MathGeek Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 The Bible is meant to be a closed book to the carnal mind and is meant to only be understood through the Spirit and by the spiritual man. I am sure that someone will comment "how convenient" (church lady voice works best here) that those who wrote the Bible put these verses in to explain why those who try to understand the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit will find so much confusion and contradiction in their attempts to understand. That is fine if it works for you, but I am just saying how I see God's purpose in keeping the Bible text hard to understand without the help of the Spirit. God wants us to fellowship with Him more than He wants us to understand without Him. The Bible was written to encourage relationship between a Father and His chidren so it is written in a way that we cannot get it without Him. John Hey Kratos, It seems that the more eloquent, more knowledgeable Ex-Christians have ripped you to shreds in more ways than one. Not to be an arrogant here, but the "how convenient" voice has just been sounded. Since when does scientific understanding have any relation with sexual activity, or is your statement about the carnal mind referring to the understanding of this world? Do you use chastise your fellow Christians when they decide to use the Bible to put forth conjectures, theorems and axioms that are only seen through that given perspective? If this is true, why are you trolling these boards trying to convert those who left their former for some rather rational reasons? Also, where is your proof outside your so-called holy book that says we have a Spirit living within us? Wasn't the soul a concept created by a sixteenth-century philosopher or some theologian from times past? Do you have empirical evidence besides the Bible to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit? Also, if your evidence is factual, what about the fact that the Father you so lovingly describe reminds me of a drunk, abusive, negligent, even absent father figure that every teacher WILL hear about in some poverty-dominated school district? There is no inner peace to be gained from the Bible, spiritually or intellectually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 All I can say about the last few posts is that it is no white lie or an attempt to save face when I say that these are just my beliefs about the Bible and its purpose. I have never been on a forum where it is not a given that what we write is our opinion and nothing more. Do I have to state that "this is now my belief or opinion" every time to not be accused of being arrogent or acting like I know everything there is to know about God or the Bible? I am in a process of becoming as are all of you so these are just my beliefs today, but they are my own. Let me restate that (as I understand it) the Bible was given as a means to build relationship between man and God. It was never given as a source of information or knowledge. Those who spend their times questioning the facts of the Bible miss the whole point of it IMO. This applies to those who spend their days trying to prove the validity of the things said in the Bible or spend their days trying to disprove the knowledge given in the Bible. It is like what I am doing right now while finishing my basement. I ask my 15 year old son to help me so he can learn how to build and sheetrock and wire a house etc. He is helping me because he wants to learn these things and knows I am his best source today to learn them. However, I hardly care if he learns these things. I am after relationship so he can get to know me and I get get to know him through the process. The transfer of knowledge is not the point. It is about building relationship. God is a Spirit and the Bible is a tool to draw us to Him to learn the ways of the spirit realm. Those who focus on the science or lack of it or the history or lack of it etc are clearly missing the point of the process. Finally, I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that everyone would remember Dana Carvey's portrayal of the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live so when I said "isn't that convenient" and recommended a church lady voice this was a joke and not a bad one at that. If you are going to bust my chops with misogyny for an obvious joke, I just do not have a chance here. I know that I am speaking another language when I speak of things being spiritually discerned and not allowing our Bible study to pass through the carnal mind. But, it is honestly what I believe and it is just me being real and not trying to hide my beliefs just to get along. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 Then we agree to disagree, Kratos. Need more be said. Also, I am glad you are there for your son. Being a father is a full-time job, and so is being a home renovator. Hopefully, fruit grows out of your projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Mathgeek, Thank you for your well wishes. My father never took the time and I try to do better, but he is quite naturally getting to the age that he has better things to do than hang out with dad. Can we all sing a chorus of "Cats in the Craddle"? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Finally, I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that everyone would remember Dana Carvey's portrayal of the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live so when I said "isn't that convenient" and recommended a church lady voice this was a joke and not a bad one at that. If you are going to bust my chops with misogyny for an obvious joke, I just do not have a chance here. Yes you are incorrect. It is impossible to remember something I never knew. If you have looked at my profile or even read many of my posts, you will know that I come from a culture where movies and tv and theator were strictly forbidden. I never heard of Dana Carvey. I don't know who Church Lady is. (If you had used caps for the name I might have clued in that it was a character of some kind. You didn't do that; you used lower case letters so I had no reason to think you were not making fun of women, esp. given the misogyny you have already demonstrated on these forums. A tree is known by its fruits.) I don't know what Saturday Live is. As for the rest of your post--seems you have no intention to learn a thing. All you want to do is judge and preach and convert. We're not stupid. We're not returning like the pig to its mudhole or the dog to its vomit. If you want to set yourself up for bait you can expect to be treated like bait. Whew! All that work I went to out of the goodness of my heart for a fellow human and this is the thanks I get. You indicated on the other thread that you wanted respectful dialogue. You speak with a forked tongue. when I say that these are just my beliefs about the Bible and its purpose. I have never been on a forum where it is not a given that what we write is our opinion and nothing more. Do I have to state that "this is now my belief or opinion" every time to not be accused of being arrogent or acting like I know everything there is to know about God or the Bible? I am in a process of becoming as are all of you so these are just my beliefs today, but they are my own. You know my position on this but because I'm just a woman it doesn't count. Let me restate that (as I understand it) the Bible was given as a means to build relationship between man and God. It was never given as a source of information or knowledge. Those who spend their times questioning the facts of the Bible miss the whole point of it IMO. This applies to those who spend their days trying to prove the validity of the things said in the Bible or spend their days trying to disprove the knowledge given in the Bible. It is like what I am doing right now while finishing my basement. I ask my 15 year old son to help me so he can learn how to build and sheetrock and wire a house etc. He is helping me because he wants to learn these things and knows I am his best source today to learn them. However, I hardly care if he learns these things. I am after relationship so he can get to know me and I get get to know him through the process. The transfer of knowledge is not the point. It is about building relationship. God is a Spirit and the Bible is a tool to draw us to Him to learn the ways of the spirit realm. Those who focus on the science or lack of it or the history or lack of it etc are clearly missing the point of the process. You're still acting as though god were a given. I know that I am speaking another language when I speak of things being spiritually discerned and not allowing our Bible study to pass through the carnal mind. But, it is honestly what I believe and it is just me being real and not trying to hide my beliefs just to get along. So why are you here? Definitely not for peaceful fellowship and making friends. I thought you wanted to be respectful, but that is clearly bogus. When pushing beliefs becomes more imortant than getting along it has nothing to do with respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I know that I am speaking another language when I speak of things being spiritually discerned and not allowing our Bible study to pass through the carnal mind. But, it is honestly what I believe and it is just me being real and not trying to hide my beliefs just to get along. Yes. That is very true. Each religion has a system of its own separate language, and some modern thinkers say that religion can only be understood in the context of its own language, and I believe it is so. (One of the reasons why I'm doing a lot less arguing about it now.) Only by understanding your individual/personal choice of words and definitions can I really understand where you're coming from and what you try to convey. Unfortunately this also means that it's a very difficult task for you to relay your thoughts and beliefs to a website like this, just because your language doesn't work anymore. You're trying to hand us clothes that don't fit. I'm not arguing for you to leave, but I'm just making you aware, based on your own observation, that it might be an impossible task to use the symbols of your belief unto an audience where those symbols mean something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Ruby, I am sorry if my post offeneded you. It has been a long day. I actually thought that you were purposely attacking me knowing this was a joke. Who would think that a Christian would be more familiar with a cutting edge show like SNL than a non-believer? We do all speak different language through our different upbringing. I just hope we can continue with a two way street in learning to communicate. If we are truly trying to come together, we all have to have some grace for the other when we speak. I repeat again that I am not trying to reconvert anyone. I really beg you all to stop acting like I am a liar when I say this. I have never once asked anyone to reconvert or suggested that they should. Do you think that this is the only reason why a Christian would want to get to know you? How sad that is to me. Han, It is funny because when I first came here I was corrected for assuming that I had to speak in non-Christian language seeing that you are all ex-Christians and are more familiar with the language of the Bible than I am. Now, it seems, that using the language of the Bible is also offensive or hurts in our ability to communicate. Now I am really confused. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 John, I don't think Ruby HAS a tv... She'll correct me if I'm wrong. Even then SNL is possibly not core Ex-Mennonite viewing... again Ruby will correct me if I'm wrong. And a "human" note from me... If you've committed time to and love Kratos Jr. then it's not so much Harry Chapin as Bette Midler... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Since I felt I was in a cultural waste land, having never actually seen Mr Carvey's parody... http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=da...urch+lady+video EDIT - John It is funny because when I first came here I was corrected for assuming that I had to speak in non-Christian language seeing that you are all ex-Christians and are more familiar with the language of the Bible than I am. Now, it seems, that using the language of the Bible is also offensive or hurts in our ability to communicate. Now I am really confused. In many respects you're falling between a number of stools... 1) As ex-Cs we DO understand the bible, but we don't buy it. So arguments that 'God is spirit and one has to read the bible that way' when there is not really a sound biblical basis for it, won't fly. 2) since you're still a Christian, then trying to secularise out your language won't work either... it's like listening to one's great uncle trying to sound 'hip' 3) You have a far from standard eisegesis on the nature of Scripture, which isn't actually biblically supported without resort to special pleading, string of pearls quoting and huge trenches of circular or self referential logic Not sure that is 'helpful' but it's my view from the goundling pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 John, I don't think Ruby HAS a tv... She'll correct me if I'm wrong. Even then SNL is possibly not core Ex-Mennonite viewing... again Ruby will correct me if I'm wrong. Gramps, if you want to be bored with the details... There is a tv sitting in my rooms. The channel that would interest me is the history channel but I don't know how to find it. The only modern convenience I really know how to use is the computer and internet and some IT. I started my cultural transition about ten years ago, right when popular IT was just being born. People in this area were asking each other, "Do you have email?" I had email earlier than a lot of people because I had happened to hook up with a person who really pushed me to get acquainted with the internet and computers and to get email. It was so new that the Old Order Mennonites had not yet taken any stand on it so I did not have to break any rules in doing these things. I went to the public library and learned to use the computer. I wished it were in some back corner because I feared some Mennonite would come in and see me at it but it and get me in trouble. I had a feeling they wouldn't like it. Nothing bad ever happened. Today they have this rule that they can use the internet but someone else has to operate the mouse. Sounds a lot like the rule about the automobile. They're allowed to ride in it but someone else must operate the steering wheel. But rules about tv were solidly in place back in 1998. I don't know how to use the thing. SNL--finally I clue in that maybe you're talking about Saturday Night Live. I thought you meant ShackledNoMore, but that is SNM. SNL could also mean snail as in snail mail or being slow of mind. I am slow when it comes to understanding some things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 It is funny because when I first came here I was corrected for assuming that I had to speak in non-Christian language seeing that you are all ex-Christians and are more familiar with the language of the Bible than I am. Now, it seems, that using the language of the Bible is also offensive or hurts in our ability to communicate. Now I am really confused. Well, in my case using your language of the Bible to communicate doesn't hurt or is taken as offensive, but I know it is for some. We're all different. But your interpretation of what one thing means or what another thing is and so on, is based on your religious culture and theology. When you say "salvation", you mean one thing, while a Calvinist mean something else, and a Lutheran means something else, and we think it's just a word without any substance. So if I would have to understand you, really understand and communicate with you, I would have to get into the sphere of usage and definitions to really understand what you mean when you say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 You're trying to hand us clothes that don't fit. I'm not arguing for you to leave, but I'm just making you aware, based on your own observation, that it might be an impossible task to use the symbols of your belief unto an audience where those symbols mean something else. Excellent! Gotta bookmark this post for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 GH, Thanks for the Dana Carvey links. They were very cutting edge skits in their day and still are very funny to me. I hope the "stools" I am between are pieces of furniture, but I am not always sure here. Language indeed is the least effective way of communicating except for all of the others. It is the common language that separates Yanks from Brits afterall. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Stool -type of chair... in this case... and from me, never second guess, since I can curse up a storm with as much alacrity as an irate Galway fish wife on rotgut Gin... I remember having much hilarity over a Conan-Doyle (IIRC) tale where one of the protagonists (a gentleman boxer, which is why I think it's ACD) described how he got up to a high window '...using a stool I had passed in the hall way...' Still raises a wry smile even now... I wasn't far wrong about Ruby's tv... it's an expensive coffee table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Do I have to state that "this is now my belief or opinion" every time to not be accused of being arrogent or acting like I know everything there is to know about God or the Bible?You do when you make such arrogant claims like the Spirit is leading you in your beliefs which implies you are claiming that this is God's opinion, or when you make arrogrant claims that other people aren't reading the bible the "right way" when you have yet to present any proof that there is a "right way" to read the bible at all. Let me restate that (as I understand it) the Bible was given as a means to build relationship between man and God. It was never given as a source of information or knowledge. Again, what scriptual basis do you have to prove that there is a "right way" to read the bible and that your way of reading the bible is the "right way?" Those who spend their times questioning the facts of the Bible miss the whole point of it IMO. This applies to those who spend their days trying to prove the validity of the things said in the Bible or spend their days trying to disprove the knowledge given in the Bible. Again, where in the bible does it say what the right "point" of it is? And if us having a relationship with God is the point of the bible and the inerrant facts of it aren't, then why bother including it in the first place? Seems like God is wasting an awful lot of trees there for something that's not important. It is like what I am doing right now while finishing my basement. I ask my 15 year old son to help me so he can learn how to build and sheetrock and wire a house etc. He is helping me because he wants to learn these things and knows I am his best source today to learn them. However, I hardly care if he learns these things. I am after relationship so he can get to know me and I get get to know him through the process. The transfer of knowledge is not the point. It is about building relationship. The big difference between your relationship with your son and a relationship with God is that your son's soul isn't going to face any sort of eternal jeapordy if he gets one part of his relationship with you wrong. You are also making the arrogrant assumption that God's concerns for his children are the same as your concerns for yours. God is a Spirit and the Bible is a tool to draw us to Him to learn the ways of the spirit realm. Those who focus on the science or lack of it or the history or lack of it etc are clearly missing the point of the process. Again, where in the bible does it say what the point of the bible is? And if our relationship with God is secondary to the knowledge in the bible, then if you never had the bible, would you know what God was? Would you know what the Holy Spirit was? Would you know that the Holy Spirit is leading you or how to interpet what the Holy Spirit is trying to lead you in? Would you know who Jesus was without the bible if having the facts about the bible is so insigficant to having a relationship with God? I repeat again that I am not trying to reconvert anyone. I really beg you all to stop acting like I am a liar when I say this. I have never once asked anyone to reconvert or suggested that they should. Do you think that this is the only reason why a Christian would want to get to know you? How sad that is to me. If you aren't here to convert anyone and you're just here to learn about us, then why bother registering an account in the first place? It's funny how you claim you're here to get to know us, not to convert us, yet all you've been doing since you've been here is spreading your version of the Gospel news and judging other Christians as not reading the bible the right way while continuing to dodge our questions and not giving us any actual answers. If you were really here to get to know us, then why couldn't you do that silently by reading our posts instead of spreading what you think the "truth" is and never actually answering our questions? When I first came to this site, I didn't register an account right away. I spent at least a month lurking the forums and reading posts because I was still at a point where I was uncertain about my beliefs, and wanted to learn more before I made that final leap. And during this time of lurking I was able to get a feeling for the atmosphere and rules of the forums before I became a member, so I had already learned plenty about the people here before I even had to post a single thing. So, why do you feel the need to spread your version of the "truth" to "get to know us" when it's possible to do so through other means? And no, I don't think converting is the only way a Christian can get to know people because I do have some friends who are Christians that have gotten to know me without the need to convert me, and I can tell you from personal experience, that the way they get to know me is completely different than the way you're "getting to know me." They get to know me by being my friend, by getting off the Christian soapbox and listening and talking and just having fun, and by being there for me when I need someone to be there and vice versa. And very rarely does the subject of religion ever actually come up. In fact, whenever we actually do discuss religion once in a blue moon, half of the time, I'm the one who brings the subject up. When I do bring it up, I only talk about it with my close friends who I know are open minded enough to not be offended by what I ask. And when I do bring up religion to them, I don't do it because I'm trying to "get to know them", I do it because I'm seeking answers. So, I just don't get why you seem to think that the