Promises To Abraham Ignored By Most 'christians', Etc.

[Sawu]

Alright some questions.. if the kingdom of god is right now (as many christians assert), then how has abraham inherited the land of canaan forever?

 

"I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17:8).

 

"The promise that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world (Rom. 4:13)."

 

Heb. 11:13,39,40 drives home the point:- "These all died in faith, not having received the promises; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect".

 

"Look now toward heaven, and tell (count) the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be...Unto thy seed have I given this land" (Gen. 15:5,18).

 

"I will give unto...thy seed after thee...the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8).

 

 

Obviously this never happened, so most christians who do not believe in a literal kingdom of god have a problem in that old testament god lied to abraham (not to mention many others in the old testament like david, etc). Since how can the fulfillment of the promise made in the old testament be true if the kingdom of god is not a literal kingdom? Not to mention hebrews puts a damper on things as well saying they didn't recieve the promises (also implies they are dead, and hits the doctrine of immortal soulism and heaven and hell as "places" square between the eyes). That is a major problem if we try to put ourselves in the character of abraham, not only that paul and all the new testament authors frequently mention the promises refering to abraham.

 

For liberal christians: If adam, moses and abraham is not a literal character, then certainly paul is incorrect:

 

Romans 5:14- Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

 

Now death can't reign from a figurative character to another figurative character, not to mention it totally negates the gospel message.. after all if sin is imaginary, then certainly sin doesn't exist and there is no need for god to save anyone from it. From whence come sin if the old testament is figurative and allegorical?

[freeday]

first off, welcome to the site.

 

i always like to look at the "promise land" in the OT as a metaphor for the heavenly kingdom. those are my thoughts on it anyway.

[Amanda]

Welcome to these forums Sawu!

 

A very good topic starter too!

 

Okay... I guess I could be considered a liberal Christian... as I do give merit to these teachings on an allegorical level, and do believe there is a moral to the story/myth. Here are my insights to this...

 

Alright some questions.. if the kingdom of god is right now (as many christians assert), then how has abraham inherited the land of canaan forever?

 

"I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17:8).

 

I don't know what you mean by the kingdom of god being right now, however... the seed of Abraham, as the myth goes, does have possession of the land of canaan. The Moslems also claim Abraham as the father, and it appears that even these Asian countries could have Abraham as the spiritual father of their country too.

 

"The promise that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world (Rom. 4:13)."

 

The KJV with the Strong Concordance says this:

 

Romans 4:13

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

4:14

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

 

I understand this to mean that we are NOT heirs because of works, but because it was promised to us ALL.

 

Heb. 11:13,39,40 drives home the point:- "These all died in faith, not having received the promises; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect".

 

This, to me, substantiates the concept of something, at least, similar to reincarnation.

 

"Look now toward heaven, and tell (count) the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be...Unto thy seed have I given this land" (Gen. 15:5,18).

 

Like I said... according to the myth/story, we're ALL probably decendents of this symbol of the foundation of almost all spiritual teachings today... so I guess that did become fulfilled.

 

"I will give unto...thy seed after thee...the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8).

Again, the Muslims are considered the seed of Abraham through Ishmael. Then Abraham had Issac, producing the Jews. After Sarah died, he had other children, whom he sent to the far east. That just about covers it, doesn't it?

 

Now where the story may get a little sticky, IMO, is after the world wide flood.

 

However, according to myth... Noah was from Abraham, and had three sons. Shem, starting the Jewish group, Ham, the father of Canaan and starting the Phoenicians/Arabs/Muslims, and Japheth starting the gentiles.

 

Of course we know that much of this is myth... however, it may hold some clues to what really happened in history. It is believed that writing, invented by the Sumerians, didn't begin till about 3000 BC, called cuneiform writing. And even then, in the initial phases, it was only used for inventory purposes. So, it wasn't till after that, the word of mouth stories from generation to generation got written down. Considering their much less articulate style than we're use to today... who knows what could of happened?

 

Since how can the fulfillment of the promise made in the old testament be true if the kingdom of god is not a literal kingdom?

 

The kingdom of God is within you.

 

For liberal christians: If adam, moses and abraham is not a literal character, then certainly paul is incorrect:

 

Romans 5:14- Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

 

Now death can't reign from a figurative character to another figurative character, not to mention it totally negates the gospel message.. after all if sin is imaginary, then certainly sin doesn't exist and there is no need for god to save anyone from it. From whence come sin if the old testament is figurative and allegorical?

 

IMO, this death is not a physical death... it is a spiritual death. Anything that takes away from the will to thrive, is spiritual death. Anything that supports the will to thrive, is spiritual life. "To be carnally minded is death, to be spiritually minded is life and peace." The original "sin" causing death, came from knowing good and evil... giving us the ability to judge, hence, partaking the forbidden fruit of condemnation. The concept of grace, understanding people do the best best they know how, yet holding them accountable and responsible for their actions, ends condemnation. How can we condemn someone for not doing better than their best? Ending condemnation gives life.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I don't know what you mean by the kingdom of god being right now

 

Many christian sects believe that passages about the Kingdom of God in the scriptures refer to the earthly kingdom of the church. My church had several bible studies required before conversion, one of which was aptly entitled "The Kindom" in which they began with Daniel's prophecy about the statue of bronze and iron etc, moved through to scriptures like "many of you here will not taste death until you see the Kingdom of god come with power" which they believed referred to the pentacost. Jesus also said that Peter had the keys to the kingdom, blah, blah, blah. Then they would end with "seek first the kingdom" which to them meant to always come to every church service and give at least 10 percent if not more.

[Sawu]

I don't know what you mean by the kingdom of god being right now, however... the seed of Abraham, as the myth goes, does have possession of the land of canaan. The Moslems also claim Abraham as the father, and it appears that even these Asian countries could have Abraham as the spiritual father of their country too.

 

The point being, for most fundamentalists that believe in the literal adam, moses, abraham, david and jesus, certainly THESE WERE REAL PEOPLE to 'real' christians, after all without a literal adam, abraham, and david, the gospel and purpose of christ does not make any lick of sense to anyone.

 

This is why liberal christians are not really to be bothered with, they are basially secular people who can't give up the idea they are going to die some day and find a way to bastardize it into their head to quell their fear of death and/or lack of hope, happyness, etc, or use it as a means for social function.

 

Pretend for a moment the character is real, if we asked abraham what god promised him, shouldn't the christian also have the same faith and partake in the same promise of abraham? After all god promised it would be forever and the land of canaan is on earth.

 

I don't usually deal with non-literal, nonfundy christians on matters of doctrine, since doctrine by definition doesn't matter. Since because the bible makes clear "the wages of sin is death" and it's not spiritual death its PHYSICAL DEATH. Death all throughout the old testament is referred to scientific sense... i.e. non existance. Psalms states: 146:4 we see that in death, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

 

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (sheol), where you are going. Thats pretty damn clear what they mean by death.

 

 

"The promise that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world (Rom. 4:13)."

 

The KJV with the Strong Concordance says this:

 

Romans 4:13

For the promise' date=' that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

4:14

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: [/color']

 

I understand this to mean that we are NOT heirs because of works, but because it was promised to us ALL.

 

Again what does this mean? What are you trying to say here? The verse specifically says the promise god made was for abraham to be heir of the world. Compare Rom 4:13, with the promise made to abraham in Gen.

 

"I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:17,18).

 

Who is the seed that will posess the gate of his enemies in the promise?

 

This makes sense if you follow the promises (oaths) god made to all the old testament 'fathers'. Since the only scripture christ and paul had was the old testament.

 

Heb. 11:13,39,40 drives home the point:- "These all died in faith, not having received the promises; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect".

 

This, to me, substantiates the concept of something, at least, similar to reincarnation.

 

It refers to the the physical bodily resurrection (i.e. like christ) pauls hope was in both PHYSICAL and spiritual (mental) resurrection (to have a nature incapable of sin, like god, angels, etc), that's why most who profess to be christian are ignorant of their own bible. they dont even understand it's message.

 

Check out this link - http://users.aol.com/bible4/chrast04.htm

 

Note: I'll be quoting alot from christendom astray from the link I previously referenced

 

The gospel only makes sene if the promises made to abraham, david were talking about the restoration was the literal kingdom of israel, this all makes sense when you consider that the OLD TESTAMENT was the ONLY SCRIPTURE in christs and pauls time.

 

Most christians today ignore the old testament completely they use the new testament exclusively to interpret the old, whereas the old must interpret the new first, then vice versa.

 

Note that christ was physically touched by thomas for a reason, there hope (to the characters) was that it was real, why include thomas touching jesus if immortal souls are 'ghosts' without bodies as so many christians today believe?

 

"I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are ASLEEP, that ye sorrow not, even as others who have no hope."

 

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, IN THE GRAVE, whither thou goest" (Eccles. ix, 10).

 

Me:Here the dead are referred to as "asleep", i.e. sleeping in the dust of the earth, unconscious. Eccl reinforces the fact that the dead are in fact, scientifically dead, would you look at that, the bible and science agree at least on one thing that most humans know.

 

Christendom astray:

There are no exceptions to these cases in Bible narrative. All Bible allusion to the subject of death is unlike modern sentiment. The Bible speaks of death as the ending of life, and never as the commencement of another state. Not once does it tell us of a dead man having gone to heaven. Not once, except by an allowable poetical figure (Isa. xiv, 4) or for purposes of parable (Luke xvi, 1931), are the dead represented as conscious. They are always pictured in language that accords with experience-always spoken of as in the land of darkness, and silence, and unconsciousness. Solomon says:-

 

In addition to these general indications of the destructive nature of death as a deprivation of being, there are other statements in the Scriptures which specifically deny that the dead have any consciousness. For instance:-

 

"The living know that they shall die, but THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANYTHING, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten; also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now PERISHED, neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun" (Eccles. ix, 5, 6).

 

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, IN THE GRAVE, whither thou goest" (Eccles. ix, 10).

 

Job, in the anguish of accumulated calamity, cursed the day of his birth, and wished he had died when an infant, and mark what he says would have been the consequence:-

 

"For now should I have lain still and been quiet: I should have slept; then had I been at rest with kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places [Tombs] for themselves: or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver, or as an hidden untimely birth I HAD NOT BEEN, as infants which never saw the light; there the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor; the small and great are there, and the servant is free from his master" (Job iii, 1319).

 

He also makes the following statement, which with the one just quoted, ought to be well considered by those who believe that babies go to heaven when they die:-

 

(Chapter x, 18)-"Wherefore hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? O, that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me, I should have been AS THOUGH I HAD NOT BEEN."

 

David incidentally alludes to the state of the dead in the following impressive words (Psa. lxxxviii, 5, 1012):-

 

"Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more; and they are cut off from Thy hand."

 

"Wilt thou show wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise Thee? Shall Thy loving kindness be declared in the grave, or Thy faithfulness in destruction? Shall Thy wonders be known in the dark, and Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?"

 

These questions are answered in a short but emphatic statement, which occurs in the 115th Psalm, verse 17:-

 

"The DEAD praise NOT the Lord, neither ANY that go down into silence."

 

 

To be continued next post.

 

 

 

 

"Look now toward heaven, and tell (count) the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be...Unto thy seed have I given this land" (Gen. 15:5,18).

 

Like I said... according to the myth/story, we're ALL probably decendents of this symbol of the foundation of almost all spiritual teachings today... so I guess that did become fulfilled.

 

The problem is though in the new testament, it specifically refers to the promise of abraham and the setting up of the kingdom, and also abraham and the fathers are said to have "not recieved the promise" if it is fulfilled then they have recieved what god promised them, after all abraham was promised that he would *be raised from the dead* and inherit the land promised to him by god.

 

Check out this link - http://users.aol.com/bible4/chrast09.htm

 

"I will give unto...thy seed after thee...the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8).

 

Again, the Muslims are considered the seed of Abraham through Ishmael. Then Abraham had Issac, producing the Jews. After Sarah died, he had other children, whom he sent to the far east. That just about covers it, doesn't it?

 

Me:The problem is the promise to abraham is not that simple - "I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered...all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen. 13:15,16).

 

Here it refers to ABRAHAM AND his SEED will be given it FOREVER, how is abraham to posess it forever with HIS SEED, if he is dead? This is where fulfillment pretty much dies for the liberal christian, since the old testament is very clear that the doctrine of the immortal soul is hogwash.

 

So right in the old testament you can see that the new testament is about the promises god made to abraham, and hence the references to israels restoration, and them "awaiting the kingdom" in the new testament.

 

Christendom Astray

 

Those who are not New Testament readers, or just Old Testament readers either, will know nothing about it. For their benefit and the general elucidation of the subject, we call attention to the state of the matter, by quoting Paul's statement that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm THE PROMISES MADE UNTO THE FATHERS" (Rom. xv, 8). This at once brings the subject to a point, declaring a connection between the mission of Christ and that which is styled "THE PROMISES "; and thereby imposing upon us the necessity of recognising the importance of the stem and branch of truth so expressed, instead of turning away from the subject with indifference, as is the custom with the majority of religious people, not excepting those professing to be New Testament Christians. If Christ came to "confirm the promises made unto the fathers," it is obviously of the first importance that we know something about these promises, and we need have no difficulty in getting the knowledge desired. Paul incidentally declares that whatever they are, the promises belong to the Jews :--

 

"My kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, AND THE PROMISES" (Rom. ix, 3-4). Speaking more definitely on the subject, he says :--

 

"Now to Abraham and his seed were THE PROMISES made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ . . . And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. iii, 16, 29).

 

Since how can the fulfillment of the promise made in the old testament be true if the kingdom of god is not a literal kingdom?

 

The kingdom of God is within you.

 

"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. vi' date=' 9). So can the kingdom of god be within a person if the unrighteous cannot [b']inherit[/b] it? Seeing all men are unrighteous (sinners) and fall short of the glory of god according to the bible, do they really have it within them? heh.

 

Biblical support please? Is that what the kingdom of god was in the old testament?? I dont think so.

 

Christendom astray ( http://users.aol.com/bible4/chrast08.htm )

 

(Dan. ii, 44):-- "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven SET UP A KINGDOM, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

 

Daniel, chapter vii, 13, 14: -- "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like THE SON OF MAN came with the clouds of heaven... and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve HIM. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

 

Here we have an explanation of chapter ii, 44. But the main point to be noted is that Daniel supplies us with the first element of the kingdom, viz., the king, styled in chapter ix, 25, "Messiah the Prince." This is Jesus Christ, spoken of in Revelation xix, 16, as the "King of kings, and Lord of lords." This is a subject capable of much enlargement; but as a whole lecture will be devoted to it, we at present desist.

 

Daniel also supplies us "with the aristocracy of the coming kingdom. We find them in the following verse from chapter vii :-- "The kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the SAINTS of the Most High" (verse 27).

 

These are referred to by Peter (I Peter ii, 9), as "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people "; and in Revelation v, 10, they are prospectively represented as singing, "Thou hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall REIGN ON THE EARTH." In these, we recognise the brethren of Christ who are faithful to the end, and counted worthy to inherit the kingdom of God. Writing to such, Paul says, "God hath called you unto His kingdom" (I Thess. ii, 12); and, again, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (I Cor. vi, 2).

 

Me:Here daniel talks about a kingdom that will consume all other kingdoms and shall stand forever, obviously this never happened so the kingdom of god certainly is not "within you", since the promise to abraham and what is said in Daniel are linked.

 

Daniel 7 is especially enlightening because the new testament is exaclty mirroring daniel.

 

Where does it say in the bible the kingdom of god is within you, and

 

My reference : http://users.aol.com/bible4/chrast08.htm

 

Again that goes against the new testmanet:

 

http://users.aol.com/bible4/chrast08.htm

 

For liberal christians: If adam, moses and abraham is not a literal character, then certainly paul is incorrect:

 

Romans 5:14- Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

 

Now death can't reign from a figurative character to another figurative character, not to mention it totally negates the gospel message.. after all if sin is imaginary, then certainly sin doesn't exist and there is no need for god to save anyone from it. From whence come sin if the old testament is figurative and allegorical?

 

IMO, this death is not a physical death... it is a spiritual death. Anything that takes away from the will to thrive, is spiritual death. Anything that supports the will to thrive, is spiritual life. "To be carnally minded is death, to be spiritually minded is life and peace." The original "sin" causing death, came from knowing good and evil... giving us the ability to judge, hence, partaking the forbidden fruit of condemnation. The concept of grace, understanding people do the best best they know how, yet holding them accountable and responsible for their actions, ends condemnation. How can we condemn someone for not doing better than their best? Ending condemnation gives life.

[Sawu]

IMO, this death is not a physical death... it is a spiritual death. Anything that takes away from the will to thrive, is spiritual death. Anything that supports the will to thrive, is spiritual life. "To be carnally minded is death, to be spiritually minded is life and peace." The original "sin" causing death, came from knowing good and evil... giving us the ability to judge, hence, partaking the forbidden fruit of condemnation. The concept of grace, understanding people do the best best they know how, yet holding them accountable and responsible for their actions, ends condemnation. How can we condemn someone for not doing better than their best? Ending condemnation gives life.

 

 

 

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned!" (Rom. 5:12)

 

So sin never entered the world, since that man never existed according to liberal christians. Hence they are even more inconsistent then the fundies.

[NotBlinded]

So sin never entered the world, since that man never existed according to liberal christians. Hence they are even more inconsistent then the fundies.

I wish you could see how your statement makes no sense at all. Why do liberal christians need to be consistent? That is an oxymoron...a consistent liberal christian? It's only the literalists that need to be consistent and from your post, you are still a literalist. Not a christian, I'm sure, but a literalist none-the-less.

 

Actually, it makes a hell of lot more sense if the Garden was allegorical.

 

Also, go back before the later "christians" tied the new testament into the old testament and see what their take on Christianity was.

[Sawu]

So sin never entered the world, since that man never existed according to liberal christians. Hence they are even more inconsistent then the fundies.

I wish you could see how your statement makes no sense at all. Why do liberal christians need to be consistent? That is an oxymoron...a consistent liberal christian? It's only the literalists that need to be consistent and from your post, you are still a literalist. Not a christian, I'm sure, but a literalist none-the-less.

 

Actually, it makes a hell of lot more sense if the Garden was allegorical.

 

Also, go back before the later "christians" tied the new testament into the old testament and see what their take on Christianity was.

