Imagine

[JGL53]

To the OP.
I can agree with this to an extent. Christians need to be living out a far more active faith than what many of us do. However, the goal of heaven is why we do it. So echatology, prophecy, and discussion of Heaven and Hell I believe are often necessary. There is no reason to seperate them from active Christianity.

To the posts about killing.
I beleive that personal self defense is the way to go. However, living as a christian, I must accept that my God, '...is a God of war.' Condemning war and all killing is condemning an attirbute of God. Watch yourself.

More evidence that Buddhism is the one true religion.

 

[KCDAD]

However, the goal of heaven is why we do it.

This is one of the main reasons why so many non-believers think we are hypocrites.

You do it for rewards and recognition? You do your good deeds so that your Father in heaven will be reward you? Only the last will be first, and the first last. Only those that die to their selves will find their lives.

All things we say and do MUST be done for the rightness of the word or deed, and not for ANY thing we might get it out of it...including because it makes us feel good.

 

[-Z-]

This is one of the main reasons why so many non-believers think we are hypocrites.

You do it for rewards and recognition? You do your good deeds so that your Father in heaven will be reward you? Only the last will be first, and the first last. Only those that die to their selves will find their lives.

All things we say and do MUST be done for the rightness of the word or deed, and not for ANY thing we might get it out of it...including because it makes us feel good.

That is nowhere in the Bible. We aren't supposed to seek the recognition of man, but there is nothing that disregards seeking the recognition of God.

 

[JGL53]

That is nowhere in the Bible. We aren't supposed to seek the recognition of man, but there is nothing that disregards seeking the recognition of God.

And the men who speak for god? I see them as the major problem here. Let men speak for men, and let god speak for god. Problem solved.

(And, BTW, a man quoting from a "holy" book is not god speaking - it is a man speaking.)

 

[-Z-]

And the men who speak for god? I see them as the major problem here. Let men speak for men, and let god speak for god. Problem solved.

(And, BTW, a man quoting from a "holy" book is not god speaking - it is a man speaking.)

I don't really understand what you are saying here.

 

[uberd00b]

Shouldn't we live our lives as if this is the only gift of life we have been given by The Creator of the Universe, and honor the giving and the giver (as well the gift), by claiming and living the abundant life of joy and peace promised to us?

Wonderful sentiment, wholeheartedly agree.

 

[artybloke]

However, the goal of heaven is why we do it.

Then we of all people are most wretched. If the only reason for doing good is because we're scared of the consequences of not doing it, then we are still under the law. We're not free from the law through the grace of God in Christ.

Grace trumps law. We love because God loves us - unconditionally and without favour - or we might as well just give up.

 

[KCDAD]

Then we of all people are most wretched. If the only reason for doing good is because we're scared of the consequences of not doing it, then we are still under the law. We're not free from the law through the grace of God in Christ.

Grace trumps law. We love because God loves us - unconditionally and without favour - or we might as well just give up.

And we must love the same way... unconditionally... even if we knew we were going to some fictional fiery pit of torture no matter what we did... we would still be obligated to love. Not obligated out of "do it or else"... but obligated out of " this is the ONLY way to be a true child of God, a true human being."

 

[JGL53]

I don't really understand what you are saying here.

E.g., the bible is not god, the Koran is not god, the book of mormon is not god, Mary Baker Eddy's Key to the scriptures is not god, the Hindu Upanishads are not god, the Buddhist Sutras are not god, etc., etc.

Believing that a particular "holy" scripture is a message from god is not believing in god - far from it - it is placing trust and faith in the men who wrote the "holy" book and believing that when they say that they, mere men, got the message from god, that they indeed did. It is never god's word - it is always men's word that it is god's word.

You really believe that god speaks to you through other men? Why? He has time to talk to them - but not to you?

Thomas Paine pointed out the obvious problem with having trust in such a system over 200 years ago. But this is news to you?

If you depend on other men to steer you to god, you will all stumble and all fall in a ditch. Men cannot be relied upon for such important matters. Men are sinners and can lie - or can be led astray by the Evil One.

If god speaks, then you listen. If god is silent, then you accept it. If men speak for god to you, then you DON'T listen. Play it safe.

