The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[ldonjohn]

This is because very few who have responded to me actual understand my issue. You cannot use the Bible as a justification to someone who's main concern is the validity of the Bible itself.

Leftright,

I can assure you that I do understand your issue, because I struggled with the same issue before I found the truth. You don't understand that Christians were unbelievers before they became Christians, and I assume that some of them were uncertain of the validity of the bible, as I was, before becoming a believer. I cannot speak for other Christians, but no argument from man, nor logic from man convinced me of the validity of the bible. If you are really looking for the truth, then you are looking in the wrong place because no man can explain to you the subject of your concerns in a way that will convince you of the truth you claim to be seeking. The only person who can convince you that the bible is the truth is the One who wrote the bible, that would be God Himself. That is the message many of the posters here are trying to get over to you, but you just continue to refute their answers and continue with your reasons for not accepting the validity of God's Word.

I have read parts of the old testament & all of the new testament, and there is much that I don't understand. But, I do understand the message of the cross, the Gospel, and my Christian faith is based upon that message. I don't fret over the other things that I don't understand because the Holy Spirit convinced me that the Bible is the absolute truth, and that its validity doesn't require my understanding nor does its validity require my approval.

You say that you have read the bible and did not find the truth you seek. I am repeating myself here, but God's Word says in Jeremiah 29:13, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” God cannot lie. He will do whatever He promises to do. It's up to you to seek the truth with the right attitude. When God sees that you are seeking Him in the way He requires, then He will convince you that the bible is the absolute truth.

Finding the truth about God doesn't happen without the influence of God through the teaching of His Word. It is a Holy Spirit controlled “circular reasoning,” life changing, “light bulb,” “I got it” moment.

John

 

[Stillicidia]

+1 Idonjohn

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The most fantastical claims were made by Jesus himself. Such as;

Correction to your statement: "The most fantastical claims were made by Gospel writers who attributed quotes to Jesus himself."

That's an important distinction. I'm not so certain that everything Jesus is claimed to have said was necessarily uttered by Jesus himself. It is also generally agreed upon that the latest and least reliable Gospel was the Gospel of John. All your quotes come from the Gospel of John.

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

"Those who worship devotedly different gods, although faithfully; they also worship me only." Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 9:23.

"Whoever believes in me will have eternal life."

"Those that take refuge in me, who endeavour for liberation from old age and death, shall learn the ultimate truth." Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 7:29

"I am the resurrection and the life, whoever believes in me will never die."

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me." Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 10:8

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

"He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds-he, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins." Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 10:3.

If Jesus was telling the truth, is the only one who can give eternal life, is the only way to the Father, and is one with the Father, then he was an amazing person and it's not surprising he could do amazing things.

Similar claims have been made in Hinduism, with similar miraculous stories resulting.

What reason do you have for reading the Gospels and saying, "this is a bunch of over inflated claims and is not true?"

What reason do you have for not reading the verses from the Bhagavad Gita and believing?

If you completely ignore Jesus' claims, just see his miracles as being like those of other religious leaders, and disregard the fact that he was crucified because the Jews believed him guilty of blasphemy, i.e. that he claimed to be God - and ignore the fact that the disciples' lives changed completely after the resurrection and they were willing to be persecuted, flogged and killed for their faith; if you ignore all of that, then maybe you could say that Jesus is on a par with Buddha, or whoever.

Yea, the historical bits of Jesus' life are certainly different than other persons I mentioned.

The disciples lives were definitely changed after Jesus' death, whether it be by some vision or some veneration of their dead leader. Similar life-changing events happened to other followers of dead leaders. This is why other major religions grew and flourished.

How many of these other leaders made the claims that Jesus did - claiming to be God and the only way to the Father? How many of these leaders can forgive sin, give peace, security, eternal life, joy and so on?

Many Hindu sages, gurus, and characters have made similar claims, albeit within a Hindu frame or worldview. As a result, a Hindu would not necessarily suggest that they could offer "eternal life" but instead they may offer "enlightenment" such that, upon death, you become one with Brahman, or something to that effect. The wording is different, the but the implication is similar.

I have read books by people who have read and studied other religions and found them to be interesting, intellectually stimulating, providing a good, moral code - and ultimately, unsatisfying. It seems to me that other religions are about what people have to do to find God - offer the right number, and type, of sacrifices, live a moral life, do enough good deeds and maybe God will favour you/hear your prayer/give you some kind of blessing.

This is a misunderstanding of many other world religions and also a misunderstanding of Christianity. Christianity is also about "what people have to do to find God"...namely they have to come to an understanding of the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ in a proper, orthodox manner.

Christianity is about how God found us. Other religions say you should make sacrifices to atone for your sin; Christianity says that God sacrificed himself for our sin.

Where is the idea that other religions say you have to make sacrifices to atone for your sins? Many religions don't even contain the concept of "sin" at all.

The beauty of "God sacrificing himself for our sin" disappears if you don't subscribe to the theology of the OT.

I may do, if I have time.
I don't disbelieve that other people can do miracles. I do have a question about where they got their power - from God, or from the devil. Jesus said that the devil would do miracles to try to deceive even God's people. Centuries before, God did miracles through Moses and Pharaoh's own magicians replicated the same miracles. They didn't believe in God, yet the miracles they performed were the same and just as real. Miracles on their own, prove nothing. Jesus said the things he did, and did miracles.

Matthew 12:22-27

If someone drives out a demon (or does good), then Jesus says it must be from God.

 

[redleghunter]

Sunday school answer:

"Jesus came proclaiming the Good News of the Gospel, that we are saved from our sins by his death and resurrection and can have eternal life in heaven if we accept him as our Lord and Saviour."

However, you missed my point. I am primarily concerned with the historical accuracy of the Bible. As such, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, and if the Bible is a misrepresentation of him, then his words and deeds may have been more like this:

"Jesus was an itinerant, apocalyptic rabbi who astounded people with his radical teachings and wisdom. He taught in parables about forgiveness, repentance, money, and reconciliation. He may have believed he had a very close connection with the divine. He was crucified after the religious leaders of the day saw his claims to the divine as heretical. He developed a large following who venerated him following his death."

You skimmed over the most important element of what I presented.

The Deity of Jesus Christ is central to the words He spoke and deeds He accomplished.

Find me a guru or mufti who compares.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Man's understanding of scripture does not yield truth.

Aren't you also a man?

 

[Strong in Him]

What reason do you have for not reading the verses from the Bhagavad Gita and believing?

I had never even heard of the Bhagavad Gita until I had been a Christian for some years.
By that time, I had read the Gospels, decided for myself that what Jesus said was true and that I wanted to become his follower.
Having been his follower, and child of God, for many years, experienced a relationship with my heavenly Father, I don't want to go anywhere else, either out of interest or to compare and just make sure I am following the right person. As Peter said, "to whom would we go, you alone have the words of eternal life."

And the bottom line is that if you don't believe the Bible, think the Gospels were made up by people who just wanted to make Jesus look good, (though why they would have made themselves look so bad is anyone's guess) and that Jesus is actually no different to Buddha or anyone else, then there's not really much more that I can say.
I can understand why Buddhism is appealing - if you don't get it right in this life, there's always next time round. I don't believe in reincarnation; I wouldn't want to die, believing I will have another life on earth and another chance to get it right, and then find out that I won't and I've rejected the one who gives eternal life and salvation.

Maybe one day you'll meet him for yourself, rather than just trying to analyse him through books.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The more I learn, the more I feel like Christians are misguided. The only reason I think this is because I've spent a lot of time studying and learning about Hinduism, and Hindu and Buddhist mysticism alongside studies of Christianity. In doing this, I keep coming across miraculous claims with similar parallels to Christianity. I may have a different understanding than the "rest of the sheep" not because I'm somehow more intelligent or "deeper", but simply because I explored a worldview very foreign to the Christian worldview and found something unexpected.

I have never yet met a Christian who has explored Hinduism very seriously. Hinduism is a very complex religious system with equal (or greater) complexity and divisions as Christianity. There seem to be many similarities between Jesus and the Indian mystics (this is a distinctly different claim than saying Christianity and Hinduism are similar...they aren't). The Christology associated with Pauline Christianity overlays a distinctly Jewish worldview on top of the historical Jesus.

You have met such a person. I have read the Upanishads, can explain the development of Hinduism from the Vedas to the rise of Bhakti movements, its response to Jainism, Buddhism and various Samkhya movements. Hinduism isn't a religion, but a religious tradition with shaivite, vaishanavite etc. groups within it. Jesus' teachings have very little to do with hinduism with its pantheist, panentheist, monistic etc. views and ideas like moksara and the atman.
If you mean Jesus was a wandering holy man, then your statement means nothing, for so was Lao Tse or Buddha or Sangoma in South Africa or medicine men in America. That proves absolutely nothing. There is a type of religious thought which leads men to leave into lonely places to seek God, but this in no way disproves or even makes anything such figures say in any way less believable. I don't understand how anything you said in this entire post is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand or the truth of Christianity in any way, shape or form.
Read up on Dom Bede Griffiths for a good view of a Christian who thoroughly emmersed himself in Hindu thought (He was a universalist, but you can't have everything).

Assuming Pauline Christianity is an accruel onto Jewish Christianity is just that, an assumption. Again an irrelevancy to whether that tradition is true or not.

As to miraculous events, all peoples and all religions have miraculous events, even secular ones (alien abductions, energy quanta transfer etc.), again it has no bearing on the truth of any tradition if its adherents claim miracles.

 

[Winkaglow]

Your heart is obviously seeking spiritual truth; don't stop asking/seeking/knocking. When you have your own encounter with the God of Heaven, you will never be the same: your joy will be contagious; fear/doubt will flee; you will hear the voice of God whisper (the first time it happens, you'll think you're crazy). When the intellectual is overcome by the Spiritual, a suddenly will occur. We are not earthly beings having a temporary spiritual experience - we are Spirit beings (designed to live forever with God) having a temporary earthly experience.
Matthew 7:7-12 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

 

[expos4ever]

Your heart is obviously seeking spiritual truth; don't stop asking/seeking/knocking. When you have your own encounter with the God of Heaven, you will never be the same: your joy will be contagious; fear/doubt will flee; you will hear the voice of God whisper (the first time it happens, you'll think you're crazy).

Just so interested readers can see all sides, I have been a Christian for decades and I have never had these kinds of experiences. And I know others who will say the same. No voices, no "magic".

When the intellectual is overcome by the Spiritual, a suddenly will occur. We are not earthly beings having a temporary spiritual experience - we are Spirit beings (designed to live forever with God) having a temporary earthly experience.

I have no particular desire to be contrary but I think there are serious problems with these statements. Unfortunately, to me at least, a persistent strain of anti-intellectualism is seen in much of North American evangelicalism. This hurts the credibility of our message and stunts our growth.

Second, somewhat related, point: I think the implied theology in the above post is non-Biblical, with its implication of a dualism with a "bad fallen" material world set in opposition to a noble, immaterial domain of spirit. This way of seeing things is perhaps the dominant view but I believe it seriously deviates from what Scripture teaches. One consequence of seeing this non-existent dualism is to imagine that "intellectual" knowledge is somehow inferior to a vague, ill-defined category of "spiritual knowledge". Another is to fail to recognize that God made the physical universe, called it all "very good", and plans to redeem it; our residence here on earth is not temporary - when God resurrects his people, we will continue to advance His creative purposes on a redeemed and transformed earth (the idea of eternity in heaven is not Biblical, even though many believe it).

There is indeed a dualism present in scripture but it is decidedly not the "immaterial and spiritual" vs "fallen material world" dualism; it is instead the distinction between fallen creation (in all its physicality) and redeemed creation (again, in all its physicality).

NOTE: If I have read too much into the posts I have quoted, I apologize to that poster. However, regardless of what that particular poster believes, I maintain that the views I am critiquing are both common and non-Biblical.

 

[Isaacsname]

The ol " I read all the books 5 times and I don't think it's true " shtick ?

Well, looks like there's no way that God could ever conceal something for his son to teach us because we know it all already

Time time to turn out the lights I guess

 

[Colter]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

All things considered, the Bible books are as imperfect as we should expect them to be. To me that is authenticating. If someone were conspiring to perpetuate a fraud they would have done a much better job, particularly the resurrection narrative.

For what it's worth the Urantia Book helped me tremendously in understanding that when strange, supernatural, miraculous events occur, it is inevitable that many human influences work to muddy the issue for later generations. Just look at how humans get facts wrong today such as in journalism, hearsay, eyewitnesses etc.

I have no doubt that the Bible is very human, yet I believe Jesus the Christ. Sounds odd, but I am so grateful!

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

It is a scientific fact that life can only come from life so knowing that scientific fact what is the origin of life if not God?

 

[ldonjohn]

Hey, Christian posters. I am beginning to think this leftright guy is not really looking for the truth. I might be wrong about this, but to me his behavior in this thread is starting to resemble the behavior of a typical atheist. They make a statement or pose a question about Christianity hoping to get the attention of a Christian who will respond thinking he/she is helping the atheist find answers about God or about the bible. Whenever Christians respond with biblical answers the atheist responds by refuting the answers, and then asks more questions, refutes subsequent answers, and ask more questions, etc. Atheists use this strategy to attempt to draw Christians into an endless debate which gives the atheist the opportunity to show their contempt for Christians and God.

Has anyone noticed that he has an argument against all responses that attempt to support the validity of scripture? Also, it seems to me that he has completely dismissed the “personal” experiences that some of us have shared in our posts as being either unbelievable and/or irrelevant to the Christian faith, and quoting scripture to him is a waste of time since he obviously does not believe it to be true.

OK, wait, God just got my attention! No, He didn't show me a vision, He didn't call out to me, He didn't knock me out of my chair; He just put a thought into my mind from His Word. Isiah 55:11; “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (KJV ).

After He reminded me of that scripture, my first thought was to delete all of this post and just let it go, but instead I will leave it to show that my heart was in the wrong place, and that I have been corrected by the very Word of God that leftright doesn't believe is the truth. Much scripture has been quoted in this thread, and God just reminded me that He is completely capable of using His Word to accomplish His purpose.

John

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You have met such a person. I have read the Upanishads, can explain the development of Hinduism from the Vedas to the rise of Bhakti movements, its response to Jainism, Buddhism and various Samkhya movements. Hinduism isn't a religion, but a religious tradition with shaivite, vaishanavite etc. groups within it. Jesus' teachings have very little to do with hinduism with its pantheist, panentheist, monistic etc. views and ideas like moksara and the atman.
If you mean Jesus was a wandering holy man, then your statement means nothing, for so was Lao Tse or Buddha or Sangoma in South Africa or medicine men in America. That proves absolutely nothing.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just stating the fact that Jesus doesn't appear to be particularly unique.

There is a type of religious thought which leads men to leave into lonely places to seek God, but this in no way disproves or even makes anything such figures say in any way less believable.

Yea I agree here. I think there is some sort of God-divinity which tugs at people to seek quiet places and find peace and joy in those moments of the divine. I think Jesus was one such person, but he lived in a specific culture and a specific time in history and, as a result, what we see written by his followers is a veneration of their leader and a religious architecture which enforces exclusivity. Jesus' words are interpreted from this architecture of orthodoxy, but alternate interpretations exist.

The orthodox interpretation just doesn't "feel" correct for me.

Read up on Dom Bede Griffiths for a good view of a Christian who thoroughly emmersed himself in Hindu thought (He was a universalist, but you can't have everything).

What book title specifically?

Assuming Pauline Christianity is an accruel onto Jewish Christianity is just that, an assumption. Again an irrelevancy to whether that tradition is true or not.

As to miraculous events, all peoples and all religions have miraculous events, even secular ones (alien abductions, energy quanta transfer etc.), again it has no bearing on the truth of any tradition if its adherents claim miracles.

I'm interested to know what you mean by a tradition being "true". Can you elaborate?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Hey, Christian posters. I am beginning to think this leftright guy is not really looking for the truth. I might be wrong about this, but to me his behavior in this thread is starting to resemble the behavior of a typical atheist. They make a statement or pose a question about Christianity hoping to get the attention of a Christian who will respond thinking he/she is helping the atheist find answers about God or about the bible. Whenever Christians respond with biblical answers the atheist responds by refuting the answers, and then asks more questions, refutes subsequent answers, and ask more questions, etc. Atheists use this strategy to attempt to draw Christians into an endless debate which gives the atheist the opportunity to show their contempt for Christians and God.

It is a sad and endless debate which has been going on for thousands of years. There are no clearcut "answers". My interpretation of Christianity and Jesus is simply different from yours and you seem to interpret these differences as hostility towards God.

Has anyone noticed that he has an argument against all responses that attempt to support the validity of scripture?

My interpretation of scripture is different than yours. My "arguments" are simply observations from my perspective.

Also, it seems to me that he has completely dismissed the “personal” experiences that some of us have shared in our posts as being either unbelievable and/or irrelevant to the Christian faith

It is difficult to use a personal experience to convince someone of anything. No doubt personal experiences can be very powerful, but personal experiences can regularly be wrong, misguided or untrue.

I have read all the personal testimonies on this thread, and some are very interesting. But, because of the nature of personal testimony, I have nothing to say to these testimonies other than: "Hey, that's great for you that you had that experience and believe it to be true."

and quoting scripture to him is a waste of time since he obviously does not believe it to be true.

Read the OP. That is literally the entire point of this thread. Why did you expect any different?

After He reminded me of that scripture, my first thought was to delete all of this post and just let it go, but instead I will leave it to show that my heart was in the wrong place, and that I have been corrected by the very Word of God that leftright doesn't believe is the truth. Much scripture has been quoted in this thread, and God just reminded me that He is completely capable of using His Word to accomplish His purpose.

John

Sorry if you've found this thread difficult, annoying, harsh or frustrating. I'm not sure what you expected when you joined into this thread. I have enjoyed the discussions thus far

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just stating the fact that Jesus doesn't appear to be particularly unique.



Yea I agree here. I think there is some sort of God-divinity which tugs at people to seek quiet places and find peace and joy in those moments of the divine. I think Jesus was one such person, but he lived in a specific culture and a specific time in history and, as a result, what we see written by his followers is a veneration of their leader and a religious architecture which enforces exclusivity. Jesus' words are interpreted from this architecture of orthodoxy, but alternate interpretations exist.

The orthodox interpretation just doesn't "feel" correct for me.



What book title specifically?



I'm interested to know what you mean by a tradition being "true". Can you elaborate?

Griffiths wrote a lot of books on Christian Hindu dialogue. Try his autobiography a Golden String or his work Christ in India. He actually went to live in various ashrams in India as a Benedictine monk.

Jesus was unique from my perspective as He was the only time God became Incarnate and accomplished the Atonement. While others have claimed to be gods incarnate or to have relieved sins or whatnot, none resemble Jesus in Manifestation and then Sacrifice for our sins. Others resemble aspects of Christ's story, but never His story in totality, and of course I hold Jesus' incarnation and Resurrection to be True.

Now on to that thorny word 'True'. My very name invokes Pilate's reply to Jesus: "What is Truth?" when Jesus said that everyone in the truth listens to His voice.
Now we can argue the idea of truth as that which is valid, but how do you establish validity? Every person has their own ideas of what they consider true.
In modern Deconstruction, we break this down into axioms and assertions to see how this was decided to be so, leaving separated strands of truth-like statements.
Further in Bernstein's non-duality we approach a point where everything is true but also not-true. This is akin to the idea of non-duality in Buddhism when you reach the One - of Truth and not-Truth or if you prefer in Brahma.
In Scientific method Truth is denied entirely, as only repeatability and falsifiability matter, therefore nothing is ever proven, just not disproven. (So incidentally, Science can not make any statements on validity of metaphysical concepts such as God without being unscientific). Similarly when people adopt ideas like probability, they merely shift the onus down the ladder as how is something more probable? It remains an assumption or axiom, as probability itself requires an assumption of a fixed Truth.
In common usage we use it more like a Platonic Form or Idea. For the idea of Truth requires an Absolute upon which it can be weighed or based or it is a meaningless concept, which few would countenance.
Therefore, my short answer is that which is true, is that which is from God. This is a greatly simplified form of my answer. You could argue this is a circle argument or axiom itself, or posit multiple positions against it, which would be valid but this is far too complex a question for the medium of a forum unless we use hundreds of posts to answer it as it touches on veins of philosophy and religion going back eons.
In my opinion, Jesus said that He was the way, the TRUTH and the life and although I can spend days typing out the various permutations of the question 'what is true?', this is as succinct a statement I can make.

 

[Winkaglow]

God made man for relationship and partnership. The supreme ethic that God has given to us is the ethic of LOVE (the peak of all emotional and intellectual alignment). We can never have LOVE without weaving into it the freedom of the will. For God to violate our free will would be to violate our freedom to think, choose, LOVE. When LOVE is our supreme ethic and the freedom of the will chooses His LOVE, and when we choose to invite His Kingdom (mind, soul, body, spirit) to live in us (right here and right now). When we choose to allow God to ultimately reign supreme in our lives, then the voices of intellect, arguments, reasoning, fear, doubt, confusion, etc., begin to take a back seat so that God's voice can be heard.

first earth vs. new earth: Rev. 21:1-3 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea (confusion). Matthew 5:5 - we shall "inherit the earth"

voices: Genesis 6:15 - Noah heard the 'voice' of God; Matt 2:13 - The Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream "get up"; John 20:29 - Jesus said "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

 

[expos4ever]

It is a sad and endless debate which has been going on for thousands of years. There are no clearcut "answers". My interpretation of Christianity and Jesus is simply different from yours and you seem to interpret these differences as hostility towards God.