only way to "get to know us" is by getting up on your Christian soapbox and spreading what you think the right way of following the Gospel "truth" is when clearly there are other more productive ways to get to know us. And last I checked, while ex-christian.net does invite Christians to join, the main purpose of the site is for ex-Christians to find support from other ex-Christians, not to provide a social event for fundies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I wasn't far wrong about Ruby's tv... it's an expensive coffee table You were so close it was embarrassing to correct you but you said I should if you were wrong. If an Old Order Mennonite came snooping they would say I lied by keeping silent on that one. Besides, I do sometimes turn it on late at night. And depending how interesting a movie is on I'll watch it. Lest anyone get any idea about the "education" I get from late night tv, please be informed that I barely understand movies. My brain was trained from Day 1 to extrapolate visual and tactile meaning from spoken and written language, charts, and diagrams. I think movies use a different part of the brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Do I have to state that "this is now my belief or opinion" every time to not be accused of being arrogent or acting like I know everything there is to know about God or the Bible?You do when you make such arrogant claims like the Spirit is leading you in your beliefs which implies you are claiming that this is God's opinion, or when you make arrogrant claims that other people aren't reading the bible the "right way" when you have yet to present any proof that there is a "right way" to read the bible at all. Let me restate that (as I understand it) the Bible was given as a means to build relationship between man and God. It was never given as a source of information or knowledge. Again, what scriptual basis do you have to prove that there is a "right way" to read the bible and that your way of reading the bible is the "right way?" Those who spend their times questioning the facts of the Bible miss the whole point of it IMO. This applies to those who spend their days trying to prove the validity of the things said in the Bible or spend their days trying to disprove the knowledge given in the Bible. Again, where in the bible does it say what the right "point" of it is? And if us having a relationship with God is the point of the bible and the inerrant facts of it aren't, then why bother including it in the first place? Seems like God is wasting an awful lot of trees there for something that's not important. It is like what I am doing right now while finishing my basement. I ask my 15 year old son to help me so he can learn how to build and sheetrock and wire a house etc. He is helping me because he wants to learn these things and knows I am his best source today to learn them. However, I hardly care if he learns these things. I am after relationship so he can get to know me and I get get to know him through the process. The transfer of knowledge is not the point. It is about building relationship. The big difference between your relationship with your son and a relationship with God is that your son's soul isn't going to face any sort of eternal jeapordy if he gets one part of his relationship with you wrong. You are also making the arrogrant assumption that God's concerns for his children are the same as your concerns for yours. God is a Spirit and the Bible is a tool to draw us to Him to learn the ways of the spirit realm. Those who focus on the science or lack of it or the history or lack of it etc are clearly missing the point of the process. Again, where in the bible does it say what the point of the bible is? And if our relationship with God is secondary to the knowledge in the bible, then if you never had the bible, would you know what God was? Would you know what the Holy Spirit was? Would you know that the Holy Spirit is leading you or how to interpet what the Holy Spirit is trying to lead you in? Would you know who Jesus was without the bible if having the facts about the bible is so insigficant to having a relationship with God? I repeat again that I am not trying to reconvert anyone. I really beg you all to stop acting like I am a liar when I say this. I have never once asked anyone to reconvert or suggested that they should. Do you think that this is the only reason why a Christian would want to get to know you? How sad that is to me. If you aren't here to convert anyone and you're just here to learn about us, then why bother registering an account in the first place? It's funny how you claim you're here to get to know us, not to convert us, yet all you've been doing since you've been here is spreading your version of the Gospel news and judging other Christians as not reading the bible the right way while continuing to dodge our questions and not giving us any actual answers. If you were really here to get to know us, then why couldn't you do that silently by reading our posts instead of spreading what you think the "truth" is and never actually answering our questions? When I first came to this site, I didn't register an account right away. I spent at least a month lurking the forums and reading posts because I was still at a point where I was uncertain about my beliefs, and wanted to learn more before I made that final leap. And during this time of lurking I was able to get a feeling for the atmosphere and rules of the forums before I became a member, so I had already learned plenty about the people here before I even had to post a single thing. So, why do you feel the need to spread your version of the "truth" to "get to know us" when it's possible to do so through other means? And no, I