I'll Play The Fundie

[Ouroboros]

Yes... Their traditions were based on the words of men (of course), but when they took these words at face value, they were missing what these men were trying to convey through the scriptures by use of myth, metaphor and allegory. He was throwing their scriptures in their face in order to get them to understand that what they understood literally was not what was supposed to be understood. That is my understanding anyway.

Which is what we keep on doing to Christians on this site!

[NotBlinded]

Yes... Their traditions were based on the words of men (of course), but when they took these words at face value, they were missing what these men were trying to convey through the scriptures by use of myth, metaphor and allegory. He was throwing their scriptures in their face in order to get them to understand that what they understood literally was not what was supposed to be understood. That is my understanding anyway.

Which is what we keep on doing to Christians on this site!

Amen oh lord of the bunnies!

 

If Jesus were alive today, he would defintely not be what most would consider to be a Christian. The Christians would probably kill him. Did he die in vain (if he did at all)? I don't think so...there are many that understand what he was trying to do...and it's catching on. If a bunch of fundamentals came at me like they did him, I would probably run as far away as I could and then call them fools.

[Ouroboros]

If a bunch of fundamentals came at me like they did him, I would probably run as far away as I could and then call them fools.

That's exactly what an unapologetic bundamentalist would do. Run like a bunny!

[RHEMtron]

Duuuuuuude... i am game.... but not til monday because ill be in Reno for the weekend

[duderonomy]

Rhem,

 

OK, it's Monday. How was Reno, the Biggest Little City in The World? I spent a week there one week in the mid-seventies.

 

Anyway, what to do next with regards to diggin? Wait?

[diggin]

For example, Jesus verifies that he believes in a historical Adam, a historical Jonah, etc.

Could you please cite verses that allude to this?

 

Jonah: http://bible.cc/matthew/12-40.htm

Adam & Eve: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

(quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24)

Thank you for the links. I will have to say that I don't see where Jesus claims they are historical figures, but is making reference to what THEY believe. I have said before (not that you would know that, but for the sake of arguement ) that Jesus was trying to get them to understand the messages in their own bible whether he believed they were historical or not. I don't think it mattered to him.

 

If you look in Matthew 3 in the Message Bible, it is stated once again as "haven't you read in YOUR Bible..." He does this in John also when he is referring to Isaiah.

 

Diggin's back...

 

It looks to me like most of Matthew 3 is the words of John the Baptist, and I couldn't find your reference.

 

There is a similar reference in Matthew 12 where Jesus asks them if they've noticed what is written about David.

 

And there is a passage in John 5:39 -- http://bible.cc/john/5-39.htm

in which Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, refers to the fact that they are constantly searching the scriptures (sacred writings) -- thinking that as a result they have eternal life. And his statement is "these (writings) are what testify of me."

 

So there Jesus does not distance himself from the Bible as you seem to think he is doing, and instead he asserts that the OT is pointing to him.

 

This is similar to Jesus' rebuke of the discouraged disciples after his death, before they knew he was raised. He listened to them and said "oh, fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." -- http://bible.cc/luke/24-25.htm

 

Was Jesus an unbeliever with respect to the Bible? No, I am not convinced by your approach. Let the words stand on their own, without "reading in" to them, and I think it will become more clear. Jesus was constantly quoting, referring to, verifying the historicity of, and attributing God as the author of, Scripture. He claimed the same authority as Moses and Abraham, which means he believed they indeed had authority. He spoke as a Jewish believer, not a skeptic.

 

Going back to John 5, I think if you read the whole chapter, it boils down to a discussion of epistemology. How do we know things? It would appear that Jesus is asserting that others testify of him, and including the assemblage of written scriptures. However, he also asserts that his own works, which of course his hearers were eyewitnesses of, gave even stronger testimony (to that generation) than the prophetic word. And he goes further, and states that eventually there will be stronger testimony yet -- the resurrection of all the dead who have ever lived, and the healing of all their disesases etc. So when that time comes, folks who are not convinced by the written word's internal proofs, or not persuaded that the historicity of the 1st century "new testament" is reliable, will be able to use their own eyes and ears to evaluate the evidence that confronts them.

 

This latter state of affairs is what I believe we are standing on the verge of, and according to my friends who have been working hard to align Bible chronology with historic evidence (something that is finally quite possible to do with amazing precision) the completion of 6000 years of human history will arrive in 2043 AD. If that be true, then we should expect increasingly cataclysmic events and the shaking of all things that can be shaken -- every government, every religion, every social and financial construct of the human race -- until there's really not much left standing.

 

After that point, the whole surviving world will be in a frame of mind to listen. And then the preceeding generations will join them, cohort by cohort, in a regathering of the human race upon the earth, last first, and then ultimately the first at last.

 

 

 

Rhem,

 

Of a truth I percieve that diggin's last post is not only a 'filibuster', but one based entirely on smoke and mirrors, with a heavy dose of double talk.

 

diggin,

 

No offence to you by what I said above, although I stand by it...

you said,

 

"At least one of the strongest and oldest manuscripts omits the entire sentence, "but...finished". Many other reliable manuscripts leave out the "but" and the "again". It would appear that according to the preponderance of evidence, the sentence in question should read "The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years were finished." This is significant, because it confirms what I believe other scriptures state -- that those resurrected at the beginning of..."

 

What makes a manuscript strong, or reliable? Again, they are all copies. You seem to know how the sentence 'should' read. You wouldn't be re-writing God's Holy Word, now would you? Or adding to it or taking away from it? Be careful!

 

Again, in this quote, you ask me to base my eternal existance on a 'preponderance of evidence'. That's fine in most civil courts, diggin, but this is (eternal) life or death, and even we fallen and wicked humans call for a unanimous verdict in such cases.

 

You still seem to be hitching your star to a galaxy explained by men (i.e. The Church), and not on the Word of God. Of course, this is understandable as by your own admission, and I concur with you on this, there is no perfect reliable Bible.

 

If you can't be around much for a while, that's understandable. I hope to continue this discussion with you at your convenience, if you so desire. The thread will be here when you are ready and able to continue.

 

(back to) Rhem,

 

diggin leaves it to us to choose the next logical step in this. What say you?

 

Duder

[diggin]

For example, Jesus verifies that he believes in a historical Adam, a historical Jonah, etc.

Could you please cite verses that allude to this?

 

Jonah: http://bible.cc/matthew/12-40.htm

Adam & Eve: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

(quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24)

Thank you for the links. I will have to say that I don't see where Jesus claims they are historical figures, but is making reference to what THEY believe. I have said before (not that you would know that, but for the sake of arguement ) that Jesus was trying to get them to understand the messages in their own bible whether he believed they were historical or not. I don't think it mattered to him.

 

If you look in Matthew 3 in the Message Bible, it is stated once again as "haven't you read in YOUR Bible..." He does this in John also when he is referring to Isaiah.

 

Diggin's back...

 

It looks to me like most of Matthew 3 is the words of John the Baptist, and I couldn't find your reference.

 

There is a similar reference in Matthew 12 where Jesus asks them if they've noticed what is written about David.

 

And there is a passage in John 5:39 -- http://bible.cc/john/5-39.htm

in which Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, refers to the fact that they are constantly searching the scriptures (sacred writings) -- thinking that as a result they have eternal life. And his statement is "these (writings) are what testify of me."

 

So there Jesus does not distance himself from the Bible as you seem to think he is doing, and instead he asserts that the OT is pointing to him.

