Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you saying Jesus was ignorant when he referenced past acts of God?
No. He was simply respecting the prevalent beliefs to bolster His revision of them. IOW He was keeping the "old wineskins" intact for the "old wine" . . . and preparing "new wineskins" for the "new wine."
No. He was simply respecting the prevalent beliefs to bolster His revision of them. IOW He was keeping the "old wineskins" intact for the "old wine" . . . and preparing "new wineskins" for the "new wine."
It's pretty interesting the mental gymnastics required to keep your view of an all-loving God. It doesn't matter what was recorded in the Bible and it doesn't matter what Jesus stated. What do you need the book for at all, exactly?
It's pretty interesting the mental gymnastics required to keep your view of an all-loving God. It doesn't matter what was recorded in the Bible and it doesn't matter what Jesus stated. What do you need the book for at all, exactly?
It's pretty interesting the mental gymnastics required to keep your view of an all-loving God. It doesn't matter what was recorded in the Bible and it doesn't matter what Jesus stated. What do you need the book for at all, exactly?
The mental terpsichory of the skeptics and hecklers are no less interesting. "All or nothing," "black or white" straw men arguments are the refuge of those unwilling to THINK and reason with intelligent judgment about issues that are NOT simply "black or white" or "all or nothing."
The mental terpsichory of the skeptics and hecklers are no less interesting. "All or nothing," "black or white" straw men arguments are the refuge of those unwilling to THINK and reason with intelligent judgment about issues that are NOT simply "black or white" or "all or nothing."
There's a number of gray areas here I can accept. Saying God did kill millions, but he was justified. Saying God can't be judged by our moral codes. Saying God changed his methods as humanity changed.
I might not AGREE with any of the above, but it would be consistent with the evidence. I don't know why you're arguing that others should consider anything other than black and white when your own version of God is as white as it gets. There's no nuance to your God. It requires you to ignore or dismiss a great deal of evidence...if it doesn't fit, you pretend it didn't happen.
There's a number of gray areas here I can accept. Saying God did kill millions, but he was justified. Saying God can't be judged by our moral codes. Saying God changed his methods as humanity changed.
The right answer is God did none of it.
Quote:
I might not AGREE with any of the above, but it would be consistent with the evidence.
There is no evidence . . . only recordings of human interpretations passed down orally and eventually written.
Quote:
I don't know why you're arguing that others should consider anything other than black and white when your own version of God is as white as it gets. There's no nuance to your God. It requires you to ignore or dismiss a great deal of evidence...if it doesn't fit, you pretend it didn't happen.
Wrong. I read with the "mind of Christ" to filter out what is incompatible with the TRUE NATURE of God He unambiguously revealed by His life, teachings, death and resurrection (rebirth as Spirit). That is the difference. Whereas the ignorant savages interpreted the Eden parable to mean God was angry with us for learning the difference between good and evil. I see it as our first lesson in differentiating among our desires using an other-directed, non-selfish standard (the true point of sacrifice out of love for another). IOW, it chronicles our newly created species first lesson in understanding our purpose . . . agape "love of God and each other."
The right answer is God did none of it. There is no evidence . . . only recordings of human interpretations passed down orally and eventually written.
If there's no evidence and everything in the Bible, including Jesus's word, is completely open to interpretation ...how is that NOT the same as you making things up? Again, what do you need the book for? This isn't even a matter of interpretation...you and I could read the same passage and get two different meanings. But you're not interpreting, you're just getting rid of anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of your God.
If there's no evidence for anything in the Bible being correct, what evidence is there for Jesus speaking of love?
If there's no evidence and everything in the Bible, including Jesus's word, is completely open to interpretation ...how is that NOT the same as you making things up? Again, what do you need the book for? This isn't even a matter of interpretation...you and I could read the same passage and get two different meanings. But you're not interpreting, you're just getting rid of anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of your God.
If there's no evidence for anything in the Bible being correct, what evidence is there for Jesus speaking of love?
The "making things up" accusation is tedious and tiresome . . . when will you guys get a new playbook. If you intend to discount scholarship, intellectual rigor, science and everything in the "spiritual fossil record" as useless and not subject to rational investigation and reason . . . fine. But get off the dismissive "making things up" nonsense. I have 40+ years of study, knowledge and investigation into these issues. That is in no way "making things up." I also personally KNOW that we have guidance available within our consciousness and it is the source of our conscience, intuition and judgment of things beyond the grasp of current facts. Again, you are free to scoff at that and reject it . . . but to pretend that it is "making things up" flies in the face of every discovery ever attributed to intuition. So . . . find a new song and dance for your tiresome heckling. I KNOW that the descriptions about Christ are an accurate representation of the consciousness I encounter in deep meditation. For ME that is sufficient to remove it from the category of mere preference or preconceived notion. Therefore, it is the standard I apply to any and all writing purporting to be inspired by God, period.
A book I am currently reading gives an excerpt from the 18th century Christian preacher, Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Here's part of what he said in that sermon...
"The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present.... The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you.... When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so vastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; He will have no compassion upon you,... there shall be no moderation or mercy."
I was pretty darned close to speechless when I read that. Anybody share my opinion? Anybody believe Edwards was right on target?
It's been over 40 years since I read that sermon, but it really is very, very long. I think it took him like two hours to "preach" (read) it to his congregation which was mostly standing through the whole thing.
And, if I recall correctly, his basic message is that you must get your life right with God if you don't want to dangle like the spider, so that particular passage may be out of context with the complete sermon.
Unfortunately, we do have too many churches that prefer to "preach" in that vein, rather than exhorting their congregations to live their lives as an example to others.
If there's no evidence and everything in the Bible, including Jesus's word, is completely open to interpretation ...how is that NOT the same as you making things up? Again, what do you need the book for? This isn't even a matter of interpretation...you and I could read the same passage and get two different meanings. But you're not interpreting, you're just getting rid of anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of your God.
If there's no evidence for anything in the Bible being correct, what evidence is there for Jesus speaking of love?
People of faith don't need evidence. In Isaiah Chapter 6, Isaiah relates a story about going into the Holy place of the temple and seeing God, with seraphims flying around Him. A number of centuries later Antiochus of Epiphanes, after conquering the Jews, rode his horse into the same temple and cried, "I see no God."
The difference is in the eyes of the beholder. One had eyes of faith, the other the eyes of man.
If you need evidence of God, then you cannot have faith in God. God is about faith, not evidence. Unfortunately, too many Christians are seeking "evidence" themselves in order to debate with those who lack the eyes of faith. Without eyes of faith no argument will convince you, and no Christian should try.
But as for me and my house, we shall worship the Lord.
And, by the way, we do NOT attend church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol
