Christianity Is Based On Astrology

[MathGeek]

My father-in-law gave me a bit of advice like Kratos's "responsible of = responsible for". Each half gives 100% no matter what. .50 * .50 = .25, but 1.00 * 1.00 = 1.00. While I don't subscribe to the resurrection or anything like that anymore, I still believe that old-fashioned values of marriage can work in a secular day and age.

 

Of course, my way and wants are not everybody else's way and wants.

[Grandpa Harley]

There are too many questions for me to get to them all now, but I will start here.

 

What makes me think that there are more Christian men that do not want to be the head of their home than there are women that do not want to be in submission? I worked in ministry for 20 years and part of that was to help those who wanted to do it God's way to do so. Once a couple accepts the Bible as their standard, we found that more of the men had a problem stepping up to be responsible and lead than we saw women not willing to submit. In fact, the most common situation was women who wished that there husband would take it and they unwillingly lead the home because if she did not, it would not get done. This put the wife in more of a mother role to her husband instead of that of a wife.

 

I have well over 20 years of a happy marriage as proof that this system does work. I wonder how many years of peaceful marriage any here can submit as proof that their way is better?

 

As far as day to day working, just look at the way families for the most part worked until the last 50-100 years. It was not a bit uncommon in the WWII generation to see 50+ years of marriage. Compare that to today. The balancing principle that makes it work we call "responsible to = responsible for". My children are responsible to submit to my rules in the house and I am responsible to provide for them. My wife is free to work outside the home and make her own way if she wanted to, but since she is responsible to me, I am responsible for her so she does not have to. I go out into the world and "bring home the bacon" and she remains and keeps the home fires burning for us all. Call it old fashioned, but it works great for us. It is far better than we see so often where both go out and work and then fight over whether each is doing their share at home. Plus, we never have a problem where a move is necessary for the success of one career and the other must either move also or try to maintain a long distance marriage relationship.

 

Those who think being responsible for the decisions is a power trip just demonstrate that they have never been in this position. I have been both an employer and an employee. Employee is easier by far. As an employer, I would bear the responsibility to make the right decisions so there was a living to be made by all. As an employer, all I had to do was do what portion of the work that was delegated to me. This is not a good analogy for husbands and wives because my wife is certainly not my employee, but the principle remains the same. There is a heavy weight to be the one who is responsible to see to it that we make it as a family. That is why most men do not want it.

 

You cannot do it half God's way and half man's way and expect good results. I see this where a man expects his wife to bring in her share of the finances and to take care of the home. This is blantantly unfair. I may be the one responsible to God to lead, but I treat my wife like queen none the less. The Bible says that if a man does not provide for those of his household, he is worse than an infidel or unbeliever. This is the part of the headship principle that is so often overlooked by those who oppose this way of ordering a marriage.

 

John

 

Would 23 years (Dec 1984- to date) count?

[Kuroikaze]

As far as day to day working, just look at the way families for the most part worked until the last 50-100 years. It was not a bit uncommon in the WWII generation to see 50+ years of marriage.

 

Ahh, yes the good old 1950's, when blacks were kept in their place and a man could beat his wife without getting into trouble. I know that wasn't what you meant, but I get a little irritated when people start pining for the 1950's like is was some golden age in the united states, where everyone was happy. Of course, it is easy for a white male to mistakenly think the 1950's were better, because it WAS better for white males. For everyone else it wasn't better, it was worse. Just because the divorce rate was lower doesn't mean couples were happier, they just has lower standards.

 

Compare that to today. The balancing principle that makes it work we call "responsible to = responsible for". My children are responsible to submit to my rules in the house and I am responsible to provide for them. My wife is free to work outside the home and make her own way if she wanted to, but since she is responsible to me, I am responsible for her so she does not have to. I go out into the world and "bring home the bacon" and she remains and keeps the home fires burning for us all. Call it old fashioned, but it works great for us. It is far better than we see so often where both go out and work and then fight over whether each is doing their share at home. Plus, we never have a problem where a move is necessary for the success of one career and the other must either move also or try to maintain a long distance marriage relationship.

 

In my opinion feminism is about choice, and if your wife is happy with your arrangement then fine. But you didn't use the word choice, you used the word submission, which implies the absence of choice. Perhaps you are misusing the English language to create the illusion that you are following a biblical standard ( submission ) when in fact you are making it up as you go along like everyone else.

 

Those who think being responsible for the decisions is a power trip just demonstrate that they have never been in this position. I have been both an employer and an employee. Employee is easier by far. As an employer, I would bear the responsibility to make the right decisions so there was a living to be made by all. As an employer, all I had to do was do what portion of the work that was delegated to me. This is not a good analogy for husbands and wives because my wife is certainly not my employee, but the principle remains the same. There is a heavy weight to be the one who is responsible to see to it that we make it as a family. That is why most men do not want it.

 

No, but I have personally witnessed Several campus ministers and preachers in ministries I served in go on power trips, kicking out anyone who didn't agree with them, and the like, it isn't pretty. I don't think marriage has to be delegated like this, my parents have been married for over 30 years, currently my mom works and my dad takes care of my sisters. They both are leaders, and take responsibility together. Why assume the woman NEEDS an easier role, free from all that difficult thinking. My mom is a Christian, but she would tell you in no uncertain terms where you could stick your views on male headship. ( she isn't nearly as nice as I am )

 

You cannot do it half God's way and half man's way and expect good results. I see this where a man expects his wife to bring in her share of the finances and to take care of the home. This is blantantly unfair. I may be the one responsible to God to lead, but I treat my wife like queen none the less. The Bible says that if a man does not provide for those of his household, he is worse than an infidel or unbeliever. This is the part of the headship principle that is so often overlooked by those who oppose this way of ordering a marriage.

 

Yeah, you are right about that, one needs to kick "God's way" to the door and find the way that works for them. Hang religion, hang other peoples expectations, and hang the 1950's. Relationships are not static, what works for you may not work at all for others.

[Kuroikaze]

What makes me think that there are more Christian men that do not want to be the head of their home than there are women that do not want to be in submission? I worked in ministry for 20 years and part of that was to help those who wanted to do it God's way to do so. Once a couple accepts the Bible as their standard, we found that more of the men had a problem stepping up to be responsible and lead than we saw women not willing to submit. In fact, the most common situation was women who wished that there husband would take it and they unwillingly lead the home because if she did not, it would not get done. This put the wife in more of a mother role to her husband instead of that of a wife.

 

Sociologists have a term for this, it is called a "self selected sample" You are dealing with Christians, mostly American, (I'm guessing) and probably from a limited number of denominations. For instance, you probably aren't going to find men in Pentecostal churches have this problem quite so much. You are painting the entirety of the human race in one broad stroke from the very small sample you have, in one culture, and one religion.

 

Again, (what is this now the 10th time?) I'll point out that for someone who claims to respect logic and reason, you have a very poor grasp of them.

 

Instead you grab on to any argument, no matter how weak it is, to justify your position.

[Antlerman]

I have well over 20 years of a happy marriage as proof that this system does work. I wonder how many years of peaceful marriage any here can submit as proof that their way is better?

No one says that having the male take the dominate role in the relationship can't work. It can also work in may cases where the female takes the dominate role. It all depends on the people, their personalities, and what their relationship is like. There is no one shoe size fits all John.

 

There is no universal man. There is no universal woman. There is no universal relationship. Those are unrealistic romantic ideals. People are dynamic, and relationships are dynamic.

 

I don't think that "Universalism" is meant to mean everyone should be expected to be universally the same. Each situation is unique. What works, is the truth. What serves the relationship is what defines "God's truth". God's truth is defined by people. I certainly see that being true in your case as well.

 

As far as day to day working, just look at the way families for the most part worked until the last 50-100 years. It was not a bit uncommon in the WWII generation to see 50+ years of marriage. Compare that to today.

Let's not. Do you understand the complexities involved in making such a comparison?? Then why are you citing this as proof of following the Bible as the way? Were those people all good Biblical Literalists following the Pauline Model? Were there a lot of tragically unhappy relationships where in fact they both would have been better not being together? Were there huge economic differences that played into why people stayed together, which had really very little to do with them following "God's" standard "one size fits all model" for relationships?

 

You see? You can't cite this as evidence of the way you adopted that works only because of your personality, her personality, your economic needs, etc. You're being nostalgic, which is another word for selective memories, which to use in to make a case to support anything is a bad fallacy of logic.

 

It is far better than we see so often where both go out and work and then fight over whether each is doing their share at home. Plus, we never have a problem where a move is necessary for the success of one career and the other must either move also or try to maintain a long distance marriage relationship.

These are just arguments you're bringing up to justify your model as one that works. Anybody in their relationship can likewise show where their system, which may be opposite of yours, offers just as much benefit to them as individuals and as a couple. Those points you mentioned are not evidence of it being right for everyone, only you and your relationship with your wife. Do you believe yours is a superior relationship to everyone else's, which isn't modeled the same way as yours???

 

What's your heart tell you John?

 

You cannot do it half God's way and half man's way and expect good results.

Wanna bet? If of course we define "God's way" as one particular cultural way that reads itself into scripture (the rule actually, not the exception). But there are others in their culture who do it a different way that works for them, and they too, like you, call it "God's way". Is that a fact, or am I just making this up?

 

I'm honestly a little surprised you don't see the truly subjective nature of what people call "objective truth", especially when it comes to social and religious matters!

 

I may be the one responsible to God to lead, but I treat my wife like queen none the less. The Bible says that if a man does not provide for those of his household, he is worse than an infidel or unbeliever. This is the part of the headship principle that is so often overlooked by those who oppose this way of ordering a marriage.

I personally would never accuse you of seeing your wife as inferior, just as I wouldn't judge a male in a relationship where the female holds the dominant position as "not following God's plan". One would only hope the respect could go both ways. I see you making the mistake of presuming your way is "God's way", and therefore all who choose differently are out of God's way. That's a mistake on your part and has no real substantive support through the rationalizations you've built up to support it to yourself in the face of throngs of contrary evidence.

 

You say you listen to God's voice? I question you understand what that might mean. Let's get back to my question:

 

I have not had anything revealed to me to indicate differently than what the Bible plainly says on this subject, but remain open if God were to teach me differently.

John, What criteria do you use to judge that it's God teaching you?

[Kuroikaze]

Those who think being responsible for the decisions is a power trip just demonstrate that they have never been in this position. I have been both an employer and an employee. Employee is easier by far. As an employer, I would bear the responsibility to make the right decisions so there was a living to be made by all. As an employer, all I had to do was do what portion of the work that was delegated to me. This is not a good analogy for husbands and wives because my wife is certainly not my employee, but the principle remains the same. There is a heavy weight to be the one who is responsible to see to it that we make it as a family. That is why most men do not want it.

 

The more I read this the more irritated I become. I guess this would be the root of why people here view you as being a bit sexist. I'm sure in your own mind you seem like some noble knight, taking care of a queen, and providing for her every need. The root of the problem is that you seem to think women NEED this. That there are all these poor bedraggled women out there just waiting for some man to come along and free them from the need of thought and responsibility.

 

Modern sexism is normally buried deep that even the man in question doesn't realize he is doing it, so I'll spell it out for you. The very notion that you are doing your wife a favor by taking all that "heavy responsibility" from her, is sexist. That somehow it is the right, and manly thing to do, so that she need not suffer under the load of responsibility. You inherently assume that you are somehow stronger or more capable than her. You may not be meaning to say that, but it is what you say none the less. I also think you are fooling yourself if you think you actually HAVE taken all the responsibility.

[Grandpa Harley]

Those who think being responsible for the decisions is a power trip just demonstrate that they have never been in this position. I have been both an employer and an employee. Employee is easier by far. As an employer, I would bear the responsibility to make the right decisions so there was a living to be made by all. As an employer, all I had to do was do what portion of the work that was delegated to me. This is not a good analogy for husbands and wives because my wife is certainly not my employee, but the principle remains the same. There is a heavy weight to be the one who is responsible to see to it that we make it as a family. That is why most men do not want it.

 

Being English, and being taught English history, the above is all VERY familiar. It's the myth of the 'white man's burden' restated. Basically, no one wanted to teach the fuzzy-wuzzies the one true religion and 'civilisation' but that that was the God ordained and the way things 'had' to be, no matter how 'nasty' it was...

[Kratos]

Some are again jumping to conclusions about my wife and family based on your own experience and not mine. My wife has a college degree and is a very capable women. She earned her own way before committing to marriage the way that we understand God to lay it out in the Bible. She could do it today. It is very offensive to assume that I see her as a poor or incapable women who needs me to take care of her. She could probably out-earn me easily of she no longer wanted to fulfil the role she now does in the home.

 

And it is her choice to be a submitted wife. Why do so many feminists believe in choice as long it is their choice that everyone else chooses? It reminds me of those who say they are prochoice concerning abortion in defense of women's rights when half of the babies aborted are female.

 

I totally support women's rights to choose careers and equal pay for equal work. I just wish that others would respect our choices instead of throwing up the mistreatment of blacks or white man's burden. It is not only innaccurate, but very condescending by those who supposedly believe in a live and let live way of life.

 

John

[Kratos]

AM,

 

I discern being led by the spirit by whether I feel life in my spirit or death in the same. When I feel death even on a portion of scripture, I know that I am not rightly dividing the word of truth as the spirit and the word always agree. Yes, it is very subjective, but the God I serve does treat us as individuals each on their own path. Religion is what makes one size fit all. It is not God. Thus, i continue to say this is what works for me today.

 

John

[Neon Genesis]

Some are again jumping to conclusions about my wife and family based on your own experience and not mine. My wife has a college degree and is a very capable women.

We're only quoting what you've said in your own posts. If we've said anything contrary to the actual situation, feel free to present some proof, but otherwise you've yet to convince us that you aren't sexist.

 

She earned her own way before committing to marriage the way that we understand God to lay it out in the Bible.

So, in other words, you're saying that women need to want to be submissive to men? How does this make it any less sexist?

 

She could probably out-earn me easily of she no longer wanted to fulfil the role she now does in the home.

What does your wife's income have anything at all to do with sexism?

 

And it is her choice to be a submitted wife.

If she really made that choice and if she's happy with it, great for her. The problem I have isn't what choice your wife made, but why do you believe that all wives should make the same choice that your wife made and that any other choice is wrong, and why do you believe that women need to want to make this choice.

 

Why do so many feminists believe in choice as long it is their choice that everyone else chooses? It reminds me of those who say they are prochoice concerning abortion in defense of women's rights when half of the babies aborted are female.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I totally support women's rights to choose careers and equal pay for equal work. I just wish that others would respect our choices instead of throwing up the mistreatment of blacks or white man's burden. It is not only innaccurate, but very condescending by those who supposedly believe in a live and let live way of life.

 

John

You've completely missed the point of our posts. Our point isn't whether or not wives should be allowed to go to work. Our point is why is it not sexist for God to demand women to bow down and worship men?

[Neon Genesis]

Religion is what makes one size fit all. It is not God. Thus, i continue to say this is what works for me today.

 

John

But you said in the Colesseum thread that you believe religion is made up and now you're saying that religion fits all. Are you admitting that you're a hypocrite and that you lied in the Colesseum thread when you said that religion is made up? And if religion is one size fits all, then why didn't religion fit us? Clearly isn't the fact that ex-Christians exist at all enough to prove that religion is not a one size fit all?

[The-Captain]

I totally support women's rights to choose careers and equal pay for equal work. I just wish that others would respect our choices instead of throwing up the mistreatment of blacks or white man's burden. It is not only innaccurate, but very condescending by those who supposedly believe in a live and let live way of life.

 

Thank you Kratos for stating your beliefs for us. If it works for you and your family then I can hardly argue with that. I cant force my way on you any more than you would to me. As long as it is clear that this is your personal way, then we can live and let live.

 

However the one issue I have with all this is that you believe that this is not only your way, but the universal ideal of God. What do you base this on? That you can find support for it in the Bible? That is a very shaky foundation to base a large part of your world view on. I'm not accusing you here, but don't you think that such a narrow view, based on little more than your feelings concerning a book, is in fact pushing you into the arrogance that so many people here accuse you of?

 

I just wish you'd do a more serious take on it rather than reiterating your "Sorry its not my way, but Gods" line.

 

Another John

[The-Captain]

Religion is what makes one size fit all. It is not God. Thus, i continue to say this is what works for me today.

 

John

But you said in the Colesseum thread that you believe religion is made up and now you're saying that religion fits all. Are you admitting that you're a hypocrite and that you lied in the Colesseum thread when you said that religion is made up? And if religion is one size fits all, then why didn't religion fit us? Clearly isn't the fact that ex-Christians exist at all enough to prove that religion is not a one size fit all?

 

Not to speak for him, but I believe his point is that religion is what forces a standard not God. However I'm a bit confused as that seems to contradict what he is saying about Gods "ordained" way for the household to work.

[Grandpa Harley]

I totally support women's rights to choose careers and equal pay for equal work. I just wish that others would respect our choices instead of throwing up the mistreatment of blacks or white man's burden. It is not only innaccurate, but very condescending by those who supposedly believe in a live and let live way of life.

 

John

 

Who was throwing it up? It was a valid parallel based on the language used... God ordained this 'burden' of having to head the household... oh woe is me, but I shall take it cheerfully as my duty to god... oh, please... it suits you, and that's just hunky dory... when you start dragging the demon god you follow to make it seem somehow 'noble' then I call bullshit. You like it, the woman you married likes it (you claim, but is it like or 'duty unto god'? I still wonder if she really had a choice...) so that's great. More strength to you both. Doens't work for everyone, my long standing relationship is an equal partnership... and it's worked with nary a cross word for 23 years. We do play to strengths, my wife is a great project manager, I'm good at resolving the rocks in the road on the project... She's the diplomat, I break knees... and each uses the other as counsel, sounding board, back up and affirmation. I don't see 'submission' as being part of a healthy relationship, but some people do... and they do it without pulling 1 Tim 2 and the rest like some club to enforce their damnable view on others.

[Grandpa Harley]

Religion is what makes one size fit all. It is not God. Thus, i continue to say this is what works for me today.

 

John

But you said in the Colesseum thread that you believe religion is made up and now you're saying that religion fits all. Are you admitting that you're a hypocrite and that you lied in the Colesseum thread when you said that religion is made up? And if religion is one size fits all, then why didn't religion fit us? Clearly isn't the fact that ex-Christians exist at all enough to prove that religion is not a one size fit all?

 

Not to speak for him, but I believe his point is that religion is what forces a standard not God. However I'm a bit confused as that seems to contradict what he is saying about Gods "ordained" way for the household to work.

 

That's becuase he's making it up as we go along... TBH, his story really doesn't hang together... but I've too few years left to be bothered to try and pick out some working time line. I just write 'BULLSHIT' in red across the lot and let him try and make it make sense... which he spectacularly fails to do...

[Deva]

Kratos you are totally missing the point. We don't care what your wife does for a living or how well your marrige works. Your attitude toward women in marriage has a bearing on how you see women as a whole, just as your "homosexuality is a sin" bears on your relationship with gay people. I really must insist upon it. Your views of men and women only being whole when in marriage or a relationship MUST impact the way you view single people as well. If you can't see or understand this, then you are willfully blind.

 

Your manner of determining "God's way" is totally subjective. As Gramps said, you are making it up as you go along, and what you are choosing to pull out of the Bible as "God's Way" reveals your character in my opinion.

[Kuroikaze]

Some are again jumping to conclusions about my wife and family based on your own experience and not mine. My wife has a college degree and is a very capable women. She earned her own way before committing to marriage the way that we understand God to lay it out in the Bible. She could do it today. It is very offensive to assume that I see her as a poor or incapable women who needs me to take care of her. She could probably out-earn me easily of she no longer wanted to fulfil the role she now does in the home.

 

And it is her choice to be a submitted wife. Why do so many feminists believe in choice as long it is their choice that everyone else chooses? It reminds me of those who say they are prochoice concerning abortion in defense of women's rights when half of the babies aborted are female.

 

I totally support women's rights to choose careers and equal pay for equal work. I just wish that others would respect our choices instead of throwing up the mistreatment of blacks or white man's burden. It is not only innaccurate, but very condescending by those who supposedly believe in a live and let live way of life.

 

John

 

Submissions and choice are mutually exclusive terms, one cannot chose to be submitted or it isn't really submission. I think you are playing fast and loose with the English language.

 

I stated my thoughts on feminism earlier, if your wife chooses to stay home that is her choice, but staying at home doesn't mean one is submitted to the other. I disagree with your language because "submission" naturally entails one being above the other.

 

Where exactly did any of us make any attempt to use force of any kind to stop you from living your life. Have you not on many occasions said that you and your wife are doing things "gods way," this naturally entails that others are doing things the wrong way. The only thing any of us has tried to show you is that there is not one "right" way for a relationship to work. Just because yours works, doesn't mean everybody's would.

 

My problem with you is that you seem to think, women in general want and even need this kind of relationship.

[white_raven23]

And it is her choice to be a submitted wife.

Just because your wife stays at home to raise kids instead of having a job sure as fuck doesn't make her "submitted"! I know a couple house husbands who sure as shit wouldn't appreciate being called "submitted" either.

 

What do you make of them Kratos? The men who choose to stay home? Is this any less "god's way" because the owner of the penis is the primary caregiver and the owner of the boobs is the primary income-earner? By IRS definition the Head of Household is the one who makes the most money. Never thought I'd have a kind word for the IRS...but they sure as shit don't give a damn if the person behind the tax forms they see has a cock or not.

 

Do these men somehow not exist for you?

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

I discern being led by the spirit by whether I feel life in my spirit or death in the same. When I feel death even on a portion of scripture, I know that I am not rightly dividing the word of truth as the spirit and the word always agree.

Have you ever found that reading the Bible is actually dynamic and not static; that what you saw as a truth at one point, where 'the spirit and word agreed', became a different truth to you a different point in your life? Do you still believe the same things you did when you first read it? Didn't the "spirit and the word" change as you did?

 

Yes, it is very subjective, but the God I serve does treat us as individuals each on their own path. Religion is what makes one size fit all. It is not God. Thus, i continue to say this is what works for me today.

I've always heard you say things which I've always sensed as a conflict. Your use of the language "God's will", or "God's plan" sounds to me more religion than spirit. The reason I say this is because it presumes one's views, or even one's sense of peace and conviction about a particular "way", is a universal truth for everyone. It's the spirit of control, which is opposite of the "spirit of God".

 

There are many things in my life that feel "right" to me, that feel and reason as being truth for everyone. But the grace of Wisdom lays in the recognition that what seems the absolute truth to me, is just that and nothing more. Truth is a dynamic living thing that speaks to us, but we should never try to posses. It's something that bring light at the moment, for the moment, and should be allowed to live and bring new truth. When we clutch it as ultimate truth, we kill it and it becomes dogma. It becomes religion.

 

Even my ideas of truth change, and recognizing that everyone else is equally along the line seeing truth from their vantage point, all understanding it being a true to them as my own is to me, is to move beyond yourself and to see the real nature of truth as individual. And I'll add further, it moves you to see others with the eyes of genuine grace because you no longer presume yourself to be the possessor of ultimate truth. The Biblical literalist by default is put into this position of limited perspective. It's not possible in my opinion to "listen to God" when we see him confined to a box, or a Bible.

 

On what level do you hear what I'm saying?

[Kratos]

AM,

 

I believe I hear you and understand and agree. I have mentioned that God is constantly changing my understanding of His Word. I used the idea of Hell and eternal torment as a recent example of where His Spirit revealed to me that I had been understanding the Bible incorrectly.

 

It is funny that no matter how many times I admit that my understanding of the Bible is subjective and only where I am today, I still get accused of trying to put my views on others. I cannot help it that these are how I understand to be both God's Word and God's will for me.

 

I cannot (at least today) totally throw out the Bible. It still has great value in my life. If that continues to bring me criticism from some then so be it. I guess it is a bit of "to thine own self be true".

 

John

[Neon Genesis]

It is funny that no matter how many times I admit that my understanding of the Bible is subjective and only where I am today, I still get accused of trying to put my views on others. I cannot help it that these are how I understand to be both God's Word and God's will for me.

 

 

 

John

Maybe people wouldn't accuse you of putting your views on others if you didn't make absurd and smug claims of superiority like

 

I have well over 20 years of a happy marriage as proof that this system does work. I wonder how many years of peaceful marriage any here can submit as proof that their way is better?

 

You cannot do it half God's way and half man's way and expect good results.

 

God has ordained as the one who sets the ordinances that a husband is over the wife in the Lord within a godly marriage.

 

I really believe that if God arbitrarily ordained that a wife is the head of her husband and a husband must submit to his wife, the wives would not want to be in authority and the husbands would not want to submit. It is about the rebellion in the heart of mankind to do the opposite of what God wants and has ordained

 

Need I go on?

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

I believe I hear you and understand and agree. I have mentioned that God is constantly changing my understanding of His Word. I used the idea of Hell and eternal torment as a recent example of where His Spirit revealed to me that I had been understanding the Bible incorrectly.

 

It is funny that no matter how many times I admit that my understanding of the Bible is subjective and only where I am today, I still get accused of trying to put my views on others. I cannot help it that these are how I understand to be both God's Word and God's will for me.

 

I cannot (at least today) totally throw out the Bible. It still has great value in my life. If that continues to bring me criticism from some then so be it. I guess it is a bit of "to thine own self be true".

 

John

You know John, I respect what you're saying. I understand it. I see you being true to what you perceive at this time, but of course I believe I have thoughts to share that I see that might be of benifit to you. I wouldn't ever suggest you changing what works for you, but maybe in seeing things in a different light, you may find a new dimension to your experience of what this all means. I'm beginning to think you and I may have a one on one discussion in the brewing. I need to regroup myself, and when I have the energy to I may suggest a topic for us if you'd be interested in that.

 

Keith

[Ouroboros]

I believe I hear you and understand and agree. I have mentioned that God is constantly changing my understanding of His Word.

Is it God... or is it you? At what point are you and God, possibly, the same?

 

I used the idea of Hell and eternal torment as a recent example of where His Spirit revealed to me that I had been understanding the Bible incorrectly.

The Bible, the Quran, the Illiad, Harry Potter... you name it, all influence us, including dialogue; changes us, modifies us, and the color of language infiltrates our being, we're not the same today as we were yesterday, and we'll not be the same tomorrow. Is it A Spirit, The Spirit, or Your Spirit, that does that changing?

 

It is funny that no matter how many times I admit that my understanding of the Bible is subjective and only where I am today, I still get accused of trying to put my views on others. I cannot help it that these are how I understand to be both God's Word and God's will for me.

 

I cannot (at least today) totally throw out the Bible. It still has great value in my life. If that continues to bring me criticism from some then so be it. I guess it is a bit of "to thine own self be true".

Like we're talked about before, it's a framework of language and understanding for you. The Bible happens to be the filter, through you understand and analyze the world. When you one day wake up and find the Bible lacking to explain everything, you will be forced, by your own mind and doing, to find new filters. We all wear "sunglasses", but some just look cooler...

[Kuroikaze]

It is funny that no matter how many times I admit that my understanding of the Bible is subjective and only where I am today, I still get accused of trying to put my views on others. I cannot help it that these are how I understand to be both God's Word and God's will for me.

 

I have to agree with Neon here, much of what you say seems very much as if you think your views on things are by far superior to ours.

 

Perhaps you are just bad at communicating, perhaps you are so use to using Christian lingo that you don't realize what the words you use actually mean, (something which I could certainly understand) but it just doesn't seem you have clue many of the things you say DO indeed seem to make claims that everyone would be better off if they just did it your way.

[Kratos]

AM,

 

I think that would be interesting though neither my education or ability to communicate are at your level.

 

Kuro,

 

I think it is inherent in life that since we believe what we are doing is best for us that we believe others would benefit from the same. Have I not heard many on here say that I would be better off if I no longer held onto God or the Bible? If you did not believe what you are doing would be best for anyone you would not be doing it. And yet, I am not a bit offended by your being convinced in the way you see things. Perhaps it is part of the ex thing that you have less patience for those who still believe in God than I do for those who don't? Perhaps those who still believe remind you of those who once used their beliefs to control or manipulate you?

 

John