 

This is similar to Jesus' rebuke of the discouraged disciples after his death, before they knew he was raised. He listened to them and said "oh, fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." -- http://bible.cc/luke/24-25.htm

 

Was Jesus an unbeliever with respect to the Bible? No, I am not convinced by your approach. Let the words stand on their own, without "reading in" to them, and I think it will become more clear. Jesus was constantly quoting, referring to, verifying the historicity of, and attributing God as the author of, Scripture. He claimed the same authority as Moses and Abraham, which means he believed they indeed had authority. He spoke as a Jewish believer, not a skeptic.

 

Going back to John 5, I think if you read the whole chapter, it boils down to a discussion of epistemology. How do we know things? It would appear that Jesus is asserting that others testify of him, and including the assemblage of written scriptures. However, he also asserts that his own works, which of course his hearers were eyewitnesses of, gave even stronger testimony (to that generation) than the prophetic word. And he goes further, and states that eventually there will be stronger testimony yet -- the resurrection of all the dead who have ever lived, and the healing of all their disesases etc. So when that time comes, folks who are not convinced by the written word's internal proofs, or not persuaded that the historicity of the 1st century "new testament" is reliable, will be able to use their own eyes and ears to evaluate the evidence that confronts them.

 

This latter state of affairs is what I believe we are standing on the verge of, and according to my friends who have been working hard to align Bible chronology with historic evidence (something that is finally quite possible to do with amazing precision) the completion of 6000 years of human history will arrive in 2043 AD. If that be true, then we should expect increasingly cataclysmic events and the shaking of all things that can be shaken -- every government, every religion, every social and financial construct of the human race -- until there's really not much left standing.

 

After that point, the whole surviving world will be in a frame of mind to listen. And then the preceeding generations will join them, cohort by cohort, in a regathering of the human race upon the earth, last first, and then ultimately the first at last.

 

 

 

Rhem,

 

Of a truth I percieve that diggin's last post is not only a 'filibuster', but one based entirely on smoke and mirrors, with a heavy dose of double talk.

 

diggin,

 

No offence to you by what I said above, although I stand by it...

you said,

 

"At least one of the strongest and oldest manuscripts omits the entire sentence, "but...finished". Many other reliable manuscripts leave out the "but" and the "again". It would appear that according to the preponderance of evidence, the sentence in question should read "The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years were finished." This is significant, because it confirms what I believe other scriptures state -- that those resurrected at the beginning of..."

 

What makes a manuscript strong, or reliable? Again, they are all copies. You seem to know how the sentence 'should' read. You wouldn't be re-writing God's Holy Word, now would you? Or adding to it or taking away from it? Be careful!

 

Again, in this quote, you ask me to base my eternal existance on a 'preponderance of evidence'. That's fine in most civil courts, diggin, but this is (eternal) life or death, and even we fallen and wicked humans call for a unanimous verdict in such cases.

 

You still seem to be hitching your star to a galaxy explained by men (i.e. The Church), and not on the Word of God. Of course, this is understandable as by your own admission, and I concur with you on this, there is no perfect reliable Bible.

 

If you can't be around much for a while, that's understandable. I hope to continue this discussion with you at your convenience, if you so desire. The thread will be here when you are ready and able to continue.

 

(back to) Rhem,

 

diggin leaves it to us to choose the next logical step in this. What say you?

 

Duder

 

One of the items on my list of books to get is "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". I am no expert but I've been reading enough over the years to get a feel for how this process works. It would be analagous to interviewing a bunch of people who came in and out of a room at different times, and each were supposed to relate an event that they witnessed. If you interviewed them much later, you would find wider disparities in their stories than if you interviewed them right away. If you knew when each of them was in the room, who they talked to, etc., you could actually construct a diagram of how the story changed over time, and whose contributions were most influential on the change of details.

 

If God was going to transmit his "word" he would have 2 options: write it on some sort of permanent, indelible record that all people could read -- such as golden tablets as Joseph Smith claims God did for him, or else give it to people of integrity and let them write it down with understanding in their own lanaguage, with the technology of their day. The advantage of the former might be that then there would be an authentic record that was unquestionably "the word of God". On the other hand, the problem with that would be that supernatural means would have to be constantly brought into human history in order to keep various enemies from damaging it. Also, periodic supernatural intervention would have to be introduced in order to destroy the various false writings, forgeries, etc. that some enterprising enemy might try to create. God would constantly be on the defensive, trying to prove with miracles what was true and what was not.

 

The method he appears to have selected is to work with a few people who he trusts and protects to be accurate on the points they are writing about. Because it comes about in a natural way it is something that can be changed and from time to time both mistakes and intentional corruptions have been introduced to the New Testament text. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of intentional corruption of the Jewish text, unless you consider the Masoretic editing of the divine name to be a corruption. In a sense, I suppose, it's both -- a well-intentioned corruption to preserve what they considered to be sacred.

 

If the purpose of God is to prove his existence to the whole world, and to give everyone precise knowledge at this time, then clearly the Bible we have is inadequate for that purpose, and it would be logical to assume it's a forgery. And of course that's one reason why many are leaving Christianity. Other reasons are: Christianity doesn't pay in the short term, Biblical "morality" goes against our culture and our nature, immorality in the Church leadership is rampant, and God doesn't do a lot to reveal himself to folks, clear up questions that arise, etc.

 

But if the purpose of God is to select a very small group of folks that he is working with individually, and who need guidance sufficient to find their way in the dark, then the Bible we have is quite adequate, -- more than enough to do the job, IMHO. Let's call it as pure as Ivory soap -- 99 & 44/100ths percent. And folks who take the trouble to really pursue the evidence of the Bible are sometimes, if not often, persuaded of its veracity. I've read lots of writings by guys who started out as skeptics and ended up as believers. It's not a one-way street, fellas.

 

I did have a suggestion for your discussion.... let me make it again:

 

"what would a good God look like?"

 

The question is not, "is there a God", or "Is the Bible his revelation?" or even "is God good?"

 

Those questions all put pressure on folks to take sides.

 

I am just interested in a theoretical discussion, without the need to take sides, which skeptics, unbelievers, as well as various kinds of believers could express an opinion about. If there were to be a good God, what would his qualities or attributes be? How would we know he was good? What would "goodness" translate into in terms of actions or words? How much power would he have, and how would he use it? What would he do with enemies? Would he tolerate dissension and disagreement? Would he tolerate insubordination? If so, for how long? Would he create life, and what sorts of rules would he have, if any? Would he be material or immaterial? Would he (or could he) be(come) a man? Would he be a male or a female? etc. etc. etc.

 

I could easily see folks who honestly don't believe in the Jewish or Christian God, or any deity we have ever heard of or read about, having an intelligent opinion about this and I'd like to hear what they have to say....

[Ouroboros]

If God was going to transmit his "word" he would have 2 options: write it on some sort of permanent, indelible record that all people could read -- such as golden tablets as Joseph Smith claims God did for him, or else give it to people of integrity and let them write it down with understanding in their own lanaguage, with the technology of their day.

There are more options. Think!

 

How did the message get out in the first place? Who supposedly preached it? Does it take too much of God's Duracell battery to have Jesus here, right now, visible, audible, in this universe, on our planet, in the ectoplasmatic corporeal shape he had when walking through the walls? If it was impressive enough for 11 poor chaps that failed miserably to establish the international church, to such a degree that Jesus had to hire someone else, why isn't it good enough for us? Why was it good enough for Paul? Was the 11+Paul all Gods special favorites?

