"we Two Kings Of Orient Is, Totally Confused About When We Started The Biz"

[Dave]

With all due respect, how do you then follow the "word of God" if you don't equate with the "Bible." Outside of the "Bible" there can be no "word of God." It is the ONLY sacred text of Christianity purporting to be the "word of God." How else can you claim to know the teachings of "God" if you throw out the "bible." Also, how do you know "God's" words are Truth? Christianity has thus shown that all it can do is deny Truth, building elaborate fantasies to cover up Truth.

That's my point, that he refuses to address. Some christians have to come up with elaborate ruses and rationalizations to support their BELIEF. They cannot be honest and just say they believe. If they'd do that, there'd be no argument. They can believe all they want. But when they start claiming rational thinking, quoting a book that is obviously not true at all, and saying everyone else is wrong, they get into trouble and want you to shut up.

 

You can see the Salad Bar christian every day. They pick and choose what is important and what isn't. They rarely agree on what is important and what isn't. Some say that Paul and others in the NT and OT say that homosexuals MUST be killed. Others will say that Jesus preached love and some (granted, not very many) even say that Jesus was a homosexual himself. Look at the Southern Baptists and then look at the Metropolitan Church. Who is right? In my opinion - neither.

[Jun]

God's words are truth, but I don't equate God's words with the Bible. Yes, the Bible contains words of God, but it is not the Word of God. I just wouldn't say that. While those of a fundamentalist persuasion might claim that the Bible is all those things you reference, I simply do not see it that way at all. Sorry. I do not believe that Christianity is only "real" or "true" if it is strictly what the Bible teaches.

 

With all due respect, how do you then follow the "word of God" if you don't equate with the "Bible." Outside of the "Bible" there can be no "word of God." It is the ONLY sacred text of Christianity purporting to be the "word of God." How else can you claim to know the teachings of "God" if you throw out the "bible." Also, how do you know "God's" words are Truth? Christianity has thus shown that all it can do is deny Truth, building elaborate fantasies to cover up Truth.

 

Hi Jun. Fair and good question. And let me state before I answer that I have no answer that is infallible and unalterable about much of anything. Just my views that make sense to me.

 

Okay. Here we go.

 

For example, the 21 epistles in the New Testament are the words of Paul, Peter, James, and John. These are not the "words of God," but of these men, albeit (in my view) men who had the Spirit and sought to understand the things of the Spirit.

 

The gospels are the words of (literally or not) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are not the words of God. They contain the words of Jesus, in my view, and a few of the words of God: "This is my beloved Son...", but they are the words of these four persons recording some biography, some prophecy, some parables and some miracles from Jesus' life.

 

The Pslams are the words of David and others. The Chronicles and the Kings are the words of unknown scribes and historians. Song of Songs contains the words of Solomon. And so on and so on.

 

The Qur'an claims to be the actual, literal, word-for-word Word of God, given to Muhammad over the course of two decades in Arabic. The Bible does not make this claim, even if some of its adherents make this claim for it.

 

And what we read is a translation of a translation. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. His words in the gospels were written in Greek. We read them in 21st century English. (The Qur'an can only be presented in Arabic...renderings in other languages are not deemed authentically the Qur'an.)

 

So that's what I mean. If one wants to call the Bible the Word of God, that's their business, but I won't do so. I just don't think that would be an accurate statement.

 

I probably was not very clear in this description, either. But maybe a little clearer????

 

-CC in MA

 

Very well addressed, and I must say you would be the FIRST Christian (does that label really apply to you?) to admit such.

 

So, If the "Bible" is NOT the "word of God," how can you know what in the "bible" is True, and what can you possibly understand about "God" if the "Bible" is simply the opinions/recordings of men?

 

If "God" is all powerful, the creator of the universe, why doesn't he just give us his teachings direct? Like maybe in dreams, or written on stone tablets? Why rely on fallible men to write varying opinions and concoct stories to get such an important message across?

[currentchristian]

Very well addressed, and I must say you would be the FIRST Christian (does that label really apply to you?) to admit such.

 

So, If the "Bible" is NOT the "word of God," how can you know what in the "bible" is True, and what can you possibly understand about "God" if the "Bible" is simply the opinions/recordings of men?

 

If "God" is all powerful, the creator of the universe, why doesn't he just give us his teachings direct? Like maybe in dreams, or written on stone tablets? Why rely on fallible men to write varying opinions and concoct stories to get such an important message across?

 

Hello again Jun. I'm glad I explained it a little better that time.

 

For me, the Bible is trustworthy as a guide to capturing a glimpse of God. The grand tale is sufficiently convincing for me. I quibble about the details and disagree with Paul on this or that, of course, but the grand story fits my sense of the reasonable: Something is out there. That Something has no need for this pale blue dot or the creatures that inhabit it, but takes an interest. And that Something was most clearly represented in Jesus. The stories illuminate human nature and the human condition reasonably well. Seems to me.

 

While there are times I think it would be great to have that Something interrupt every television broadcast with an update on what is now deemed true, until that happens (if it's even a good idea) we have our great minds of past and present and our great books to give us clues. The Bible is one of these great books and the one I'd take along in exile.

 

You ask a good question: Does the label Christian apply to me? If finding the overall account of the life of Jesus in the gospels convincing to one's heart, spirit and mind makes one Christian, then I am. But I do "rebel" against labels. Labels confine us and isolate us. I'd never accept a label like Methodist or Baptist. Christian, however, is suitably broad enough for me. Of course, there are those who argue that the word was pejorative originally, and that followers of The Way is the original name given to those who believed in a man named Jesus.

 

And there are, too, modern Messianic Jews who want to maintain their Judaism, have Jewish New Testaments, etc., who do not use the word "Christian" due to the understandable negative associations with the word stemming from past abuses/pogroms/expulsions, etc. by those claiming that label. Messianic Jews usually call themselves "believers." Paul seems to have used that label most of the time. In fact, Paul never used the word "Christian" in any of his letters. (The word appears only three times in all of scripture and the word "Christianity" never appears.) In the Complete Jewish Bible translation by a Messianic Jew the word "Christian" does not appear at all. In the three references to "Christian" in KJV and other English translations, the translator has opted to use the word "Messianic."

 

Call me what you want, just don't call me bad names.

 

-All of that said, I remain CC in MA

[Jun]

Very well addressed, and I must say you would be the FIRST Christian (does that label really apply to you?) to admit such.

 

So, If the "Bible" is NOT the "word of God," how can you know what in the "bible" is True, and what can you possibly understand about "God" if the "Bible" is simply the opinions/recordings of men?

 

If "God" is all powerful, the creator of the universe, why doesn't he just give us his teachings direct? Like maybe in dreams, or written on stone tablets? Why rely on fallible men to write varying opinions and concoct stories to get such an important message across?

 

Hello again Jun. I'm glad I explained it a little better that time.

 

For me, the Bible is trustworthy as a guide to capturing a glimpse of God. The grand tale is sufficiently convincing for me. I quibble about the details and disagree with Paul on this or that, of course, but the grand story fits my sense of the reasonable: Something is out there. That Something has no need for this pale blue dot or the creatures that inhabit it, but takes an interest. And that Something was most clearly represented in Jesus. The stories illuminate human nature and the human condition reasonably well. Seems to me.

 

While there are times I think it would be great to have that Something interrupt every television broadcast with an update on what is now deemed true, until that happens (if it's even a good idea) we have our great minds of past and present and our great books to give us clues. The Bible is one of these great books and the one I'd take along in exile.

 

You ask a good question: Does the label Christian apply to me? If finding the overall account of the life of Jesus in the gospels convincing to one's heart, spirit and mind makes one Christian, then I am. But I do "rebel" against labels. Labels confine us and isolate us. I'd never accept a label like Methodist or Baptist. Christian, however, is suitably broad enough for me. Of course, there are those who argue that the word was pejorative originally, and that followers of The Way is the original name given to those who believed in a man named Jesus.

 

And there are, too, modern Messianic Jews who want to maintain their Judaism, have Jewish New Testaments, etc., who do not use the word "Christian" due to the understandable negative associations with the word stemming from past abuses/pogroms/expulsions, etc. by those claiming that label. Messianic Jews usually call themselves "believers." Paul seems to have used that label most of the time. In fact, Paul never used the word "Christian" in any of his letters. (The word appears only three times in all of scripture and the word "Christianity" never appears.) In the Complete Jewish Bible translation by a Messianic Jew the word "Christian" does not appear at all. In the three references to "Christian" in KJV and other English translations, the translator has opted to use the word "Messianic."

 

Call me what you want, just don't call me bad names.

 

-All of that said, I remain CC in MA

 

It seems to me that you are applying the ideologies of Buddhism to your belief in "God." Many Christians are tending to do that these days.

[currentchristian]

It seems to me that you are applying the ideologies of Buddhism to your belief in "God." Many Christians are tending to do that these days.

 

Buddhist is not a bad name, so I'll accept that as a compliment!

 

-CC in MA

[Jun]

It seems to me that you are applying the ideologies of Buddhism to your belief in "God." Many Christians are tending to do that these days.

 

Buddhist is not a bad name, so I'll accept that as a compliment!

 

-CC in MA

 

Funny, as a practicing Buddhist I usually dislike applying the term to myself. Even "Buddhism" to many Atheists carries the same weight as "Christian" due to the "religious Buddhism" that is most visible to Europeans.

[currentchristian]

It seems to me that you are applying the ideologies of Buddhism to your belief in "God." Many Christians are tending to do that these days.

 

Buddhist is not a bad name, so I'll accept that as a compliment!

 

-CC in MA

 

Funny, as a practicing Buddhist I usually dislike applying the term to myself. Even "Buddhism" to many Atheists carries the same weight as "Christian" due to the "religious Buddhism" that is most visible to Europeans.

 

I find much in the teachings of the Buddha that are reflected accurately in the teachings of Jesus. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about this in his book Living Buddha, Living Christ (I think that was the title). I find nothing in the Dhammapada, for example, that is incompatible with Christian living. At the core of most (all?) religions/wisdom traditions, I encounter a shared foundation in many respects.

 

-CC in MA