 

[-Z-]

E.g., the bible is not god, the Koran is not god, the book of mormon is not god, Mary Baker Eddy's Key to the scriptures is not god, the Hindu Upanishads are not god, the Buddhist Sutras are not god, etc., etc.

Believing that a particular "holy" scripture is a message from god is not believing in god - far from it - it is placing trust and faith in the men who wrote the "holy" book and believing that when they say that they, mere men, got the message from god, that they indeed did. It is never god's word - it is always men's word that it is god's word.

You really believe that god speaks to you through other men? Why? He has time to talk to them - but not to you?

Thomas Paine pointed out the obvious problem with having trust in such a system over 200 years ago. But this is news to you?

If you depend on other men to steer you to god, you will all stumble and all fall in a ditch. Men cannot be relied upon for such important matters. Men are sinners and can lie - or can be led astray by the Evil One.

If god speaks, then you listen. If god is silent, then you accept it. If men speak for god to you, then you DON'T listen. Play it safe.

Thank you for your explanation. However, if the Bible is not the inspired word of God then my faith is in vain. God has directly spoken to me at a couple of instances in my life, and this really only confirms that which has already been given to us in His word. I understand that you see this as not logical, but I am sold out for it and there is no dissuading me that the Bible is the very inspired words of God.

 

[JGL53]

Thank you for your explanation. However, if the Bible is not the inspired word of God then my faith is in vain..

There is a great deal of evidence available indicating that your faith is indeed in vain, and there is no evidence that I know of that your faith is true (other than professions of faith, which don't count, IMO). But you are welcome to your faith just as people who believe in astrology or space alien visitations or the book of mormon, etc., are welcome to their perceived realities.

...God has directly spoken to me at a couple of instances in my life, and this really only confirms that which has already been given to us in His word...

God spoke directly to you and told you the christian bible was his word? No problem, except billions of other people have had god speak to them and inform them that some book other than the christian bible is his word. Are you saying these other people are all liars or are just insincere? I think they are as sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours. So, I guess we are left with a roll of the dice. I refuse to roll them, and I trust the Lord will understand.

...I understand that you see this as not logical, but I am sold out for it and there is no dissuading me that the Bible is the very inspired words of God...

I suspect no one will ever dissuade you. You have made your choice. Good for you. It is not the right choice for me. I think heaven and hell are metaphors for what we choose to make our lives on earth right now. I choose not to create a hell for myself. And that is my choice from which you would never dissuade me.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

However, if the Bible is not the inspired word of God then my faith is in vain.

Why would your faith be in vain? You obviously have faith that a God exists who loves, indwells and saves you, right? The Bible does not have to be infallable and inerrant for you to intuitively know such things. Whether one takes them literally or allegorically, the healing, feeding, saving, forgiving actions of Jesus recorded in Scripture proclaim God's character. Regardless of whether the miracles, quotes or other doctrinal commentary is inerrant, the picture of Jesus Christ's life speaks louder than mere words on paper. This could have been passed down through oral tradition without a book. Even better, it can be transmitted through the actions of those energized by the Spirit of Christ to be salt, light, and episitles written on the heart. A person who does not rely on an infallable book must learn to trust in God even with some uncertainties and ambiguities about life and the afterlife, simpley because of who God is. God is for us. God is with us. God saves (which is what the name Yeshuah means in Hebrew). What more do you have to know than the Gospel that the Name of Yeshuah means God Saves? Coupled with Christ-like actions springing from agape, just His Name would have been enough to evangelize throughout the centuries. It is the underlying essence of the Scriptures that matters more than the superficial substance. Faith that is moved by compassion to act like Jesus is not in vain. God is much bigger than the Bible and does not need an infallable, inerrant book to reveal Himself or his Salvation. Even if you suddely found out the Bible was not inerrant, I think you would find that your faith is not in vain. The Spirit of Christ would still testify with your spirit that you have had an encouter with a loving, merciful, benevolent, saving God.

 

[-Z-]

Why would your faith be in vain? You obviously have faith that a God exists who loves, indwells and saves you, right? The Bible does not have to be infallable and inerrant for you to intuitively know such things. Whether one takes them literally or allegorically, the healing, feeding, saving, forgiving actions of Jesus recorded in Scripture proclaim God's character. Regardless of whether the miracles, quotes or other doctrinal commentary is inerrant, the picture of Jesus Christ's life speaks louder than mere words on paper. This could have been passed down through oral tradition without a book. Even better, it can be transmitted through the actions of those energized by the Spirit of Christ to be salt, light, and episitles written on the heart. A person who does not rely on an infallable book must learn to trust in God even with some uncertainties and ambiguities about life and the afterlife, simpley because of who God is. God is for us. God is with us. God saves (which is what the name Yeshuah means in Hebrew). What more do you have to know than the Gospel that the Name of Yeshuah means God Saves? Coupled with Christ-like actions springing from agape, just His Name would have been enough to evangelize throughout the centuries. It is the underlying essence of the Scriptures that matters more than the superficial substance. Faith that is moved by compassion to act like Jesus is not in vain. God is much bigger than the Bible and does not need an infallable, inerrant book to reveal Himself or his Salvation. Even if you suddely found out the Bible was not inerrant, I think you would find that your faith is not in vain. The Spirit of Christ would still testify with your spirit that you have had an encouter with a loving, merciful, benevolent, saving God.

My faith is based on a God I know through the way He reveals Himself in scripture. If all of the Bible is not the inerrant word of God that it claims to be. Then there is no other solid proof that the life of Christ was as it is written. He is either Lord of all or He is not Lord at all, His scriptures are either all inspired or all fallacious. There is no other way for the Christian faith and Christian God to be real.

 

[Soul Searcher]

My faith is based on a God I know through the way He reveals Himself in scripture. If all of the Bible is not the inerrant word of God that it claims to be. Then there is no other solid proof that the life of Christ was as it is written. He is either Lord of all or He is not Lord at all, His scriptures are either all inspired or all fallacious. There is no other way for the Christian faith and Christian God to be real.

But the bible does not claim to be the inerrant word of God, Many Christains claim this but the book does not. In the OT we see many references to the word of God, it is dipicted as a spirit that comes to man not as a book. In the Nt we see that Jesus is the word became flesh and Jesus says that his words are spirit and that they are not his words but the words of the father.

The word of God is spirit, not paper and ink. We have many different bibles all of which have errors in them, none of them are infalliable as the many denominations throughtout the world bare witness of. There are many wonderful things in the bible things inspired by God, things about God, things about man but it is a book not a God and it is far from perfect.

 

[-Z-]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Soul Searcher]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Yes I am very aware of this verse, but this verse does not say that the bible is inerrant, nor does it say that it is infalliable nor does it say that it is the word of God.

It does say that all scripture is inspired by God, though it does not tell us what is scripture. At the time the passage was written there were other books also considered to be scripture that were not included in our bibles and some of the books in our bibles did not exist at that time then even after the bible had been compiled changes were made, books removed and several corrections due to various errors.

One important note, the bible is made up of several books and it does in fact contain some errors many of them minor but errors none the less but this does not invalidate the message of the bible. I have heard some say that if the bible contains errors then it is all false but that is not the case at all. The only thing that is false is the assertion of inerrancy which is quite clearly false.

 

[JGL53]

Z, my man, forget me - I think it is your fellow religionists who are making the best case for the religious or "spirit-filled" life, as opposed to the seeming worship of a book AS IF it were god itself.

I'm thinking that you are giving a whole new meaning to the word "bibliophile".

(BTW, thanks for adding to my reputation - I'm reading something Freudian in that.)

 

[-Z-]

Z, my man, forget me - I think it is your fellow religionists who are making the best case for the religious or "spirit-filled" life, as opposed to the seeming worship of a book AS IF it were god itself.

I'm thinking that you are giving a whole new meaning to the word "bibliophile".

(BTW, thanks for adding to my reputation - I'm reading something Freudian in that.)

UHm, again I am not understanding your post. Sorry.

 

[uberd00b]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

It is important to remember that when this was written the bible did not exist. It had not been put together yet. There is other scripture that was never included in the bible that this could also apply to.