don't think converting is the only way a Christian can get to know people because I do have some friends who are Christians that have gotten to know me without the need to convert me, and I can tell you from personal experience, that the way they get to know me is completely different than the way you're "getting to know me." They get to know me by being my friend, by getting off the Christian soapbox and listening and talking and just having fun, and by being there for me when I need someone to be there and vice versa. And very rarely does the subject of religion ever actually come up. In fact, whenever we actually do discuss religion once in a blue moon, half of the time, I'm the one who brings the subject up. When I do bring it up, I only talk about it with my close friends who I know are open minded enough to not be offended by what I ask. And when I do bring up religion to them, I don't do it because I'm trying to "get to know them", I do it because I'm seeking answers. So, I just don't get why you seem to think that the only way to "get to know us" is by getting up on your Christian soapbox and spreading what you think the right way of following the Gospel "truth" is when clearly there are other more productive ways to get to know us. And last I checked, while ex-christian.net does invite Christians to join, the main purpose of the site is for ex-Christians to find support from other ex-Christians, not to provide a social event for fundies. I will try again. All of my statements about the Bible and God are my beliefs alone. They are not statements about the whole truth that is meant to negate anyone else's beliefs. But my beliefs are no less valid than those of others here either. I never said that the Bible was not important or irrelevent. I said that it was a tool in the hand of God to help us to form a relationship with Him. It is like a Rosetta stone or a translation dictionary. For example, if you had a person who spoke only Spanish and a person who spoke only English and they wanted to communicate, you might use a Spanish/English dictionary. IN MY OPINION, God is a Spirit and we are natural and mortal so the Bible which is both spiritual and natural was given so we could understand one another. Finally, I have been lurking and reading for months, but felt convicted by Ruby and Mathgeek's questions of why us Christians do not answer questions posted to them and asking what we are willing to talk about. So I posted again the answers to the questions that were asked of me. I don't have a need to share my beliefs, but I am not a rude or disrespectful person either and to ignore other's questions is rude. Maybe you get offended when Christians answer questions about their beliefs, but others are asking us to answer. So, don't read our answers if they offend you, but it is not right that you try to stiffle men like me from answering the questions that other members of this forum have asked. Again, this is only my opinion. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 IN MY OPINION, God is a Spirit and we are natural and mortal so the Bible which is both spiritual and natural was given so we could understand one another. Finally, I have been lurking and reading for months, but felt convicted by Ruby and Mathgeek's questions of why us Christians do not answer questions posted to them and asking what we are willing to talk about. Please don't twist my words. I said relationships were important in a land seriously divided over religious differences. And I also informed you, as have others, how not to offend so that relationships have an opportunity to be positive and productive. Your first post on this thread was humble and good. I wrongly accused you of a white lie and then retracted the accusation when you pointed out my error. Since then you have behaved extremely arrogantly and offensively. You accept no advice and no suggestions or correction. Sure, you say "in my opinion" when you say "God is a spirit" but you insist that we accept that God exists. You refuse to speak to us in any other terms. You have every right to be this arrogant asshole if you want to be. Just don't be surprised when you get treated like one. At the very least you have managed to get yourself elected to center of attention. If mathgeek wants to get this thread back on track he may have to get a mod involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Sure, you say "in my opinion" when you say "God is a spirit" but you insist that we accept that God exists. Ruby, Please tell me how I insist that anyone accept anything that I believe as the truth? Please give examples where I insisted thta anyone else accepts that God exists. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Publicly, never... however, the phrase 'martyr for Christ' has skipped merrily from your keyboard... that means, at least to me, a number of your protestations ring somewhat hollow. However, I'd be interested to hear your side of the reason that someone with no interest in prosletysing would use such a phrase in a communication... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 If mathgeek wants to get this thread back on track he may have to get a mod involved. I am still somewhat unfamiliar with message board etiquette, so maybe we should. I would think the mods would be lurking around anyway just to make sure the shit that was flying off the fan blades wasn't damaging the wallpaper. I started this thread to try and draw out the fundy Christians that base ALL their thinking, all their decisions, all their judgments as being derived and rooted in the misnamed Almighty Word. So far, the only intelligent answers I have received has been from a rather respectful liberal Christian. HE understands that Christianity in the way most levelheaded people comprehend it. Plus, I wanted to try and defend myself against those believers who are somewhat versed in apologetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I will try again. All of my statements about the Bible and God are my beliefs alone. They are not statements about the whole truth that is meant to negate anyone else's beliefs. But my beliefs are no less valid than those of others here either.If your beliefs are yours alone and you don't think your statements are the whole truth and aren't meant to negate anyone else's beliefs, then why were you just earlier in this thread criticsizing Christians for not reading the bible the way you thought was the right way? You've also yet to tell me where in the bible does it tell us what the right way to read it is. I never said that the Bible was not important or irrelevent. I said that it was a tool in the hand of God to help us to form a relationship with Him. It is like a Rosetta stone or a translation dictionary. For example, if you had a person who spoke only Spanish and a person who spoke only English and they wanted to communicate, you might use a Spanish/English dictionary. IN MY OPINION, God is a Spirit and we are natural and mortal so the Bible which is both spiritual and natural was given so we could understand one another.Last I checked, you said the bible isn't meant to give us "head" knowledge, yet now you're saying the bible is like a translation dictionary, when a translation dictionary's purpose is to give us "head" knowledge needed to understand each other. So, if the bible is like a translation dictionary, then it is in fact suppsoed to give us "head" knowledge because language is something you learn with your head. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basically one of those Christians who believe that faith is supposed to be illogical? Finally, I have been lurking and reading for months, but felt convicted by Ruby and Mathgeek's questions of why us Christians do not answer questions posted to them and asking what we are willing to talk about. So I posted again the answers to the questions that were asked of me. I don't have a need to share my beliefs, but I am not a rude or disrespectful person either and to ignore other's questions is rude. Maybe you get offended when Christians answer questions about their beliefs, but others are asking us to answer. So, don't read our answers if they offend you, but it is not right that you try to stiffle men like me from answering the questions that other members of this forum have asked. Again, this is only my opinion. John When did I ever tell you anywhere in my posts to stop answering my questions? You are putting words into other people's mouth, which is in fact rude and disrespectful. For the past whole thread, I have been doing nothing but trying you to give me a direct answer to my questions, and it has been you who have been constantly dodging them. I didn't say for you to not answer my questions. I was saying that your purpose of being on this site "to get to know us" is not the purpose of ex-christian.net and was merely acquiring why you thought getting on your Christian soapbox was neccessary in the first place for you to "get to know us." It's just rather supscious of you that you claim that you aren't here to convert us but to get to know us yet in every other thread I've seen you in, you almost always seem to be pressing your opinion onto others and dodging people's questions. So, don't you dare go and accuse me of saying something I never once said, then turn around and pretend to be respectful when you've just been rude and dissrpectful by claiming that I said something that I most certainly did not say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Publicly, never... however, the phrase 'martyr for Christ' has skipped merrily from your keyboard... that means, at least to me, a number of your protestations ring somewhat hollow. However, I'd be interested to hear your side of the reason that someone with no interest in prosletysing would use such a phrase in a communication... GH, As you appear to be a scholar not unfamiliar with scripture, I am sure that you are aware that the Greek for "witnesses" is martyr (as in Acts 1). When Jesus told the disciples to go into the world and witness for Him, he did not mean go around knocking on people's doors while they are having dinner or standing on street corners with sandwich board signs shouting for repentence and handing out Bible tracts. He meant to not seperate yourself as the religious Jews did, but to follow His example and mingle with everyone so your light can shine. Admittedly, my light has been viewed as pretty dim, but I do make an effort to get to know all kinds of people and to let all kinds of people get to know me. I think this helps those burned by religion to see that all those who believe in God are not intolerant nut jobs (though you might say I failed) and it gives me a chance to know that non-believers have valid reasons for their non-belief other than just being devil incarnates. (that is a joke). Anyway, when discussing with another who will remain nameless that I was having a hard time visiting this site as the people seemed so hateful and vulgar in the Lion's Den, I was reminded that we are called to mingle silently as Jesus set an example of touching others that most of religion has failed to learn, thus my mention of being martyrs or witnesses. I guess you might say that this is still very close to trying to reconvert, but I do not look at it that way. Salvation is between God and the individual, but our part is to not separate from others so that ignorance will not win the day. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Neon, I felt that I did answer your questions to the best of my ability, but please do not assume that I am ducking your questions because you do not agree with my answers. In the Bible, Jesus stated that His words are spirit and they are life. I Cor. 2 states that the natural man cannot understand the things of the spirit for they are spiritually discerned. Rom. 8 says that to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. These are all references that the Bible must be interpreted by the Spirit and not understood by the carnal mind or natural understanding. As far as my translation example, my point about working with my spon answers this for me. Our getting to know God is not just two human beings with different languages. We are talking about communication between a spiritual being and natural ones. Thus, the Bible is natural words that contain spiritual truth so these two can come together in relationship. It is not head knowledge, but it gives us a way to communicate so we can spend time together and know one another through the experience. I think in was William James who said something to the effect that religion can only be understood by those who are having the experience and such experiences can never be used as proof to convince another who is not having them. I thin that he was a wise man. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Neon, In the Bible, Jesus stated that His words are spirit and they are life. I Cor. 2 states that the natural man cannot understand the things of the spirit for they are spiritually discerned. Rom. 8 says that to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. These verses do not prove that there is a right way or wrong way to read the bible because these verses do not clearly define what it means to be "carnally minded" or "spiritually minded." You seem to think that reading the bible in the way you think is right is "spiritually minded" and that being concerned with bibilical inerrancy is "carnally minded" yet nowhere in those verses do they explain that that's what they mean by "carnally" and "spiritual" minded. And if that's what being "carnally" and "spirutal" minded are, and if God is all-knowing, why didn't God use his all-knowing powers to realize ahead of time that we wouldn't be able to comprehend what it means to be "carnally" or "spiritually" minded and make the verses more clear as to what it means, so that it would be impossible to misinterpet their meaning? You might claim that reading the bible in the way you think is right is "spiritually minded" but because the bible does not clearly define what being "carnally" and "spiritually" minded are, any bibilical literalist can easily come along and tell you "No, no, that's not what these verses really mean. This is what they actually mean," and pick out practically any verse they want and twist the meaning around to prove their points. And because the bible does not give any clear definitions as to what "carnally" and "spiritually" minded are, nor does it clearly tell us how to read the bible, their proof arguments are just as valid as yours are. Likewise, I can just as easily say that Jesus was a fraud and that the bible really wants us to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And because there are no clear instructions as to how to read the bible, I can take any verse I feel like and twist the verse around to support my proof arguments, and you couldn't say that they are wrong because there is no evidence of clear instructions as to how to interpet the bible. By citing these verses, you have not proven that your way of reading the bible is right. You've only proven my point that there is no right or wrong way to read the bible. And unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your claims, my interpetation of the scriptures can be just as valid as yours or any biblical literalist, kind of like how when you read horoscopes, they can be twisted to make any situation seem like the horoscopes were right. Trust me on this, I used to be a biblical literalist myself when I was a Christian, so I can tell you from personal experience how easy it is for anyone to twist the bible's verses to make a convincing argument to support their claims. These are all references that the Bible must be interpreted by the Spirit and not understood by the carnal mind or natural understanding.And biblical literalists can easily twist those references around to prove their own arguments that their way of reading the bible is more correct than your way of reading the bible. Likewise the biblical literalists have just as many references to support their claims like 2 Tim 3:16 for instance. And because the bible is so vague that there are no clearly defined instructions as to how to read it, anyone can easily interpet such a verse to suit their own views as to how to read the bible. I think in was William James who said something to the effect that religion can only be understood by those who are having the experience and such experiences can never be used as proof to convince another who is not having them. I thin that he was a wise man. John If religion can only be understood by those who are having the experience, then why is it that we fell away? You do realize that this site is ex-christian.net, right? Ex means that we used to be Christian, we used to have the religious experience and we used to be able to understand it, yet somehow religion no longer made any sense to us. So, if religion can only be understood by those who experience it, why is it that we can't understand it anymore when we once experienced it ourselves? Or are you one of those Christians who think we were never "real" Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts