, but I don’t agree money is the only one motive for why people do things. It depends on what the book is. I think many are about exploiting pop-culutre for a buck, such as the many and varied New Age, and pop-pscyology books, but for me I can smell those a mile a way. I gravitate to those who are simply publishing because they feel they have something important to say.

[freeday]

you have to question God with the right motives and right heart. because once the seed of doubt is planted, it will grow till you don't believe anymore. i would imagine that everyone on here would say it was a slow process of deconverting. not an overnight thing.

I really want to discuss this with you in several posts if we can? First this is not questioning God. This is questioning beliefs about a god. There is a big difference. For many people it's breaking away from unhealthy ideas about God, that's both damaging to the sprit and their minds. You refer to "seeds of doubt" as something that grows like a weed choking the life out of faith. Another way to put it is glimmers of light that lead you out of a dark pit that is created by theology, that "box" that walls in the human spirit.

 

What I seem to be hearing in your comment is what I've heard preached repeatedly to the faithful to make them afraid of questioning their beliefs. "If you entertain thoughts of doubt, it will rob you of your faith." Ploys of calling it the devil planting seeds of doubt, etc work well to make people push out any sort of thought that questions teaching. This again kills the spirit by imprisoning their minds.

 

If it has truth, it will stand on its own to a sincere examination. The question is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fear is the end of both.

 

Freeday, let me ask you a related question. At one point in my life I was wholly dedicated to the xian path. I desired with every bone to be nearer to christ, to understand him, and to be a good witness for him. I even toyed with dedicating my life to overseas missions. Meanwhile, as I grew older, some heavy questions started to bombard me. One was related to the justice of hell and the imbalance between those in the world exposed to the gospel. Another was a seeming inconsistency between Paul's exhortation to pick up your cross and Solomon's exhortation to eat, drink, and be merry.

 

The questions I had are either here, nor there. The issue is my response to these questions. I prayerfully and humbly asked god to give me wisdom and show me that which is truth. I wrote in my journal that "from this day forward, I will be a student of life... ...I will question everything and that which I find to not be true, I will discard, and that which can stand the test of honest questioning will remain." I approached this with a great deal of sincerity and a heart that desired truth, which I believed was honorable and god's will.

 

My question to you is, was I wrong to test that which I didn't not understand? That which seemed unjust or inconsistent to me? Do you think that it is more honorable to burry one's head in the sand and just believe?

 

 

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

 

Perhaps they lack sincerity or objectivity, or perhaps it's an IQ issue as harsh as that may sound.

 

you just described me, that is kind of scary, but for some reason when i find inconsistencies, i am OK with the knowledge, that God has not fully revealed himself. and when you compare the God of the OT to Jesus of the NT. i am OK with that God chose a different approach. because yes, there is a destinct difference in the two.

 

and i can understand the fact that some people do not by into the NT, the article that Antlerman provided above is very convincing. but even as convincing as it is, i found several things that i didn't agree with, even from an objective analysis.

 

and yes i do have a low IQ, so it is easy for me to believe, i have what they call a "child like belief"

 

 

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

 

Perhaps they lack sincerity or objectivity, or perhaps it's an IQ issue as harsh as that may sound.

I think it's more about if a person puts more importance to how they feel about something rather how they can rationalize about it. The reasons and arguments they use in apologetics is not based on finding a common, universal or independent truth that can be supported outside the Bible as such, but they reason and argue based on what they feel has to be true within the Bible only. Which means, as we've seen many times, that a contradiction or weird phrase etc, can be "apologized" through re-interpretation. Some of these people are extremely intelligent, but the way I see it, their intelligence is a slave to their emotions. For them, emotion is king, and rationality is just a tool.

 

I've noticed that apostates like me, who break out of religion, still have the same chain of command in their life. And I can feel sometimes how emotions still drive me. But the more I study, the more reason becomes master, and the emotions become slave more and more. It's nothing wrong to have emotions, but when it sits in the driver's seat, that's when it's so easy to go astray.

 

slave to emotion, we call it slave to sin. you make a good point. but i am further along than this. in the begining my faith was extremely based on feelings. now i feel like i have a wisdom in the faith. now i can worship and praise the Lord, even if i don't experience that profound feeling. i don't try to be a good person because of feelings, i try to be a good person, because of the experiences in my life has lead me to believe that living a christian life is what is right for me. what will make me the happiest.

[freeday]

i have sat and thought about this, in one way i see your point. there is one God that has many beliefs, some of which you find unhealthy. but isn't it the belief that vindicates the God, or for lack of better words makes the God. i believe in the bible God, thus my belief creates the God, i don't believe in alah, so he doesn't exist to me. i am not sure if you can separate the two.

You are almost talking my language here. You are saying what I always say that God is subjectively real, or “collectively” real in the case of a common belief (i.e. “he exists for them”), but that still is dependent upon people believing. If those people quit believing in that god, he would cease to exist. In other words that god doesn’t exist independently as a conscious being. People created him, give him life, sustain him, shape him, utilize him, or discard him.

 

So in response to your question, “isn’t it the belief that vindicates the God, or for lack of better words makes the God?”, the answer is yes. If I am rejecting Bob’s belief in YHWH, in a sense I am reject “YHWH”, but it’s really HIS YHWH, or his particular collective’s interpretation of YHWH. In a more practicle sense though, because there is no objective, single definition of YHWH, what is being cricitized is the individual’s or his collective’s belief – or to state it another way – their concept of a particular diety. If they were the only ones who defined who YHWH was, then I suppose one could say we are rejecting YHWH, but since many others define YHWH in many other ways that Bob and his group do, it would be inaccurate and inappropriate to say we are rejecting YHWH when the context is a criticism of one way of defining him.

 

this really got me thinking about it, when some JW's came over the other day, ussually i can shut them up pretty quickly, but this time, i was content on sitting and listening. there are thousands of different sects that interpret just the bible God in a variety of ways. but yet all of them believe in a one God. they just interpret some stuff differently. but they all have this common desire to obey God. so i think the major indoctrine is followed. so i will bring up my point, that we keep circling around, does humans create God based on thier beliefs and customes. is that the reason for the stark contrast in the OT and NT. or does God allow his word to be interpreted differently as long as the common goal of obeying Him is achieved. i personally look at what i have learned and how my life has been better walking with the Lord and fully believe there is a God. now which religion is the most accurate, i am not a 100% sure on that one. but i can deduct several from the list that i do not agree with.

 

Footnote: this is one instance in which I will apply the word “arrogant” to groups who say “If you don’t accept what it says here, you are denying God.” One does not necessarily mean the other, but to them, their belief consitiutes the single truth to the exclusion of all others. That is what I call arrogant . They are not the only group who believes or defines who YHWH is, so they are not entitled to tell someone if they reject their beliefs they are damned. Do you see?

 

What I seem to be hearing in your comment is what I've heard preached repeatedly to the faithful to make them afraid of questioning their beliefs. "If you entertain thoughts of doubt, it will rob you of your faith." Ploys of calling it the devil planting seeds of doubt, etc work well to make people push out any sort of thought that questions teaching. This again kills the spirit by imprisoning their minds.

 

If it has truth, it will stand on its own to a sincere examination. The question is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fear is the end of both.

this is where we differ, i think the bible does stand up against criticism. and i think it is fine to question God. but why is it some people will question him and become stronger christians, and others will question him and lose the faith.

It does not stand up to criticism. Put another way, in light of what I just said above about the many and varied beliefs, the literalist interpretation of the Bible does not stand up to criticism. If however you accept the Bible as a collection of historical perspectives, spiritual poetry and teaching, mythologies, etc, written by men as expressions of their spiritual ideals and national sense of history, of course it will stand up to examination. That’s what it is. What fails to stand up to criticism is not the bible itself, but how people approach it. The Bible is inconsistent when it’s read as literally, factually, objectively, historically, and scientfically accurate.

 

from what i have read, the bible is a great historicall resource. as far as the scientific aspect of it, there is a write up i have been meaning to do (i have been very busy, trying to sale my house, purchase a new one, find a new job in a city 1.5 hrs away) but have not had the time. but the genisis account is very accurate to what happened. i think even you would be impressed.

 

As to why is it some peoples faith becomes stronger and others fail? Huge question!!! Lot’s of reasons. First of all, is their faith failing, or changing? You see what I mean? From whose perspective are we saying their faith, per se’ failed? Their “beliefs” about a particular thing may no longer hold meaning for them, but do they suddenly lack the capacity for “faith”?

 

Someone may choose to believe in Krishna instead of Jesus, and it may have nothing whatsover to do with believing or disbelieving a set of doctrines. Krishna may speak to something in them that their particual cultures views expressed in faith to Jesus did not. It will have to do with many things: personality, family, education, cultural exposure, etc.

 

Someone’s willingness to change their beliefs has nothing whatsoever to do with objective “truth”, when it comes to religious beliefs. (check out this map to see how non-objective theses sorts of “truth” really is: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=8415&hl= ). In my particular case, because I was taught it was “the Truth” and was presented with all sorts of “evidence” to corrobrate this “objective faith” is what killed it for me. It killed it for me because of how my mind works in approaching “rational arguments”. They should never have told me it was rational, which it is not. Someone else may stay with it, but rationality isn’t a strong suit with them. But for me rational and emotional thought carry equal weight. That’s why I rejected belief offered in that version.

 

Here's the key: If the belief is examined and it is right for the person, they will continue to believe it and it will stand up for them based on their own personal criteria for what "truth" needs to be for them. Here's the second key: If they are examining it, something inside of them is not being addressed by their adopted belief system. If upon examination they find satisfaction, then the system worked for them, if they don't then they need to find something else. If they need to find something else, are they wrong?? In realitiy all faith systems are about personal relationships. In this sense, there is no one magic bullet truth for all people. Is the girl I loved when I was 18, the girl who is right for me in my 40's? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. People change, people have personalities, etc. Religion is 100% personal choice and 0% objective truth.

 

i like your wording of change rather than losing faith. the thing i like about christianity, is that it is not supposed to be condusive for the modern day life style. lets face it, it shuns premarital sex, drugs, alcohol and whatnot. i feel that my religion is not supposed to change for the benifit of the person, rather, the person change for the benifit of the religion. that is why i feel it to be true, you have to change your ways, not the other way around.

 

i will be the first to admit that the churches are quick to condem certain material. but lets be real about this, anyone who publishes a book concerning religion, is trying to make money off of their ideas. or any book for that matter.

I post on this forum nearly every day and haven’t received one penny for my thoughts. Not everyone who publishes a book on religion is trying to make money. I produced an album of my music and really didn’t do so to make money off it. I might someday publish a book on my perspectives that I post here, but that doesn’t mean my motives are greed. I’m usually the first to be a cynic, but I don’t agree money is the only one motive for why people do things. It depends on what the book is. I think many are about exploiting pop-culutre for a buck, such as the many and varied New Age, and pop-pscyology books, but for me I can smell those a mile a way. I gravitate to those who are simply publishing because they feel they have something important to say.

 

if you have a paypall, i will send you a dollar or two. it is always great to have a conversation with you. you are a very smart man, even though i don't agree with you.