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

I think anyone who has read here for a while could see that your suggestion is already covered in a thousand and one ways. One could presumably piece together what most individuals here would consider 'a good God' to be, by their opinions on what a good God is not.

 

You might want to start your own thread based on your premise, I'm sure it would be quite lively!

 

I would prefer, though, to keep to the spirit of my OT, which is to discuss and argue the points of fundie-mental Christianity. You may choose any position you wish, but since this a debate forum, how about "What does the God of the Bible look like?", or "Does the Old Testament really testify of Jesus" or something similar for a topic?

 

As a quick aside, I would point out that if the God described in the Bible wanted to transmit His Word, He would have more than two options. Your theory in this area of Biblical Authority is, I'm afraid, full of holes.

 

Indeed, faith or lack therof is quite fluid and not a one way street, as you so correctly say. Why don't you play the atheist, and I'll play the fundie?

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

The book of Hebrews (author unknown) says that those who come to God must believe that He is.

Hebrews 11:6.

 

You say,

"If the purpose of God is to prove his existence to the whole world, and to give everyone precise knowledge at this time, then clearly the Bible we have is inadequate for that purpose, and it would be logical to assume it's a forgery..."

 

How can I believe that He is then, if the Bible is unreliable? What other source is open to me?

 

Now that would be a good point to discuss, don't you think? And please don't bury your answer in 45 paragraphs of babble and opinion. You don't want to sound like a better educated, and much more long winded Amy Marie, do you?

 

Duder

[RHEMtron]

Duder,

 

Yes, i am back . Reno was great. Didnt lose, didnt win. Good buffet. The Michael Buble concert was highly entertaining.

 

I am ready to play the fundie

[duderonomy]

Rhem,

 

Glad that you're back. Did Buble sing his version of the 'Spiderman' theme? In the video he made he dropped the last verse.

 

Of course, I only say that to show what an intellkigent person I am, and thus so sophisticated.

 

I'm still waiting for diggin' to respond to my last two posts.

 

Either way, I insist on one topic, one debate. And I'm not sure diggin' can do that.

[NotBlinded]

Diggin's back...

 

It looks to me like most of Matthew 3 is the words of John the Baptist, and I couldn't find your reference.

I can't find it either... I have typed something wrong. Sorry.

 

There is a similar reference in Matthew 12 where Jesus asks them if they've noticed what is written about David.

 

And there is a passage in John 5:39 -- http://bible.cc/john/5-39.htm

in which Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, refers to the fact that they are constantly searching the scriptures (sacred writings) -- thinking that as a result they have eternal life. And his statement is "these (writings) are what testify of me."

 

So there Jesus does not distance himself from the Bible as you seem to think he is doing, and instead he asserts that the OT is pointing to him.

 

This is similar to Jesus' rebuke of the discouraged disciples after his death, before they knew he was raised. He listened to them and said "oh, fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." -- http://bible.cc/luke/24-25.htm

Here some verses that stands for what I think. Bear in mind, that I believe that what Jesus was recorded as saying may not be what was said at all, or what he said was embelished with the bias of beliefs of the writers. I try to find wisdom in the essence of his teachings and leave the nonsense alone.

 

Jhn 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

 

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

Was Jesus an unbeliever with respect to the Bible? No, I am not convinced by your approach. Let the words stand on their own, without "reading in" to them, and I think it will become more clear. Jesus was constantly quoting, referring to, verifying the historicity of, and attributing God as the author of, Scripture. He claimed the same authority as Moses and Abraham, which means he believed they indeed had authority. He spoke as a Jewish believer, not a skeptic.

Indeed he did claim the same authority of Moses and Abraham. I think you are missing my point. If Jesus believes that all men/mankind have the capability to understand God, then he knew that there were some before and after him that will also. Moses, Abraham and himself knew of the inner meanings of scriptures...any scriptures that taught the message he was speaking of. There are some groups that say that Jesus studied the same mysteries that Moses did. Moses studied in Egyptian mystery schools, if I'm not mistaken and Jesus studied the Essene mysteries. I know there probably weren't so many religions around at that time as now, but I beleive his understanding was of the Essene nature. He was teaching inclusive thought...not the exclusive thought of the pharisees (and modern day fundamentalists). He spoke like someone that understood Jewish scripture and understood it as it should be understood. He would have also spoken with authority about other's scriptures, IMO, if they had the same inner meanings. This is why I say it wouldn't matter to him.

 

 

Going back to John 5, I think if you read the whole chapter, it boils down to a discussion of epistemology. How do we know things? It would appear that Jesus is asserting that others testify of him, and including the assemblage of written scriptures. However, he also asserts that his own works, which of course his hearers were eyewitnesses of, gave even stronger testimony (to that generation) than the prophetic word. And he goes further, and states that eventually there will be stronger testimony yet -- the resurrection of all the dead who have ever lived, and the healing of all their disesases etc. So when that time comes, folks who are not convinced by the written word's internal proofs, or not persuaded that the historicity of the 1st century "new testament" is reliable, will be able to use their own eyes and ears to evaluate the evidence that confronts them.

Yes, I believe this, but not in a literal sense. Internal proofs are meant for your internal life. Cure your soul of disease...the disease of exclusivity. The resurrection of all dead means, to me, that all will understand that we are one and God is part of that oneness. We are alive in spirit.

 

This latter state of affairs is what I believe we are standing on the verge of, and according to my friends who have been working hard to align Bible chronology with historic evidence (something that is finally quite possible to do with amazing precision) the completion of 6000 years of human history will arrive in 2043 AD. If that be true, then we should expect increasingly cataclysmic events and the shaking of all things that can be shaken -- every government, every religion, every social and financial construct of the human race -- until there's really not much left standing.

 

After that point, the whole surviving world will be in a frame of mind to listen. And then the preceeding generations will join them, cohort by cohort, in a regathering of the human race upon the earth, last first, and then ultimately the first at last.

This is the nonsense I like to leave alone. I'm sorry, but I would have to be insane to believe this way...no offense intended. Self-fulfilling prophecy, or grabbing of random and natural events and calling them prophetic is an insane act. You don't have buy into what I believe, but I think it takes less mental dissonance to buy what I believe. I believe, as I think Jesus did, that there is wisdom in any scriptures that speak of true spirituality and not the kind of the ego. All we are going on here is what a certain book tells of Jesus. Hmmm...I think I will see if any other's scriptures speak of Jesus.

 

Okay...I'm off to a good start! Jesus in India

 

The "lost years" evidence due to Notovitch in 1894 of Jesus being in India during his youth, along with its debunkings, are reexamined and the latter are found not to have been scholarly in any sense. Later evidence fully confirming Notovitch's find is presented. The implications that Jesus taught reincarnation and karma, not resurrection, are summarized and found entirely plausible. The ramifications this has for ecumenism with respect to the Eastern religions cannot be overstated, though for Christianity they remain unacceptable.

 

Here are a few quotes from Michael Morwood (29 years in the priestly ministry) while discussing his book during an interview. He is the author of Is Jesus God? He explains how I believe better than I do! Here is the link to the interview: Radio National

 

I think today many Christians think of a universe that is totally immersed in God’s presence, and so Jesus for them is not someone who wins back a presence that was lost, but someone who opens our eyes to what always has been, and so Jesus is someone who reveals the very spirit of God in our midst, and that’s not just for Christians, it’s for the whole world. So I would prefer to talk about Jesus as saviour in terms of someone who opens our eyes to what it always has been rather than someone who regains something that was lost on us.

