Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Antlerman]

Faith is about engaging the whole person, body, mind, and 'spirit'.

 

"You shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and mind"? I never thought about it that way. Seems most churches or adherents emphasize one aspect or another.

I see that as true. How many churches are either outright or subtlety anti-intellectual? Or so steeped in ritual and form without the mind or heart? Or so bent on emotional experience there is no grounding in reason? It's interesting when you apply this as a criteria to churches. Where's the integration? Why is there a divorcing, or at the least a lack of the other areas? To me it seems their greatest challenge is to get past themselves and their particular church forms and practices and get on with the business of growing spiritually, which embraces, strengthens, and supports the whole person. I'm trying to imagine what a church like that would look like?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman and I disagree on many things. He's a symbolically minded person, I'm not.

I'm also very rational and analytical, and literalistic in my thoughts, sometimes to a fault which often causes difficulty. It actually tends to be my more dominant side. But I've come to recognize there are limits to it, to where it can take you, to where it can go.

 

But in actuality, all humans are symbolically minded. It's how we all process information on our level as evolved animals. It's inherited in our genes. What the distinction is in those who use more, what you could call "mystical" symbols, is that what is trying to be expressed is too abstract, to ethereal, in a word. It's the role of music, poetry, art, and myth. Those are reflections of a certain perception/experience of the world, a certain state of mind, a state of consciousness. Analytical symbols don't work there. But it's not a place without reason.

 

That doesn't mean I don't see value in his beliefs or that they are not "true", they just don't work for me. We both know the "truth", but neither of us claim the "TRUTH".

Certainly likewise. My only difficulty is with those who say 'this far and no further" in exploring the reality of our existence. Not just the physical world, but the interior world of mind, reason, and heart. I'll challenge them to consider more than just one idea of Truth. To me it's like that proverbial blind men and the elephant, each having a part of the Truth.

[Guest end3]

I am hearing from most of you that because I am not willing to extend love without rules that this is construed as inadequate.

[Shyone]

I am hearing from most of you that because I am not willing to extend love without rules that this is construed as inadequate.

Inadequate?

 

Maybe not very Christ-like.

 

I suppose the problem, which should create some real cognitive dissonance, is that Jesus' words regarding love do not have any limitations or restrictions. Hence, you get the really wierd sounding rhetoric from some Christians: "God loves you like his own child, and he will fuck you up in Hell for eternity if you make a mistake."

 

Love without rules. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor as yourself. We don't have rules for loving ourselves, do we?

[Antlerman]

I am hearing from most of you that because I am not willing to extend love without rules that this is construed as inadequate.

What are these rules?

[Guest end3]

Lack of validation for any behavior that an individual deems necessary for survival.

 

Edit: validation for some behaviors

[Skankboy]

Lack of validation for any behavior that an individual deems necessary for survival.

 

Edit: validation for some behaviors

Is this your response to Antlerman's question about the "rules"? Guess I'm not understanding your meaning here.

[Guest end3]

Lack of validation for any behavior that an individual deems necessary for survival.

 

Edit: validation for some behaviors

Is this your response to Antlerman's question about the "rules"? Guess I'm not understanding your meaning here.

 

 

Yes, I apologize, I should write more...but yes, it certainly seems like the crux is, "If you can't allow what I need as a person without any rules/judgement, then your position is inadequate/non-loving etc."

 

I am waiting for someone to explain how this is a superior position to subscribe.

 

As Phanta says, you pat yourself on the back about love, but you can't close the gap between that she needs for acceptance and validation and love. AM says the same...."I accept you without bounds, but you cannot recipricate".

 

Christianity is not this, IMO, and am constantly berated for not giving in to this idealism.

[Phanta]

I am hearing from most of you that because I am not willing to extend love without rules that this is construed as inadequate.

 

Closer. I'm still not satisfied you understand my view. You aren't demonstrating that here. You are still demonstrating your understanding of what's going on.

 

Remember, demonstrating that you understand my position as I understand it does not mean that you agree with me and it.

 

It does show me that you are having a discussion with me, not with yourself and your concept of me. This is the first step to real exchange of ideas and real, lasting influence. One of us may choose to end that journey together at any time on the path, but this is the path. For me.

 

I suggest this is the path for many.

 

End: SEE ME as I understand myself. Please?

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Lack of validation for any behavior that an individual deems necessary for survival.

 

Edit: validation for some behaviors

Is this your response to Antlerman's question about the "rules"? Guess I'm not understanding your meaning here.

 

 

Yes, I apologize, I should write more...but yes, it certainly seems like the crux is, "If you can't allow what I need as a person without any rules/judgement, then your position is inadequate/non-loving etc."

 

I wrote my previous post before I read this.

 

This is even closer to my position...but still not there.

 

End, if you can't acknowledge what believe I need as a person without any rules/judgment, then your position is unhelpful to me. You cannot help me.

 

I feel your love! It is not a functional love.

 

The people who influence me love, accept, validate even when they do not agree. First they demonstrate they understand my position as I understand it. Then they say supportive things without the intent for THEM to evaluate or judge or fix: "That sounds really hard." "Wow, how is that working for you?" "What else have you tried?"

 

And if I get to the point where I trust them, I MAY ask, "How about you? Have you ever been in this kind of situation?"

 

And then maybe they choose to open their biography and share without judging language what worked for them. And I may say, "Cool! I'm going to try that!" Or maybe I say, "Oh, thanks. I that doesn't sound like it will work for me."

 

If my response is the latter, they, being confident in their own path, carry forward without further pressure on me, living their own life as an example, always there for me to see and return to for insight if/when I become ready.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

I really appreciate that Phanta. Several things here: That attitude rarely happens in my direction on this site. "Oh, End3, doesn't know, so I am going to be graceful until he comes around someday...in love". So I don't trust, I debate, more or less...probably less, than am graceful to those who do not understand my position. Maybe I should learn to use different language to convey grace. I admit, I pay more attention to those that convey the non-believer position through talking across rather than speaking down. You, Shyone, Legion, AM, Hans, Sandy.

 

And being honest here....it's hard for me not to be rebellious of someone who professes a "superior position". This has little to do with Christianity, but more so the way I was raised....the ole man specifically.

 

And I want to say this lastly. I sincerely believe the Christian position as one of truth. Again, even though I don't convey the words to facilitate a improved dialogue, I truly don't believe that accepting any behavior as the promulgated version for happiness in a persons life is love...for example, "I have to steal to find love, life, and happiness".

[Ouroboros]

And being honest here....it's hard for me not to be rebellious of someone who professes a "superior position". This has little to do with Christianity, but more so the way I was raised....the ole man specifically.

You know, I think that's a very common trait in the people of this site. Most of us have problems with authority or to be told what to think or do. I believe that most of us here are very strong individualists.

[Antlerman]

Lack of validation for any behavior that an individual deems necessary for survival.

 

Edit: validation for some behaviors

Is this your response to Antlerman's question about the "rules"? Guess I'm not understanding your meaning here.

 

 

Yes, I apologize, I should write more...but yes, it certainly seems like the crux is, "If you can't allow what I need as a person without any rules/judgement, then your position is inadequate/non-loving etc."

 

I am waiting for someone to explain how this is a superior position to subscribe.

 

As Phanta says, you pat yourself on the back about love, but you can't close the gap between that she needs for acceptance and validation and love. AM says the same...."I accept you without bounds, but you cannot recipricate".

 

Christianity is not this, IMO, and am constantly berated for not giving in to this idealism.

I don't think that represents my position in the least. In no way do I think "anything goes. You must accept to be showing love". Of course there are rules. I was specifically asking what do you see as those rules? Do those rules mandate a belief in the person of Jesus as defined by Christianity? If so, how and in what way does that qualify as a "rule", as a proper or improper conduct with the context of experiencing love?

 

I need you to specify what those rules are, then let's see if they really are necessary in the grand scheme of things; necessary to produce Fruits of the Spirit?

 

I do not believe the object of your faith is the condition of acceptance. You seem to. That is incorrect. I do not reject a Christian based on the object of the faith, or their symbols they use, or even in the specifics of what they believe. You seem to of non-Christians. I accept or reject them based solely on their behaviors - their fruits they bear. You seem to reject them on how they believe, not how they act as a result of it. What criteria do you use? And is that criteria consistent with that Spirit of Love? I'm hoping eventually that light bulb in your heart is going to go off here...

[Phanta]

I really appreciate that Phanta. Several things here: That attitude rarely happens in my direction on this site.

 

It rarely happens anywhere. Here...in life. This kind of communication is hard work. But in my experience, it is communication with a high level of connection, because shaved away are false assumptions about the Other and misunderstandings. So it's hard, but it's also real.

 

"Oh, End3, doesn't know, so I am going to be graceful until he comes around someday...in love".

 

If I approach you, lovingly, from the standpoint that some day you will come 'round to my view, how do you feel about that? This conversation is all about me wanting you to think like I do. And I'm going to do it as kindly and as lovingly as possible. Forever. How do you feel about that? Do you like relationships where the other person is hoping and working actively to change you?

 

So I don't trust, I debate, more or less...probably less, than am graceful to those who do not understand my position.

 

You don't feel much reciprocation of trust and grace here. Trust and grace are very hard to give when there is no reciprocation. There is no reward for it. What gets reciprocated here is debate. What gets reciprocated here is bullish attempts to change the view of the Other.

 

Maybe I should learn to use different language to convey grace. I admit, I pay more attention to those that convey the non-believer position through talking across rather than speaking down. You, Shyone, Legion, AM, Hans, Sandy.

 

And being honest here....it's hard for me not to be rebellious of someone who professes a "superior position". This has little to do with Christianity, but more so the way I was raised....the ole man specifically.

 

Some people don't talk down to you and that opens you up to hearing what they have to say. Part of you wants to consider other views, but it's tough because opening up in trust feels like it leaves you vulnerable to being talked down to, which is a big trigger for you.

 

And I want to say this lastly. I sincerely believe the Christian position as one of truth. Again, even though I don't convey the words to facilitate a improved dialogue, I truly don't believe that accepting any behavior as the promulgated version for happiness in a persons life is love...for example, "I have to steal to find love, life, and happiness".

 

There is a difference between agreeing that any behavior will result in happiness and validating a person's honest assessment of their own experiences to date, i.e. "I have to steal to find love, life, and happiness." Here's a story (made up...not about me): I was born into a poor family. I was starving. I stole and my family was happy, briefly. I need to steal to have life. I need to steal to have love and worth in my family.

 

Surely there are other ways to find love, life, and happiness. Most people (and there are exceptions...psychopaths) are doing the best they can, flawed though it is. But this person has had these experiences so far: stealing is the way to love, life, and happiness. If you invalidate that experience, you close a door. However many you try to open after you have closed that door are not perceived, because there's a door between you.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

Phanta,

 

If you feel like you have a profound statement that will help me, I would be happy to hear that......in a very direct statement.....Like "End, here is your problem the way I see it:". I read your post at least twice, and can't see that it says anything other than what I conveyed to you.

[Guest end3]

I don't think that represents my position in the least. In no way do I think "anything goes. You must accept to be showing love". Of course there are rules. I was specifically asking what do you see as those rules? Do those rules mandate a belief in the person of Jesus as defined by Christianity?

Yes, as I understand them as they are understood over the course of my life.

 

If so, how and in what way does that qualify as a "rule", as a proper or improper conduct with the context of experiencing love?

Rule by that defined through the Bible and Holy Spirit. Proper conduct by following the commandments. Within the context of experiencing love? When we love, we normally receive love in return....sometimes not. When I love, I believe that I have turned from trusting the majority of humanity for the reasons to continue loving to the relationship with Christ for the reasons to continue loving. Now that I write this out, it reminds me of the scripture that says Christ will separate you from you family etc....

 

I need you to specify what those rules are, then let's see if they really are necessary in the grand scheme of things; necessary to produce Fruits of the Spirit?

Pick one...it's your idea. I don't feel like being picked on after submitting a thought. How do you as a person that says one thing and then does another have peace in your life? And don't tell me that you are that pure where it doesn't happen. I don't believe it before you say it.

 

I do not believe the object of your faith is the condition of acceptance.

Acceptance of what? It does, by definition, separate believers from non-believers.

 

I do not reject a Christian based on the object of the faith, or their symbols they use, or even in the specifics of what they believe. You seem to of non-Christians. I accept or reject them based solely on their behaviors - their fruits they bear. You seem to reject them on how they believe, not how they act as a result of it. What criteria do you use? And is that criteria consistent with that Spirit of Love? I'm hoping eventually that light bulb in your heart is going to go off here...

 

I don't deny that we move from rules to love in our lives, and I would be hard pressed to define or judge "salvation" for another in God's eyes. But with that AM, I think no other mechanism to be the true one. And as I stated to Phanta, discernment and maturity plays a role in my ability to carry out my role in Christ.

[bdp]

you think it impossible for Christ to be sovereign and touch whomever He pleases?

 

 

...I'll answer...

 

yes - because he's FUCKING DEAD. DEAL with it.

 

and this 'buddy boy' shit is just pathological.

[bdp]

So far, my life's experience is there is just a gaping hole with a couple of people calling out to one another across it, congratulating themselves on how loud they can shout.

 

Phanta

 

[bdp]

I am hearing from most of you that because I am not willing to extend love without rules that this is construed as inadequate.

 

DO that and we'll see.

[NotBlinded]

I don't deny that we move from rules to love in our lives, and I would be hard pressed to define or judge "salvation" for another in God's eyes. But with that AM, I think no other mechanism to be the true one. And as I stated to Phanta, discernment and maturity plays a role in my ability to carry out my role in Christ.

I'm not sure I understand the depth of the conversation going on here, but I just wanted to chime in a little about rules. St. Paul speaks of laws and rules and he goes on talking about how he does the things that he ought not do and doesn't do the things he should. This is closely related to rules and how trying to follow them leaves one in this state of confusion because it is only by "Divine Grace" that we realize who we are. The Buddhists will keep one trying to follow a rule such as the rule to love until you realize that you can't love on command. With this realization, love can flow because it isn't forced and you have realized that there is nothing "you" can do about it because this "you" that you think you are doesn't exist (enter "Divine Grace").

 

There are ideas in most religions that are closely related. The commandments may just be ways to "persist in your folly" until you awaken.

 

Ok, carry on.

[bdp]

How do you as a person that says one thing and then does another have peace in your life?

 

'Peace' is largely an illusion, and not necessary. It's just life.

[Dagan]

And being honest here....it's hard for me not to be rebellious of someone who professes a "superior position". This has little to do with Christianity, but more so the way I was raised....the ole man specifically.

You know, I think that's a very common trait in the people of this site. Most of us have problems with authority or to be told what to think or do. I believe that most of us here are very strong individualists.

 

How dare you assume to speak for me!

[Guest end3]

I don't deny that we move from rules to love in our lives, and I would be hard pressed to define or judge "salvation" for another in God's eyes. But with that AM, I think no other mechanism to be the true one. And as I stated to Phanta, discernment and maturity plays a role in my ability to carry out my role in Christ.

I'm not sure I understand the depth of the conversation going on here, but I just wanted to chime in a little about rules. St. Paul speaks of laws and rules and he goes on talking about how he does the things that he ought not do and doesn't do the things he should. This is closely related to rules and how trying to follow them leaves one in this state of confusion because it is only by "Divine Grace" that we realize who we are. The Buddhists will keep one trying to follow a rule such as the rule to love until you realize that you can't love on command. With this realization, love can flow because it isn't forced and you have realized that there is nothing "you" can do about it because this "you" that you think you are doesn't exist (enter "Divine Grace").

 

There are ideas in most religions that are closely related. The commandments may just be ways to "persist in your folly" until you awaken.

 

Ok, carry on.

 

thank you.

[NotBlinded]

I do not believe the object of your faith is the condition of acceptance.

Acceptance of what? It does, by definition, separate believers from non-believers.

There is more than one object of faith to reach the Divine. It only separates the believers from the non-believers within the context of the object, not on acceptance of the Divine. Don't confuse the symbols with the Divine.

[NotBlinded]

thank you.

You're welcome.