 

Yes because knowledge of the christian god comes from the bible itself, if you claim to be christian that means you believe in the christian god, and how do you believe in the christian god or know of it if you haven't read or believed at least some of his words? If you do not believe the text, which claims to be gods own words then how are you in any way believing in the christian god? It is ridiculous. How is the bible the gods words if one is free to reject the claims made by the god, the christian claims to believe in?

 

Why not just give a single page that says all paths lead to god, since it doesn't matter what you believe? Whats the ruler a liberal christian uses to measure what god is saying, and what god isn't saying, if you can cherry pick what is true, allegorical, metaphorical, etc?

 

It's not an oxymoron, how can one believe in the christian god and yet reject the claims of his words? It's that simple.

[NotBlinded]

Yes because knowledge of the christian god comes from the bible itself, if you claim to be christian that means you believe in the christian god, and how do you believe in the christian god or know of it if you haven't read or believed at least some of his words? If you do not believe the text, which claims to be gods own words then how are you in any way believing in the christian god? It is ridiculous. How is the bible the gods words if one is free to reject the claims made by the god, the christian claims to believe in?

 

Why not just give a single page that says all paths lead to god, since it doesn't matter what you believe? Whats the ruler a liberal christian uses to measure what god is saying, and what god isn't saying, if you can cherry pick what is true, allegorical, metaphorical, etc?

 

It's not an oxymoron, how can one believe in the christian god and yet reject the claims of his words? It's that simple.

It's not just about reading and believing its words, it also about understanding what the words are pointing to, so no...it's not that simple. The understanding was made simple so the common people could have something to believe...on purpose.

 

I'll let the others respond to you.

 

By the way...welcome to the boards.

[Amanda]

moved through to scriptures like "many of you here will not taste death until you see the Kingdom of god come with power" which they believed referred to the pentacost. Jesus also said that Peter had the keys to the kingdom, blah, blah, blah.

Shiva... I'm not that familiar with the Daniel story... however, I think these references such as not taste death till this or that... is alluding to a type of reincarnation. "Jesus" did that too on the mount, saying no one shall pass away till all this is fulfilled. Even then, IMO, death or passing away only refers to our ego... because we will all be totally conscious of all being at ONE. Reincarnation, meaning we will all eventually be raised in our glorified body... blah, blah, blah

 

BTW, I presently do think there may be reincarnation. If this theory is true, then with genetic engineering... we may all be born into one of those glorified bodies, also referred to as a mansion in the myth... as being a body/house of distinction.

 

My understanding is the kingdom of god is within us. The NT teachings emphasize this the best they could, IMO, without all the other people editing it out. How can they make people pay to come to temple/church to worship god if it is within, or people might not join right away if they think they get another chance?

 

Our father, which is in heaven, in his kingdom, and the kingdom is within us.

Holy is its name, what is sacred is how we can know and identify god within us,

That kingdom that is within me, I summon to come out of me,

to do god's will here on earth as it is in heaven/nirvana,

so that heaven and earth become one.

 

IMO, this can be done individually and collectively. This seems to say that heaven is a state of mind, and its up to us to manifest this place heaven or hell. Just my $.02.

 

Yes, Peter had the keys to the kingdom of god... the key is compassion and empathy. :wink:

 

Then they would end with "seek first the kingdom" which to them meant to always come to every church service and give at least 10 percent if not more.

Now you wouldn't want to go to hell now, would you?

 

[Amanda]

 

 

Sawu, wow... thanks for spending so much time in explaining your position to me! It seems a bit overwhelming to address each issue right now, although... I sincerely respect your opinion. I'm hoping you and I will have some great discussions on here... because if everyone thought alike, that would be boring. Your post deserves a lot of time and attention, and I hope you don't mind if I think it over before I respond to some of your assertions. It seems to me that I see these teachings more metaphorical, allegorical, than you. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, just that I see it a different way, that's all. Just remember, it is never my intention to offend you.

 

I'm curious to know if you would reconsider that every liberal Christian meets those generalizations you have posted about us. You are right in that I do seem to hover in the secular arena. If I have a choice of traditional Christianity or the others... well, I tend to lean toward the others. Maybe you will find some of us are different than your impressions so far. Anyway, I hope you will really like it here... and I know everyone will like you too, and it is really good to have you aboard! You might be relieved to know there are probably more people here that seem to support your side than mine. :wink:

[NotBlinded]

 

 

Sawu, wow... thanks for spending so much time in explaining your position to me! It seems a bit overwhelming to address each issue right now, although... I sincerely respect your opinion. I'm hoping you and I will have some great discussions on here... because if everyone thought alike, that would be boring. Your post deserves a lot of time and attention, and I hope you don't mind if I think it over before I respond to some of your assertions. It seems to me that I see these teachings more metaphorical, allegorical, than you. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, just that I see it a different way, that's all. Just remember, it is never my intention to offend you.

 

I'm curious to know if you would reconsider that every liberal Christian meets those generalizations you have posted about us. You are right in that I do seem to hover in the secular arena. If I have a choice of traditional Christianity or the others... well, I tend to lean toward the others. Maybe you will find some of us are different than your impressions so far. Anyway, I hope you will really like it here... and I know everyone will like you too, and it is really good to have you aboard! You might be relieved to know there are probably more people here that seem to support your side than mine. :wink:

Dang Amanda...I wish I had what you have in expressing your views. You are always so considerate. I admire that, and envy it.

[Sawu]

It's not just about reading and believing its words, it also about understanding what the words are pointing to, so no...it's not that simple. The understanding was made simple so the common people could have something to believe...on purpose.

 

I'll let the others respond to you.

 

By the way...welcome to the boards.

 

 

Ahh those who don't read never understand : 1 Corinthians 15:17 - "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

 

This is the problem: Adam, moses, abraham, david, Christ are all tied together, now if you believe christ was a real person as a liberal christian, and do not believe abraham or moses was there is a huge problem. Christ believed these people were real, and it's recorded in the new testament. And if it's all mythology, corinthians says "Why bother? your faith is futile!"

 

If you believe neither that christ is raised, then your faith is vain according to gods own statements, the whole hope of the christian is in the fact that jesus actually existed, was actually raised from the dead. Since if it is a metaphor it never happened, and the whole christian faith is futile.

 

It emphatically states those who don't believe their faith is futile, this is what I mean by "it's that simple" liberals reject the very statements of the the people speaking on gods behalf in the bible. Jesus and Paul claims their words are not theirs but gods, and if they are not gods, who's are they? and why should the liberal, or anyone else care?

 

The whole concept of a christian afterlife or living again, falls flat as a liberal christian. What is faith to a liberal christian? is god real? is christ real? since they get their knowledge of god from the bible, it's safe to say that they do not believe in an actual, really existing god, or really existing christ, and their faith is vain.

[Amanda]

Hi Sawu! I do look forward to some interesting dialogue with you. Hopefully my response will give justice to the time and patience you had explaining yourself. I will do my best to reciprocate between my work here.

 

The point being, for most fundamentalists that believe in the literal adam, moses, abraham, david and jesus, certainly THESE WERE REAL PEOPLE to 'real' christians, after all without a literal adam, abraham, and david, the gospel and purpose of christ does not make any lick of sense to anyone.

 

This is why liberal christians are not really to be bothered with, they are basially secular people who can't give up the idea they are going to die some day and find a way to bastardize it into their head to quell their fear of death and/or lack of hope, happyness, etc, or use it as a means for social function.

 

Sawu, I find that the validity of any of this myth/story being true is really unimportant, and what I find valuable is the message I have been able to glean from these teachings. I've been taught a different way of interpreting these scriptures, by researching the manuscript from which the KJV was taken. Also, I consider anthropological aspects in the culmination of these writings. No one has to believe like me... as I find discussions more interesting when people don't think exactly like me.

 

Death is a mysterious event, IMO. What happens after we die, no one knows for sure. Because of death, and this uncertainty, every day must be enjoyed as if there is nothing more after our life. That seems to make life more meaningful.

 

I don't usually deal with non-literal, nonfundy christians on matters of doctrine, since doctrine by definition doesn't matter. Since because the bible makes clear "the wages of sin is death" and it's not spiritual death its PHYSICAL DEATH. Death all throughout the old testament is referred to scientific sense... i.e. non existance. Psalms states: 146:4 we see that in death, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

 

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (sheol), where you are going. Thats pretty damn clear what they mean by death.

 

IMO, there is a lot in the OT to suggest many beliefs leaned toward a reincarnation. Especially if I read Ecclesiastes 1:5-11 in an allegorical sense. If someone does not have this perspective when reading, it seems to me it will not be seen. Perhaps these kinds of subtlties is why it is said that for those who have ears will hear.

 

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, it's just different than mine... that's all. Also Sawu, what ever you believe, what ever I believe, it is not going to change absolute reality, IMO. I respect your opinion whatever it is, because all we have are opinions... no one knows ablsolute truth, do they?

 

"The promise that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world (Rom. 4:13)."

 

The KJV with the Strong Concordance says this:

 

Romans 4:13

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

4:14

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

 

I understand this to mean that we are NOT heirs because of works, but because it was promised to us ALL.

 

Again what does this mean? What are you trying to say here? The verse specifically says the promise god made was for abraham to be heir of the world.

 

I think it is saying that Abraham and his seed. Everyone is his seed, according to the myth, as Abraham is the father of the many nations. It is not by our obedience to laws that we will ALL eventually end in a place of peace and joy, but because it was promised to us from the beginning. If it is now by works, then the promise was of no effect. It seems to me, this reinforces we were promised it, and this promise alone is the cause of us being heirs of the world. IMO, being heirs means we then have the responsibility to care for it, as a leader, owner, is one who takes care of its property, hence serves it for its best interest.

 

 

 

 

Compare Rom 4:13, with the promise made to abraham in Gen.

 

"I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:17,18).

 

Who is the seed that will posess the gate of his enemies in the promise?

 

Please bear with me. What I have come to believe is that some of mankind initially stopped being nomadic about 7-8,000 BC in this region. It is because it was after the last ice age and a specific wheat mutated and allowed a reliable crop to be planted and harvested. Considering the secular psychologist famous model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, this now allowed mankind to enter the stage of self actualization. They had more time to ponder other things than just basic survival. New problems of stability and ownership were also creating new problems. Because of the new found time to meditate in a higher level of thinking, man came to realize that it is really better if we are nice to our neighbor, and new codes of ethics were appearing. Perhaps they thought this higher level of thinking was God talking to them… and maybe it was.

 

The verse you are referring above, is part of the myth that after Abraham proved his devotion to this new thinking, being God, that he was even willing to sacrifice the next most precious aspect of his life, his son with Sarah, Isaac. This devotion to this higher level of thinking was going to prosper over the enemies of this new found thinking, enemies aka the self centered state of a barbaric nature. This could also mean personal enemies within us as well. The definition of enemies found here. BTW, that story is a rendering of the Jewish perspective, as Isaac went on to form the Jewish faith.. The Muslims incorporated this myth as the son to be sacrificed as Ishmael, supposedly the one yielding the Islamic faith.

 

Sawu, I promise I will respond to the rest later. There seems to be so much well thought out ideas from you, and I do want to devote the time to respond to you with the consideration it deserves.

[Sawu]

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, it's just different than mine... that's all. Also Sawu, what ever you believe, what ever I believe, it is not going to change absolute reality, IMO. I respect your opinion whatever it is, because all we have are opinions... no one knows ablsolute truth, do they?

 

Notice the emphasis, certainly we do know absolute truths in some sense, i.e. I know you and I were born from a sperm and an egg. There is no "relative" interpretation of that statement since the concepts are true by definition and actualization. If say I'm writing this message you are reading in this post, to you as you read it, thats a statement of absolute truth, since the opposite of what I just said, simply cannot be true in a relative sense. It can only be interpreted one way.

 

Yes there are absolute truths, if there wasn't a whole heap of things would not be possible. In fact our words when we use them to communicate have absolute meaning, since their definition is absolute to us.

[Amanda]

Notice the emphasis, certainly we do know absolute truths in some sense, i.e. I know you and I were born from a sperm and an egg. There is no "relative" interpretation of that statement since the concepts are true by definition and actualization. If say I'm writing this message you are reading in this post, to you as you read it, thats a statement of absolute truth, since the opposite of what I just said, simply cannot be true in a relative sense. It can only be interpreted one way.

 

Yes there are absolute truths, if there wasn't a whole heap of things would not be possible. In fact our words when we use them to communicate have absolute meaning, since their definition is absolute to us.

 

Sawu, good points! I do agree that there are some ideas we can embrace as absolutes, however, do you think that anyone knows the absolute Truth in regards to the correct interpretation of these scriptures? Even the disciples debated this! Or even of the absolute Truth of an existence of God? Heck, it's pretty fun to watch people come to a common definition of what God is. That's why I say that we can only have opinions, and our opinions do not effect what the Truth is in these regards.

 

However, having said that... millenias from now, without your certified birth certificate, someone might conclude you were a clone... and not from a sperm and an egg. I think clones are from one meiotic cell. Lots of time going by, and without reliable primary documentation, what can I know for sure? If there are other possibilities in millenias from now, there can only be speculation. As far as you writing the post, I would have to say that I certainly think you are the same person as the one who posted this thread... however, if I were asked to bet my house on it... I don't know if I'd go that far... as you and your friend may be taking turns. Stranger things have happened.

 

This makes sense if you follow the promises (oaths) god made to all the old testament 'fathers'. Since the only scripture christ and paul had was the old testament.

 

Heb. 11:13,39,40 drives home the point:- "These all died in faith, not having received the promises; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect".

 

This, to me, substantiates the concept of something, at least, similar to reincarnation.

 

It refers to the the physical bodily resurrection (i.e. like christ) pauls hope was in both PHYSICAL and spiritual (mental) resurrection (to have a nature incapable of sin, like god, angels, etc), that's why most who profess to be christian are ignorant of their own bible. they dont even understand it's message.

 

Check out this link - http://users.aol.com/bible4/chrast04.htm

 

Note: I'll be quoting alot from christendom astray from the link I previously referenced

 

Sawu, are you referring to the bodily resurrection in the end, or the bodily resurrection at the time of the crucifixion? I suggested to you that perhaps the bible verse is referencing ‘they’ are the part of us to some degree, perhaps a process of learning and maturing over and over in different experiences in each lifetime. Maybe that is how the myth explains how ’Jesus’ did it, with Adam being the first and Jesus being the last. BTW, I think the myth says that when Jesus comes back, he will come through us forming his corporate body. We will be the many members of his body, him being the head… metaphorically speaking, of course. If you’re saying that like Jesus rose 3 days after he died, then I don’t understand the analogy you reference.

 

The gospel only makes sene if the promises made to abraham, david were talking about the restoration was the literal kingdom of israel, this all makes sense when you consider that the OLD TESTAMENT was the ONLY SCRIPTURE in christs and pauls time.

 

I personally think that ‘Jesus’ studied many different spiritual teachings from everywhere during his lost years. There is a controversial book out about the lost years of Jesus that seems to suggest that Jesus spent time in India. Anyway, I see many different spiritual teachings in the NT. Perhaps they were put there later, as it spread and each culture probably superimposed their own mythology too.

 

Most christians today ignore the old testament completely they use the new testament exclusively to interpret the old, whereas the old must interpret the new first, then vice versa.

IMO, it seems impossible to study these teachings in the manner they deserve, in its totality. I’ve spent three intensive years in seminary, plus many, many hours after that, and I have certainly learned much, much more here. Still, I think I can not claim to have even scratched the surface yet.

 

1. Note that christ was physically touched by thomas for a reason, there hope (to the characters) was that it was real, why include thomas touching jesus if immortal souls are 'ghosts' without bodies as so many christians today believe?

 

2. "I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are ASLEEP, that ye sorrow not, even as others who have no hope."

 

3. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, IN THE GRAVE, whither thou goest" (Eccles. ix, 10).

 

4. Me:Here the dead are referred to as "asleep", i.e. sleeping in the dust of the earth, unconscious. Eccl reinforces the fact that the dead are in fact, scientifically dead, would you look at that, the bible and science agree at least on one thing that most humans know.

 

Sawu, I hope you don’t mind if I have numbered your assertions to address them that way. BTW, this site only allows 10 quotes per post. I feel like I'm getting close.

 

1. That’s interesting that you would have that interpretation. I considered it to represent how the character, Jesus, was able to conquer this situation and overcome. It seems to me that what contributes to the will to thrive is spiritual life, and what drains this is spiritual death. These teachings of Jesus were to have self empowered him over the brutality of these offenses. His character shows him to have had developed such a great will to thrive, a great spiritual life, that he overcame what would have killed about anyone else.

 

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

 

 

2 + 3. I would venture that this ASLEEP and IN THE GRAVE are just those that are not spiritually awaken. Once one starts embracing the tenants supporting the will to thrive, life itself, individually and collectively… we raise from the grave, we awaken from our slumber, we become spiritually alive.

 

4. I researched ‘grave’ in the Bible as you requested, Ecclesiastes 9:10, and I’ve found the meaning of that word here . I suggest to you, to consider they were not as articulate as we today… and they had metaphors to present their ideas more effectively. People living a barbaric life were considered spiritually dead, those that did not respect life were sometimes referred to not having spiritual life.

 

As far as the Christendom astray: you referenced, that is just another opinion, another interpretation. If you want to align yourself with that one, I respect that. My past experiences seem to hold that contradictory at this time in my life.

 

Samu, I’m sure we could go on like this forever… however, I suppose that you do not want to have a bible study. One poster here, told me one time that he’d rather have each toe nail pulled out with a pair of pliers first. -----

 

Hey, I’d like to share with you that I like sciences and all the other spiritual teachings too. Just because we may disagree on this one minor detail, I bet there are lots of other subjects we are in great agreement. Additionally, I am in no way seeking to change anyone here! This is my favorite place!

 

Should I continue to share my metaphorical interpretations, or would you like to agree to disagree?

[Sawu]

Should I continue to share my metaphorical interpretations, or would you like to agree to disagree?

 

The problem with using metaphors for ones 'faith' is that they are effectively useless if one labels oneself christian. If you don't believe christ is a real person, why bother with the christian label, or the bible at all? Since the bibles god is fiction and not real, how is faith useful, certainly you are not obligated to obey the commandments of the characters of the new testament if it's all mythological and allegorical in nature since their are no real consequences for ignoring them, it's all in your head!

 

Its creating your own religion, and believing in a higher power, why bother to label yourself christian, or associate youself with the bible? Why not just say you 'believe in a higher power' and you like man of the kinds of people you find that hang or used to hang around religion or spirtuality?

 

My theory is that all people have a nature they align their inner moral compass, personality, desires and needs towards to communities of like minded people that share the kind of mind and/or personality they do, and hence they like being in.

 

I'm kinda tired at the moment, I'll come back to this thread later.

[Amanda]

The problem with using metaphors for ones 'faith' is that they are effectively useless if one labels oneself christian.

Sawu, I don't think I use it for my faith. I have learned to have faith in some of these teachings, as I perceive them to be. NOT blind faith, just tried and tested faith that produces conviction. And yes, I rarely label myself as a Christian any more, if ever. I initially came on this site as a Chrisitan, but now see more clearly what that has come to mean... and I do NOT feel like I fit that category. Still, I do think there are some enriching teachings in there. But, hey... there is Buddhism, Atheism, and many other paths that are great perspectives, and I actually see them as all interrelated. It's just sometimes, someone posts a topic that I am interested in participating, and have the time, so I post my "opinion," nothing more.

If you don't believe christ is a real person, why bother with the christian label, or the bible at all?

Oh, but I happen to believe that "Jesus" was a real person, although that may have not been his real name. IMO, it seems his transformation was more embellished than St. Nicholas to Santa Claus! It is my belief the initial movement of "Jesus" was much like many of those here on this site. Further, it seems to me that if "Jesus" were to come here today, he would NOT be a "Christian," in the popular percieved way, anyway. It seems there are many, including me, that would see "Jesus" more Buddhist than anything else. I don't know... what would you label me? I started my post in this thread with...

Okay... I guess I could be considered a liberal Christian... as I do give merit to these teachings on an allegorical level, and do believe there is a moral to the story/myth.

Heck, I'll admit I don't know what I am. ---

Since the bibles god is fiction and not real, how is faith useful, certainly you are not obligated to obey the commandments of the characters of the new testament if it's all mythological and allegorical in nature since their are no real consequences for ignoring them, it's all in your head!

Sawu, you're right about a lot of things here. I am not obligated to obey anything, and there are no real consequences to ignoring them, and I don't think anyone knows how much is mythical and how much is not... yet, clearly there is a lot of mythological influence there. If I find a message that is meaningful and enriching to mylife, then why should I just turn my back on it? Hey, I always hope I have an open mind, that allows me the freedom to evaluate information for what it is, instead of what the social consequences are to it. I gather that is why we believed the solar system revolved around the earth for so long. Let's look at the rationale. Hey, I will say that I don't always get it right away... sometimes it takes me awhile. BTW, I've changed the way I think a lot, after joining here.

Its creating your own religion, and believing in a higher power, why bother to label yourself christian, or associate youself with the bible? Why not just say you 'believe in a higher power' and you like man of the kinds of people you find that hang or used to hang around religion or spirtuality?

I think spirituality is a personal journey. I do not like the word "religion" at all, as it suggest a dogma to have to patronize. Yuk! As I percieve these NT teachings, I see them as encompassing ALL of these spiritual teachings. It seems to me that ALL these spiritual teachings have a piece to the puzzel, and if I try to reconcile them, put them together, I can see a bigger picture. IMO, the world is fighting over which one is right, and they all say basically the same thing!

 

IMO, the main thrust of the bible is to embody what is sacred, it's a progression and refining process to encapsulate that idea and give a reverence to it... where ever we may find it. The pendulum keeps swinging, as a ship tacking towards shore, and I think the OT went over board with its efforts to promote "righteousness" to the point of telling people how to wash their hands! The NT seems to usher in 'reason', to 'think' about it! It is okay to heal someone on the sabbath, and it is okay to get your oxen out of the ditch. Hey, these laws/commandments were made for man, NOT man for it! Further, all are equal... so these self righteous elite and these gods in government power... get off your high horse!

 

Still, the pendulum swings, and it is probably time to go the other way now. I suppose someone will come along and get us back on course now. Gosh, I hope so! I rather think it may be a group like those right here. They seem rather proficient at it!

My theory is that all people have a nature they align their inner moral compass, personality, desires and needs towards to communities of like minded people that share the kind of mind and/or personality they do, and hence they like being in.

I totally agree with you there. It doesn't matter what the label is, or where they got it, it is about who they are! I think these people here are the best! I still have to stand up for my own reason and rationale, or then I become like the "Christians" that blindly follow the crowd.

I'm kinda tired at the moment, I'll come back to this thread later.

Have a good rest! Wish I could offer you a martini.

[Sawu]

Response #1

 

The problem with using metaphors for ones 'faith' is that they are effectively useless if one labels oneself christian.

 

Sawu, I don't think I use it for my faith. I have learned to have faith in some of these teachings, as I perceive them to be. NOT blind faith, just tried and tested faith that produces conviction. And yes, I rarely label myself as a Christian any more, if ever. I initially came on this site as a Chrisitan, but now see more clearly what that has come to mean... and I do NOT feel like I fit that category. Still, I do think there are some enriching teachings in there. But, hey... there is Buddhism, Atheism, and many other paths that are great perspectives, and I actually see them as all interrelated. It's just sometimes, someone posts a topic that I am interested in participating, and have the time, so I post my "opinion," nothing more.

 

True, but it all comes down to this - faith is kinda in a teaching is kinda pointless if you dont really believe a literal god on which they depend (or were supposed to), since you don't really have 'faith' in the reality of that particular god, you just pick what teachings align with your inner personality and nature. There are enriching teachings in lots of humanities great works, but the bible also has some of the most abhorrent teachings imaginable as well. After all, this is the same book that was used to argued for slavery, and against it, and especially against the rights and subjugation of women in the past.

 

If you don't believe christ is a real person, why bother with the christian label, or the bible at all?

Oh, but I happen to believe that "Jesus" was a real person, although that may have not been his real name. IMO, it seems his transformation was more embellished than St. Nicholas to Santa Claus! It is my belief the initial movement of "Jesus" was much like many of those here on this site. Further, it seems to me that if "Jesus" were to come here today, he would NOT be a "Christian," in the popular percieved way, anyway. It seems there are many, including me, that would see "Jesus" more Buddhist than anything else. I don't know... what would you label me? I started my post in this thread with...

 

Really, I would label you a student of spirtiuality / love and other teachings of morality. Because I think the essence of what draws some of us to religion is our own inner natures and most likely not easily being able to find people like ourselves in secular society at large.