What made me undergo the shift, or the reformation, was primarily an understanding of the universe in which we live, the understanding of development of life in this planet, and Scripture scholars invited me and many Christians not to take for example the Adam and Eve story literally. So we’re walking in a different story.

 

It’s not a story, as I said before, of a fall and a loss and a God locking us out, but a story of the vastness of the universe. And in this story we’re invited I think as Christians to take seriously that God spirit has always been present. Now that for me has been the major shift, it’s not a story of a fall, and someone needing to come and regain, but it’s the story of a constant, creative presence of God Spirit, and humankind needing to have its eyes opened to this.

I think the problem is that when the myth is taken literally, and this is what I perceive as happening again, and again. Especially in the Roman Catholic community and its institutional leadership, I think scholarship is quite at home with saying there’s a myth there, like the myth of the fall or the myth that human beings carry some sort of propensity for sin within them, called it original sin.

 

But it’s when we take that story literally and literalise it and make the story an interpretation of Jesus dependent on it, then I think we’re in trouble, and I don’t think we can keep doing that.

 

Dang...I just bought 3 books, now I have to buy this one too.

 

I'll leave duders' thread alone now (Sorry duder!). I would start another thread, but I don't have the energy to take everyone on!

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[diggin]

If God was going to transmit his "word" he would have 2 options: write it on some sort of permanent, indelible record that all people could read -- such as golden tablets as Joseph Smith claims God did for him, or else give it to people of integrity and let them write it down with understanding in their own lanaguage, with the technology of their day.

There are more options. Think!

 

How did the message get out in the first place? Who supposedly preached it? Does it take too much of God's Duracell battery to have Jesus here, right now, visible, audible, in this universe, on our planet, in the ectoplasmatic corporeal shape he had when walking through the walls? If it was impressive enough for 11 poor chaps that failed miserably to establish the international church, to such a degree that Jesus had to hire someone else, why isn't it good enough for us? Why was it good enough for Paul? Was the 11+Paul all Gods special favorites?

 

Well, of course you are right there are many options but the two principle options I'm referring to are a constant presence and impact on everyone or a very sporadic involvement, which is barely perceptible even to those who are looking for it.

 

Presumably if God would be too much for mankind, as he intimated to Moses, and he had to send a human being to represent him, then it would seem equally likely that a lone human being would pretty much always face the same fate as Jesus of Nazareth, and get murdered by the generation he visited. What the Bible says is that one visit was enough -- not to convert the world, or to knock their socks off, but to provide the legal foundation for the reconstruction and re-education plan that the Creator says he has in mind.

 

While it might seem counterintuitive to handpick a group of 12 minus one plus one, and then let them die and let the institutional Antichrist take over, yet the advantage of that is that again the odds are stacked against faith and obedience. This is what made Jesus' story compelling and instructive to him, (he learned obedience by what he suffered, we are told); and it is what makes victory so precious and rare in his followers. For the rest of folks, they are discovering first hand what a mess they can get themselves into if they take their autonomy and run with it. And that's a good thing, if the happy 2nd half of the story indeed becomes a reality as the Bible says it will.

[diggin]

 

Here some verses that stands for what I think. Bear in mind, that I believe that what Jesus was recorded as saying may not be what was said at all, or what he said was embelished with the bias of beliefs of the writers. I try to find wisdom in the essence of his teachings and leave the nonsense alone.

 

Jhn 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

 

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

 

Thanks for finding that phrase "your law".

 

In the John 8 text, the word "your" is from a Greek word meaning "possessed by you" or "allotted to you". In the John 10 text, it's the standard way we use "your" -- plural possessive (genitive case) of the pronoun you.

 

In both cases it makes sense to me that Jesus would speak this way to the Pharisees. They were men to whom the law was, as it were, their personal possession. They acted that way, anyhow. Perhaps there was an archness in Jesus' voice when he said it, as in both cases he was engaged in a confrontation with their antagonism. Whether Jesus was being deferential and letting them have their ground, that the law was theirs, or whether he was being a little bit ironic, I don't really know. but either way I think the fact that in other places Jesus spoke of himself as "greater than Moses" and the actual Son of God, tells me that he meant no disrespect of the law itself, but rather of the guys who claimed it as their own. They counted out their seeds in order to keep the letter of the law, while they missed the weightiest matters it was meant to teach. Strained at gnats, and swallowed camels, as the colorful Hebraic expressiveness of Jesus put it elsewhere.

 

To leap from these simple Jewish moorings into Buddhism seems a stretch to me.

 

 

Indeed he did claim the same authority of Moses and Abraham. I think you are missing my point. If Jesus believes that all men/mankind have the capability to understand God, then he knew that there were some before and after him that will also. Moses, Abraham and himself knew of the inner meanings of scriptures...any scriptures that taught the message he was speaking of. There are some groups that say that Jesus studied the same mysteries that Moses did. Moses studied in Egyptian mystery schools, if I'm not mistaken and Jesus studied the Essene mysteries. I know there probably weren't so many religions around at that time as now, but I beleive his understanding was of the Essene nature. He was teaching inclusive thought...not the exclusive thought of the pharisees (and modern day fundamentalists). He spoke like someone that understood Jewish scripture and understood it as it should be understood. He would have also spoken with authority about other's scriptures, IMO, if they had the same inner meanings. This is why I say it wouldn't matter to him.

 

I'm well aware of the gnostic concepts that have been around since before Jesus time, presenting an alternative to the straigthforward literal/historical meaning of scripture. Sorry, "notblinded", but I don't buy it.

 

That's why to the Greeks, Christianity was foolishness -- it didn't have that deep philosophical appeal. And to the Jews, it was a scandal -- an embarrassment to them as a people.

Try a straightforward, hermeneutical way of reading it though, and see if it doesn't make more sense as a literal statement of events -- a creation, a fall, a restitution. Death is real, life is real.

 

The resurrection of all dead means, to me, not that all will understand that we are one and God is part of that oneness. It means that, for all mankind, when we were dead we were dead, and then we live again, with the same character and memory and personality we had before -- all of us. Not in the spirit for most folks, but in flesh and blood on planet earth. (I do believe in a spirit realm and that resurrected true Christians will inhabit it) Forgive me for being such a boring literalist! :-)

 

This latter state of affairs is what I believe we are standing on the verge of, and according to my friends who have been working hard to align Bible chronology with historic evidence (something that is finally quite possible to do with amazing precision) the completion of 6000 years of human history will arrive in 2043 AD. If that be true, then we should expect increasingly cataclysmic events and the shaking of all things that can be shaken -- every government, every religion, every social and financial construct of the human race -- until there's really not much left standing.

 

After that point, the whole surviving world will be in a frame of mind to listen. And then the preceeding generations will join them, cohort by cohort, in a regathering of the human race upon the earth, last first, and then ultimately the first at last.

This is the nonsense I like to leave alone. I'm sorry, but I would have to be insane to believe this way...no offense intended. Self-fulfilling prophecy, or grabbing of random and natural events and calling them prophetic is an insane act. You don't have buy into what I believe, but I think it takes less mental dissonance to buy what I believe. I believe, as I think Jesus did, that there is wisdom in any scriptures that speak of true spirituality and not the kind of the ego. All we are going on here is what a certain book tells of Jesus. Hmmm...I think I will see if any other's scriptures speak of Jesus.

 

...It’s not a story, as I said before, of a fall and a loss and a God locking us out, but a story of the vastness of the universe. And in this story we’re invited I think as Christians to take seriously that God spirit has always been present. Now that for me has been the major shift, it’s not a story of a fall, and someone needing to come and regain, but it’s the story of a constant, creative presence of God Spirit, and humankind needing to have its eyes opened to this.

 

If there has been a constant, creative presence of God's spirit, then it's been pretty drastically squeezed out of the picture by some other spirit -- a spirit of death and dying, of evil and injustice, of hatred and shocking depravity.

 

You can't have both. Either God is good, but powerless, or he is mean and hateful.... or he has an awfully good reason for abandoning his creation to its own devices for the last half-dozen millennia.

 

One thing I really appreciate about atheism's contribution in the last century, and especially recently, is the focus it places on reality. Faith has run amuck. Here's a good link to a great article that, if the promises of the Bible turn out to be false, presents a better explanation of the here and now human situation than the "Fundie" view does.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an...eist_manifesto/

 

Anyway, "NotBlinded", I think you are dodging reality with your view just as completely as any Fundie does with his "our God is really sovereign" reality avoidance dogma.

[diggin]

diggin,

 

The book of Hebrews (author unknown) says that those who come to God must believe that He is.

Hebrews 11:6.

 

You say,

"If the purpose of God is to prove his existence to the whole world, and to give everyone precise knowledge at this time, then clearly the Bible we have is inadequate for that purpose, and it would be logical to assume it's a forgery..."

 

How can I believe that He is then, if the Bible is unreliable? What other source is open to me?

 

Now that would be a good point to discuss, don't you think? And please don't bury your answer in 45 paragraphs of babble and opinion. You don't want to sound like a better educated, and much more long winded Amy Marie, do you?

 

Duder

 

Now you're starting to sound like my kids, Duder, with your protests of my long-windedness!

 

Think of it as a filter. Only a few are going to believe God exists. The rest are filtered out by the inaccessibility of the Bible, or its opaqueness, or its bad reputation, or the opposition to those who really believe it, etc.

 

That's what Jesus seems to be saying in Matthew 13 when the disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. In a nutshell he says, "so that they won't believe and won't be converted and won't be healed." Huh? Wassup with that, Dude!?

 

Or why does Jesus, once he gets a decent sized crowd following him, insult their Jewish sensibilities by telling them they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Most of them left him at that point.

 

The Bible is pure enough and adequate enough -- Compared to anything else on this earth, it's as pure as the driven snow. And that's pure enough to attract and inform and comfort and correct a few folks into, and throughout, a relationship with God. The Bible is perfect as the most tangible part of an actual spiritual walk and talk contact with the divine. For the few, the humble. That's all God wants right now. The rest are waiting for the next train. You need proof? Great. You'll get it... just read a good book in the station while you're waiting ... and stay out of the bathrooms.

 

There -- 5 paragraphs, not 45! How'd I do? :-)

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for finding that phrase "your law".

 

In the John 8 text, the word "your" is from a Greek word meaning "possessed by you" or "allotted to you". In the John 10 text, it's the standard way we use "your" -- plural possessive (genitive case) of the pronoun you.

 

In both cases it makes sense to me that Jesus would speak this way to the Pharisees. They were men to whom the law was, as it were, their personal possession. They acted that way, anyhow. Perhaps there was an archness in Jesus' voice when he said it, as in both cases he was engaged in a confrontation with their antagonism. Whether Jesus was being deferential and letting them have their ground, that the law was theirs, or whether he was being a little bit ironic, I don't really know. but either way I think the fact that in other places Jesus spoke of himself as "greater than Moses" and the actual Son of God, tells me that he meant no disrespect of the law itself, but rather of the guys who claimed it as their own. They counted out their seeds in order to keep the letter of the law, while they missed the weightiest matters it was meant to teach. Strained at gnats, and swallowed camels, as the colorful Hebraic expressiveness of Jesus put it elsewhere.

 

I couldn't agree more, and I think I said the same thing you just did.

 

Note: Remember the bolded area I did of your quote for reference at the end of this post. *

 

To leap from these simple Jewish moorings into Buddhism seems a stretch to me.

Why does it seem to be a stretch to think that mythology had, and still has to some, a purpose? I would think I would have to stretch even further to think that mythology was meant to be taken as literal facts...philosophical facts or truths, yes, but not literal truths about god/s that no one can claim any 'real' knowledge about. I still don't think you understand what I'm saying, but that's okay.

 

I'm well aware of the gnostic concepts that have been around since before Jesus time, presenting an alternative to the straigthforward literal/historical meaning of scripture. Sorry, "notblinded", but I don't buy it.

That's okay...I don't buy literalism either.

 

That's why to the Greeks, Christianity was foolishness -- it didn't have that deep philosophical appeal. And to the Jews, it was a scandal -- an embarrassment to them as a people.

Are you speaking of the original Christianity or later Christianity? I don't know the timeline.

 

It is indeed an embarrassment if there is no philosophical appeal. I agree. But, I, and many others, think it does.

 

Try a straightforward, hermeneutical way of reading it though, and see if it doesn't make more sense as a literal statement of events -- a creation, a fall, a restitution. Death is real, life is real.

It makes sense only if you are unaware of reality. It's a myth that tells about a 'metaphoric' creation, fall, and restitution. Not a literal one, but a spiritual one and one that tells how to understand what causes bad things to occur. One is missing the point of the story if they think Adam and Eve were real people that lived in a real garden and was tempted by a real talking snake. Sorry "diggin"...I don't buy it.

 

Yes, life and death are real and what lies between the two are all we can know. The philosophies we live by shape our lives. If we can gain a little insight into what causes us to believe as we do, we can live more productive and honest lives. Myths are very good tools for doing this.

 

The resurrection of all dead means, to me, not that all will understand that we are one and God is part of that oneness. It means that, for all mankind, when we were dead we were dead, and then we live again, with the same character and memory and personality we had before -- all of us. Not in the spirit for most folks, but in flesh and blood on planet earth. (I do believe in a spirit realm and that resurrected true Christians will inhabit it) Forgive me for being such a boring literalist! :-)

Tell me...why would Jesus come and tell us that he came to bring peace here on earth and then have us direct our attention away from the here and now to focus on the afterlife? That makes no sense.

 

If there has been a constant, creative presence of God's spirit, then it's been pretty drastically squeezed out of the picture by some other spirit -- a spirit of death and dying, of evil and injustice, of hatred and shocking depravity.

I understand what you are saying...all I can say is that some of these things like evil and injustice is brought about by people themselves by believing in lies (yes, the metaphorical Adam and Eve story). What makes someone behave in an evil manner is what they believe about themselves and others. If they believe that they have the Truth™, where does that leave all the others that don't believe as they do? Is the Truth™ exclusive diggin?

 

You can't have both. Either God is good, but powerless, or he is mean and hateful.... or he has an awfully good reason for abandoning his creation to its own devices for the last half-dozen millennia.

There is no one that knows what this creative force is. Many members of 'creation' have tried to show how injustice occurs through the use of myth, but many don't understand the mythical stories to a point to know what causes them. The point is overlooked when they see the characters as the moral to the story. Or, to put it another way, mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself.

 

One thing I really appreciate about atheism's contribution in the last century, and especially recently, is the focus it places on reality. Faith has run amuck. Here's a good link to a great article that, if the promises of the Bible turn out to be false, presents a better explanation of the here and now human situation than the "Fundie" view does.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an...eist_manifesto/

 

Anyway, "NotBlinded", I think you are dodging reality with your view just as completely as any Fundie does with his "our God is really sovereign" reality avoidance dogma.

Excuse me? Now isn't that just the pot calling the kettle black. Now I know you haven't understood a word I have said! That may be me having poor communication skills, but I am closer to an atheist than you are to a True™ Christian. You're funny!

 

You do know that you have just as many ribs as I do don't you?

 

* I never said that Jesus didn't believe there is God, but I will say that he wouldn't believe in the Christian understanding of God. Hell, he preached against this exclusivist attitude about God that is reflected below in you! You even acknowledge this preaching that I bolded above, but can't apply it to yourself. I think it is very hard sometimes for Christians to understand that when someone says they believe in God that it might not mean what they understand God to be. Here is what I mean:

 

Only a few are going to believe God exists...

Your arrogance is showing...

 

You mean the Christian God right? Can you accept that I may believe there is a God but not be Christian and not be damned?

 

The honest thing to say is that you have no idea what God is any more than the next person. Are you honest enough to admit that, or are you like the Pharisees that claim God is only for them? I know you would probably tell me that God is for everyone with the stipulation that they are Christians. Can you see the irony? Are you believing in lies? It's all there in the bible, why do you miss it?

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

The book of Hebrews (author unknown) says that those who come to God must believe that He is.

Hebrews 11:6.

 

You say,

"If the purpose of God is to prove his existence to the whole world, and to give everyone precise knowledge at this time, then clearly the Bible we have is inadequate for that purpose, and it would be logical to assume it's a forgery..."

 

How can I believe that He is then, if the Bible is unreliable? What other source is open to me?

 

Now that would be a good point to discuss, don't you think? And please don't bury your answer in 45 paragraphs of babble and opinion. You don't want to sound like a better educated, and much more long winded Amy Marie, do you?

 

Duder

 

Now you're starting to sound like my kids, Duder, with your protests of my long-windedness!

 

Think of it as a filter. Only a few are going to believe God exists. The rest are filtered out by the inaccessibility of the Bible, or its opaqueness, or its bad reputation, or the opposition to those who really believe it, etc.

 

That's what Jesus seems to be saying in Matthew 13 when the disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. In a nutshell he says, "so that they won't believe and won't be converted and won't be healed." Huh? Wassup with that, Dude!?

 

Or why does Jesus, once he gets a decent sized crowd following him, insult their Jewish sensibilities by telling them they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Most of them left him at that point.

 

The Bible is pure enough and adequate enough -- Compared to anything else on this earth, it's as pure as the driven snow. And that's pure enough to attract and inform and comfort and correct a few folks into, and throughout, a relationship with God. The Bible is perfect as the most tangible part of an actual spiritual walk and talk contact with the divine. For the few, the humble. That's all God wants right now. The rest are waiting for the next train. You need proof? Great. You'll get it... just read a good book in the station while you're waiting ... and stay out of the bathrooms.

 

There -- 5 paragraphs, not 45! How'd I do? :-)

 

 

diggin',

 

I'm impressed with your brief response.

 

However, you didn't answer my question. Let me re-phrase it like this...

 

If I have to 'believe' in God in order to even come to Him, and the Bible isn't a reliable book through which to come to this belief, then what source is open for me through which I may gain said belief?

 

When I say I insist on one topic at a time, I might better say that I would rather discuss one 'point' at a time, so subterfuge and wiggle-room is reduced as much as possible.

 

Please answer my question above, if you can, without resorting to 'special knowledge' or what you perceive the Bible to say, etc. Just answer me plain and simple.

 

I also have to wonder if Hebrews 11:6 is part of the reliable Bible text, or merely the so-so Bible text, but that's another point.

 

NotBlinded,

 

Don't worry about 'my' thread! Post away!!

 

And where in the world is Rhem?!?!?

[NotBlinded]

 

NotBlinded,

 

Don't worry about 'my' thread! Post away!!

 

And where in the world is Rhem?!?!?

Thanks...I wanted to stop, but....I.....just....can't! I went through 11 steps of the 12 step process to stop, but the one step I couldn't do was the one to have faith that God would help me quit! Damn those people...

 

Where the heck did Rhemy go? I haven't seen his posts in a few days either. Hey...he wouldn't be that IG dude...erm...guy would he?

[duderonomy]

Ya know, not blinded, you may be right! Nahhh...

 

I'm wondering where diggin' went to (as far as this thread goes). Maybe it's time to lock this one and let it fall off the page gracefully? It's seems it's served it's purpose. Mods? what do you think?

[diggin]

Ya know, not blinded, you may be right! Nahhh...

 

I'm wondering where diggin' went to (as far as this thread goes). Maybe it's time to lock this one and let it fall off the page gracefully? It's seems it's served it's purpose. Mods? what do you think?

 

Sorry folks, I had to go to Boston. Just got back.

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

Fair enough, you said you had a busy time coming up. Where Rhem is, I still don't know. Have you caught up on the thread? I posted some possible topics for discussion, if you are still interested.

 

Duder

 

P.S. Welcome back!

[diggin]

diggin,

 

The book of Hebrews (author unknown) says that those who come to God must believe that He is.

Hebrews 11:6.

 

You say,

"If the purpose of God is to prove his existence to the whole world, and to give everyone precise knowledge at this time, then clearly the Bible we have is inadequate for that purpose, and it would be logical to assume it's a forgery..."

 

How can I believe that He is then, if the Bible is unreliable? What other source is open to me?

 

Now that would be a good point to discuss, don't you think? And please don't bury your answer in 45 paragraphs of babble and opinion. You don't want to sound like a better educated, and much more long winded Amy Marie, do you?

 

Duder

 

Now you're starting to sound like my kids, Duder, with your protests of my long-windedness!

 

Think of it as a filter. Only a few are going to believe God exists. The rest are filtered out by the inaccessibility of the Bible, or its opaqueness, or its bad reputation, or the opposition to those who really believe it, etc.

 

That's what Jesus seems to be saying in Matthew 13 when the disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. In a nutshell he says, "so that they won't believe and won't be converted and won't be healed." Huh? Wassup with that, Dude!?

 

Or why does Jesus, once he gets a decent sized crowd following him, insult their Jewish sensibilities by telling them they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Most of them left him at that point.

 

The Bible is pure enough and adequate enough -- Compared to anything else on this earth, it's as pure as the driven snow. And that's pure enough to attract and inform and comfort and correct a few folks into, and throughout, a relationship with God. The Bible is perfect as the most tangible part of an actual spiritual walk and talk contact with the divine. For the few, the humble. That's all God wants right now. The rest are waiting for the next train. You need proof? Great. You'll get it... just read a good book in the station while you're waiting ... and stay out of the bathrooms.

 

There -- 5 paragraphs, not 45! How'd I do? :-)

 

 

diggin',

 

I'm impressed with your brief response.

 

However, you didn't answer my question. Let me re-phrase it like this...

 

If I have to 'believe' in God in order to even come to Him, and the Bible isn't a reliable book through which to come to this belief, then what source is open for me through which I may gain said belief?