 

Sawu, you're right about a lot of things here. I am not obligated to obey anything, and there are no real consequences to ignoring them, and I don't think anyone knows how much is mythical and how much is not... yet, clearly there is a lot of mythological influence there. If I find a message that is meaningful and enriching to mylife, then why should I just turn my back on it? Hey, I always hope I have an open mind, that allows me the freedom to evaluate information for what it is, instead of what the social consequences are to it. I gather that is why we believed the solar system revolved around the earth for so long. Let's look at the rationale. Hey, I will say that I don't always get it right away... sometimes it takes me awhile. BTW, I've changed the way I think a lot, after joining here.

 

Certainly you find meaning in some of the teachings, perhaps more that the are comforting stories even if they are not real because of their inherent humanity? My point was many of the teachings while certainly worthy of praise, basically only act as a magnet for somewhat similar minded people to come together, and a bunch needy people who have somethin missing in their lives and also the charlatans and lunatics as well.

 

Its creating your own religion, and believing in a higher power, why bother to label yourself christian, or associate youself with the bible? Why not just say you 'believe in a higher power' and you like man of the kinds of people you find that hang or used to hang around religion or spirtuality?

I think spirituality is a personal journey. I do not like the word "religion" at all, as it suggest a dogma to have to patronize. Yuk! As I percieve these NT teachings, I see them as encompassing ALL of these spiritual teachings. It seems to me that ALL these spiritual teachings have a piece to the puzzel, and if I try to reconcile them, put them together, I can see a bigger picture. IMO, the world is fighting over which one is right, and they all say basically the same thing!

 

Well they don't really all say the same thing, only if you CHERRY PICK the good parts. Jesus made a lot of nasty comments to about what he's going to do to the unbelievers. Obviously we cherry pick what parts of the character we like and ignore the rest.

 

IMO, the main thrust of the bible is to embody what is sacred, it's a progression and refining process to encapsulate that idea and give a reverence to it... where ever we may find it. The pendulum keeps swinging, as a ship tacking towards shore, and I think the OT went over board with its efforts to promote "righteousness" to the point of telling people how to wash their hands! The NT seems to usher in 'reason', to 'think' about it! It is okay to heal someone on the sabbath, and it is okay to get your oxen out of the ditch. Hey, these laws/commandments were made for man, NOT man for it! Further, all are equal... so these self righteous elite and these gods in government power... get off your high horse!

 

Still, the pendulum swings, and it is probably time to go the other way now. I suppose someone will come along and get us back on course now. Gosh, I hope so! I rather think it may be a group like those right here. They seem rather proficient at it!

 

Yeah but there's lots not in the bible that no sane person would consider sacred. Quite simply I'd prefer scientifically minded, spiritually righteous people, with a dose of common sense! Some people have started doing just that I hear they have communities, that live in harmony with the earth and the pace of life they want, not in a ravenous modern fashion dictated by corps and government.

 

www.dancingrabbit.org

www.earthaven.org

www.enota.org

www.sandhillfarm.org

www.twinoaks.org

 

My theory is that all people have a nature they align their inner moral compass, personality, desires and needs towards to communities of like minded people that share the kind of mind and/or personality they do, and hence they like being in.

 

I totally agree with you there. It doesn't matter what the label is, or where they got it, it is about who they are! I think these people here are the best! I still have to stand up for my own reason and rationale, or then I become like the "Christians" that blindly follow the crowd.

 

Well it's not that you become like the christians, it's more a slow refining, articularing and discovering new things outside and inside yourself, the taking the time to understand it all and put the fragments together into a cohesive whole.

 

Yes, I'll have one, thank you I'll have that martini now...

 

One of these days I'll make enough posts to be able to edit... rofl.

[Amanda]

True, but it all comes down to this - faith is kinda in a teaching is kinda pointless if you dont really believe a literal god on which they depend (or were supposed to), since you don't really have 'faith' in the reality of that particular god, you just pick what teachings align with your inner personality and nature. There are enriching teachings in lots of humanities great works, but the bible also has some of the most abhorrent teachings imaginable as well. After all, this is the same book that was used to argued for slavery, and against it, and especially against the rights and subjugation of women in the past.

 

Sawu, I apologize for the delay in this response. I was gone for awhile, and the notification for this got lost in my pile of emails. :ohmy:

 

You're right again. There has been so much crazy spin made by so many people that these teachings attributed to "Jesus" have almost reached the level of being called a disorder when accepting these fundamental teachings. I am reluctant to share my views many times as I realize that many here are recovering from a fundamentalist mentality. However, we can find that St. Nicholas is not a man who lives at the north pole, nor has elves in his workshop, nor has a sled driven throught the sky by eight reindeer... yet, he really existed. He had a message that is really endearing that supercedes the mythology superimposed and capistalist embellishments. Can we glean the same ideology through other aspects? Certainly. Yet, I would hope that we could now discuss this without being sucked back into the reindeer and northpole fiction as being true. It is not necessary to do so, though.

 

Certainly you find meaning in some of the teachings, perhaps more that the are comforting stories even if they are not real because of their inherent humanity? My point was many of the teachings while certainly worthy of praise, basically only act as a magnet for somewhat similar minded people to come together, and a bunch needy people who have somethin missing in their lives and also the charlatans and lunatics as well.

I know. That is why I digress. This site is so good for breaking the control fundamentalism has used to lead us into a path without thinking. I thought I was quite a critical thinker when I came on this site, however, I've found that fundamentalism had effected me to levels I couldn't believe! I think those who were dedicated fundamentalist in these beliefs are probably better off to let go of all of it for awhile. I was never a dedicated fundamentalist... probably because I could never be that disciplined at that stage of my life.

[Sawu]

first off, welcome to the site.

 

i always like to look at the "promise land" in the OT as a metaphor for the heavenly kingdom. those are my thoughts on it anyway.

 

 

Yes but you're using the new testament to interpret the old, the old came first, there is no way abraham would thought he was going to live in heaven, go read the promises and all the stuff god told abraham, PUT yourself in his shoes. Clearly you can see that the "true" christian gospel is based on teh foundational promises made to abraham. Most of christianity has it backwards, the kingdom of god is a literal kingdom of israel restored on earth. Since all throughout the new testament the promise to the OT fathers were referred to as the foundation of the gospel.