 

When I say I insist on one topic at a time, I might better say that I would rather discuss one 'point' at a time, so subterfuge and wiggle-room is reduced as much as possible.

 

Please answer my question above, if you can, without resorting to 'special knowledge' or what you perceive the Bible to say, etc. Just answer me plain and simple.

 

I also have to wonder if Hebrews 11:6 is part of the reliable Bible text, or merely the so-so Bible text, but that's another point.

 

NotBlinded,

 

Don't worry about 'my' thread! Post away!!

 

And where in the world is Rhem?!?!?

 

I believe the Bible to be reliable -- all that is necessary to establish faith and a relationship with God.

 

I think that the different manuscripts amount to a multiplicity of confirmations, and the differences between them are so miniscule as to be practically irrelevant. What they do show is that God did not resort to direct intervention to guarantee absolute perfection in any given manuscript.

 

You are the one who keeps saying that unless it's absolutely perfect it is unreliable in your view. Fine. Be a purist. I think it is credible that God worked with human beings and didn't ask or expect them to do the impossible, and never make a mistake.

 

Here's analogy. If I want to get an accurate copy of a book I have 2 choices: (1) Have someone type it, and then proofread it. The result will be as accurate as the typing and the proofreading.

 

(2) Have 3 people type it, and have a computer compare the results. Always select the rendering that occurs 2 out of 3 times. Assuming that it's very unlikely that the same typo would be duplicated, this should produce near-perfect accuracy.

 

The 2nd method is essentially what God used -- because we can now compare copies, not just 3 versions but dozens in most cases, sometimes more. We can look at the areas of agreement and throw out the ones that don't agree. Of course, it's more complicated than that because some of the manuscripts are older than others, and in some cases there are marginal "corrections" to the oldest manuscripts we have that are somewhat hard to figure out -- were these notations additions that were not part of the original, or were they proofreaders marks, correcting this copy to be like the original? Still, on balance the results are, as I said in an earlier post, "as pure as the driven snow".

 

The fact that a few tiny questions about textual accuracy remain has really nothing do with your real question: Do you have to believe in God, in order to come to him? Unambiguously, yes. In fact, you need to believe not only that he is, but that he is fair and loving -- as Paul puts it, "that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him." If you don't think it would be worth your time to pursue a relationship with God, you won't have the commitment it will take to find a productive outcome.

 

Is the Bible reliable enough for that process? Absolutely. It tells us who God is, how the world came to be, where the human race came from, what it's destiny will be, what is right and what is wrong, what God is looking for, why this is reasonable, why other lifestyle choices are deceptively wrong, etc. etc.

 

It also points out that those who don't find these answers and don't bother to seek God now will still have an excellent opportunity to respond to a different set of circumstances in the future. Instead of an age of faith, with great rewards for following the difficult pattern of Jesus of Nazareth, it will be an age of obedience, with stumbling stones gathered up and a "highway" instead of the narrow way to life that Jesus talked about in this age. (see Isaiah 35) The average Joe, though a fool, will not err in that time, is approximately what Isaiah says.

 

Take your pick, duder. God is patient and has a plan A and a plan B for bringing life to the world of mankind.

[diggin]

Thanks for finding that phrase "your law".

 

In the John 8 text, the word "your" is from a Greek word meaning "possessed by you" or "allotted to you". In the John 10 text, it's the standard way we use "your" -- plural possessive (genitive case) of the pronoun you.

 

In both cases it makes sense to me that Jesus would speak this way to the Pharisees. They were men to whom the law was, as it were, their personal possession. They acted that way, anyhow. Perhaps there was an archness in Jesus' voice when he said it, as in both cases he was engaged in a confrontation with their antagonism. Whether Jesus was being deferential and letting them have their ground, that the law was theirs, or whether he was being a little bit ironic, I don't really know. but either way I think the fact that in other places Jesus spoke of himself as "greater than Moses" and the actual Son of God, tells me that he meant no disrespect of the law itself, but rather of the guys who claimed it as their own. They counted out their seeds in order to keep the letter of the law, while they missed the weightiest matters it was meant to teach. Strained at gnats, and swallowed camels, as the colorful Hebraic expressiveness of Jesus put it elsewhere.

 

I couldn't agree more, and I think I said the same thing you just did.

 

Note: Remember the bolded area I did of your quote for reference at the end of this post. *

 

To leap from these simple Jewish moorings into Buddhism seems a stretch to me.

Why does it seem to be a stretch to think that mythology had, and still has to some, a purpose? I would think I would have to stretch even further to think that mythology was meant to be taken as literal facts...philosophical facts or truths, yes, but not literal truths about god/s that no one can claim any 'real' knowledge about. I still don't think you understand what I'm saying, but that's okay.

 

I'm well aware of the gnostic concepts that have been around since before Jesus time, presenting an alternative to the straigthforward literal/historical meaning of scripture. Sorry, "notblinded", but I don't buy it.

That's okay...I don't buy literalism either.

 

That's why to the Greeks, Christianity was foolishness -- it didn't have that deep philosophical appeal. And to the Jews, it was a scandal -- an embarrassment to them as a people.

Are you speaking of the original Christianity or later Christianity? I don't know the timeline.

 

It is indeed an embarrassment if there is no philosophical appeal. I agree. But, I, and many others, think it does.

 

Try a straightforward, hermeneutical way of reading it though, and see if it doesn't make more sense as a literal statement of events -- a creation, a fall, a restitution. Death is real, life is real.

It makes sense only if you are unaware of reality. It's a myth that tells about a 'metaphoric' creation, fall, and restitution. Not a literal one, but a spiritual one and one that tells how to understand what causes bad things to occur. One is missing the point of the story if they think Adam and Eve were real people that lived in a real garden and was tempted by a real talking snake. Sorry "diggin"...I don't buy it.

 

Yes, life and death are real and what lies between the two are all we can know. The philosophies we live by shape our lives. If we can gain a little insight into what causes us to believe as we do, we can live more productive and honest lives. Myths are very good tools for doing this.

 

The resurrection of all dead means, to me, not that all will understand that we are one and God is part of that oneness. It means that, for all mankind, when we were dead we were dead, and then we live again, with the same character and memory and personality we had before -- all of us. Not in the spirit for most folks, but in flesh and blood on planet earth. (I do believe in a spirit realm and that resurrected true Christians will inhabit it) Forgive me for being such a boring literalist! :-)

Tell me...why would Jesus come and tell us that he came to bring peace here on earth and then have us direct our attention away from the here and now to focus on the afterlife? That makes no sense.

 

If there has been a constant, creative presence of God's spirit, then it's been pretty drastically squeezed out of the picture by some other spirit -- a spirit of death and dying, of evil and injustice, of hatred and shocking depravity.

I understand what you are saying...all I can say is that some of these things like evil and injustice is brought about by people themselves by believing in lies (yes, the metaphorical Adam and Eve story). What makes someone behave in an evil manner is what they believe about themselves and others. If they believe that they have the Truth, where does that leave all the others that don't believe as they do? Is the Truth exclusive diggin?

 

You can't have both. Either God is good, but powerless, or he is mean and hateful.... or he has an awfully good reason for abandoning his creation to its own devices for the last half-dozen millennia.

There is no one that knows what this creative force is. Many members of 'creation' have tried to show how injustice occurs through the use of myth, but many don't understand the mythical stories to a point to know what causes them. The point is overlooked when they see the characters as the moral to the story. Or, to put it another way, mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself.

 

One thing I really appreciate about atheism's contribution in the last century, and especially recently, is the focus it places on reality. Faith has run amuck. Here's a good link to a great article that, if the promises of the Bible turn out to be false, presents a better explanation of the here and now human situation than the "Fundie" view does.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an...eist_manifesto/

 

Anyway, "NotBlinded", I think you are dodging reality with your view just as completely as any Fundie does with his "our God is really sovereign" reality avoidance dogma.

Excuse me? Now isn't that just the pot calling the kettle black. Now I know you haven't understood a word I have said! That may be me having poor communication skills, but I am closer to an atheist than you are to a True Christian. You're funny!

 

You do know that you have just as many ribs as I do don't you?

 

* I never said that Jesus didn't believe there is God, but I will say that he wouldn't believe in the Christian understanding of God. Hell, he preached against this exclusivist attitude about God that is reflected below in you! You even acknowledge this preaching that I bolded above, but can't apply it to yourself. I think it is very hard sometimes for Christians to understand that when someone says they believe in God that it might not mean what they understand God to be. Here is what I mean:

 

Only a few are going to believe God exists...

Your arrogance is showing...

 

You mean the Christian God right? Can you accept that I may believe there is a God but not be Christian and not be damned?

 

The honest thing to say is that you have no idea what God is any more than the next person. Are you honest enough to admit that, or are you like the Pharisees that claim God is only for them? I know you would probably tell me that God is for everyone with the stipulation that they are Christians. Can you see the irony? Are you believing in lies? It's all there in the bible, why do you miss it?

 

Wow, Not Blinded, I'm a bit overwhelmed....

 

I guess speaking with confidence as I have been doing does sound arrogant.

 

I certainly can accept that you and most other folks who have ever lived don't, up to the time of their death, accept the Christian God. Are they therefore damned? No, they are saved, according to John 3:16. 1 Timothy 2:4-6 explains that the opportunity to believe that John refers to is deferred in many cases -- actually, most cases. 1 Timothy 4:10, which Calvinists try to explain away, clearly states God is the savior of all men, especially those who believe (in this life). The special salvation for authentic Christians, as I understand it, involves being saved sooner or ahead of the rest, to a spiritual condition and to a resurrection to life instead of a resurrection by a process of judgment (John 5:28-29).

 

But the rest of mankind who are not part of the church of Christ are saved from their hereditary condemnation, which means they will reawaken in Messiah's dominion and experience a process of judgment or instruction, testing, and evaluation that leads them to life. They will experience, not the "new and living way" which is a spiritual or heavenly life mentioned in the NT epistles, but instead they are promised a restoration or restitution -- Acts 3:19-21. That means mankind will regain the life that they had in Eden -- human perfection, living in a world that will be restored and completed as never before.

 

So again, I'm saying God loves all the people, including the Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Jews... even the idolatrous and misdirected Christians... etc.

 

I don't feel like it would be honest to say that I don't have any more idea of who God is than the next person. I think I have found a pretty accurate knowledge of the truth. But I recognize I don't deserve this great boon, and I don't feel better or smarter or whatever. I'm just the luckiest guy in the world, that's all... Still, that doesn't make me a Pharisee, because God is not just for me. God is for all people, and for all Christians who pay attention to his word, and for all Jews who respond to the invitation to return to their Land, etc. I'm looking forward to a day when "the whole earth is at rest and is quiet --- they break forth into singing!" That's everybody who wishes to join in... and by then there won't be a multiplicity of denominations, nor any confusion at all about who God is and what he is doing in the world....

 

If there is a unifying religious concept at that time the closest thing to today's religions would be Judaism -- since Jews will be the visible leaders at the time, and the essence of its spiritual guidelines will be a code of ethics similar to the ancient laws of Moses-- but expressed in more simple terms, at a time when people will be actually able to follow those laws. See Zechariah 8:23

 

Sorry not to be able to respond in greater detail...

[NotBlinded]

Wow, Not Blinded, I'm a bit overwhelmed....

 

I guess speaking with confidence as I have been doing does sound arrogant.

 

I certainly can accept that you and most other folks who have ever lived don't, up to the time of their death, accept the Christian God. Are they therefore damned? No, they are saved, according to John 3:16. 1 Timothy 2:4-6 explains that the opportunity to believe that John refers to is deferred in many cases -- actually, most cases. 1 Timothy 4:10, which Calvinists try to explain away, clearly states God is the savior of all men, especially those who believe (in this life). The special salvation for authentic Christians, as I understand it, involves being saved sooner or ahead of the rest, to a spiritual condition and to a resurrection to life instead of a resurrection by a process of judgment (John 5:28-29).

 

But the rest of mankind who are not part of the church of Christ are saved from their hereditary condemnation, which means they will reawaken in Messiah's dominion and experience a process of judgment or instruction, testing, and evaluation that leads them to life. They will experience, not the "new and living way" which is a spiritual or heavenly life mentioned in the NT epistles, but instead they are promised a restoration or restitution -- Acts 3:19-21. That means mankind will regain the life that they had in Eden -- human perfection, living in a world that will be restored and completed as never before.

 

Thanks so much for your reply. I am honestly touched. I have no problem with your beliefs when they are inclusive.

 

So again, I'm saying God loves all the people, including the Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Jews... even the idolatrous and misdirected Christians... etc.

Oh yes...I agree. Jesus brought another understanding to God (which is what I choose to call this life-giving force), which is similar to other teachings (in my limited knowledge). If all religions could understand that it is God that is central to the teaching and not the messenger, then I think that everyone would welcome ideas of other faiths. God is for all. People all over the world describe God to the best of their ability. They are all talking about the same thing. God doesn't play favorites. Wouldn't that be great to see a Muslim and a Jew, or a Pegan and a Christian sitting around gaining insight from each other's religion? How much more could we 'feel' the presence of God than to open up to other people?

 

I don't feel like it would be honest to say that I don't have any more idea of who God is than the next person. I think I have found a pretty accurate knowledge of the truth. But I recognize I don't deserve this great boon, and I don't feel better or smarter or whatever. I'm just the luckiest guy in the world, that's all... Still, that doesn't make me a Pharisee, because God is not just for me. God is for all people, and for all Christians who pay attention to his word, and for all Jews who respond to the invitation to return to their Land, etc. I'm looking forward to a day when "the whole earth is at rest and is quiet --- they break forth into singing!" That's everybody who wishes to join in... and by then there won't be a multiplicity of denominations, nor any confusion at all about who God is and what he is doing in the world....

His 'word' is silence. People everywhere are able to access God and it helps to have spiritual insights...from more than one source.

 

If there is a unifying religious concept at that time the closest thing to today's religions would be Judaism -- since Jews will be the visible leaders at the time, and the essence of its spiritual guidelines will be a code of ethics similar to the ancient laws of Moses-- but expressed in more simple terms, at a time when people will be actually able to follow those laws. See Zechariah 8:23

I think the law was needed for those groups of people in that time. Although, Jesus tried to get them to see that too much attention to the law is making them miss the point. The only 'law' now that is needed is to know that whenever someone feels love, generosity, empathy, etc., that they know that this is where God can be recognized. All these human traits are common all over the world, so to me, that means God is everywhere. It's not about the law, it's about the love. Man I sound like a hippy!

 

Sorry not to be able to respond in greater detail...

That's okay. Your response was fine and I appreciate it.