I don't wish to seem uncharitable but I suggest there are reasons for us to at least suspect that you are not entirely open to an even-handed consideration for the arguments for substantial truth of the Christian worldview. To be fair, while I have focused almost exclusively on your response to my posts, I think there is at least some indication that you resist ideas that are clearly legitimate candidates for consideration.

I have asserted what I suggest should be apparent to an entirely open-minded person: "prophecies" - especially ones in a book like the Bible with repeated use of literary device - can be expressed as "allegories" with non-literal fulfillment. You seem to resist this notion, although, to be fair, you do seem somewhat open to this. However, I would think that I should not have had to work as hard to convince you of what I see as the self-evident reasonableness of what I am proposing.

And, to be frank, in other ways you seem overly resistant to what I think are perfectly reasonable ideas. For example, you seemed to resist accepting the possibility that the Old Testament narrative has more than one "legitimate" interpretation - you seemed bent on the notion that if Paul "re-interpreted" it, he cannot have been doing anything else than "forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Perhaps I (and maybe others are not expressing ourselves clearly enough) but I confess that I am leaning to thinking you are not willing to consider an alternative worldview with an entirely open mind. However, I concede that this is a very difficult thing for anyone to do.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't wish to seem uncharitable but I suggest there are reasons for us to at least suspect that you are not entirely open to an even-handed consideration for the arguments for substantial truth of the Christian worldview. To be fair, while I have focused almost exclusively on your response to my posts, I think there is at least some indication that you resist ideas that are clearly legitimate candidates for consideration.

"Open-minded" is an interesting concept. For most people, someone is "close-minded" if they do not agree with you and "open-minded" if they agree. I simply don't agree with you and, to you, that makes me "close-minded". When I ask questions or bring up concerns or perceived flaws in your positions, to take this as an "indication that resist ideas that are clearly legitimate candidates".

All I am doing is asking questions and bringing up concerns. If I cannot be convinced perhaps it is is because I am biased (and you are too!) or perhaps it is because your arguments are not as air-tight as you think them to be.

I have asserted what I suggest should be apparent to an entirely open-minded person: "prophecies" - especially ones in a book like the Bible with repeated use of literary device - can be expressed as "allegories" with non-literal fulfillment. You seem to resist this notion, although, to be fair, you do seem somewhat open to this.

Yes, I said it was entirely possible. But I see no framework for determining which prophecies are to be taken literally and which are to be taken allegorically.

Because of this lack of a framework, the prophecies have much more wiggle room to be fulfilled which decreases the potency of the prophecy. If a prophecy is vague, it becomes like a horoscope: able to be fit to a multitude of situations.

And, to be frank, in other ways you seem overly resistant to what I think are perfectly reasonable ideas. For example, you seemed to resist accepting the possibility that the Old Testament narrative has more than one "legitimate" interpretation - you seemed bent on the notion that if Paul "re-interpreted" it, he cannot have been doing anything else than "forcing a square peg into a round hole.

The re-interpretation of holy texts is, to me, just more evidence that religion is man-made. We re-interpret texts to fit with the prevailing cultural norms or our own biases and ideas.

As I have mentioned several times: do you not see the parallels between Mormonism-Christianity and Christianity-Judaism? Why is Christianity's re-interpretation and new holy book valid while Mormonism's re-interpretation and new holy book invalid?

Perhaps I (and maybe others are not expressing ourselves clearly enough) but I confess that I am leaning to thinking you are not willing to consider an alternative worldview with an entirely open mind. However, I concede that this is a very difficult thing for anyone to do.

Indeed. It is difficult to change your worldview. May I point out that you are not changing your view either?

 

[expos4ever]

"Open-minded" is an interesting concept. For most people, someone is "close-minded" if they do not agree with you and "open-minded" if they agree. I simply don't agree with you and, to you, that makes me "close-minded".

I never said that, and you must surely know this. I said that I thought you resisted reasonable hypotheses. There is a HUGE difference! My basic point is that when a perfectly reasonable hypothesis is put forward, the proper thing to do is to basically suggest that the relevant case be made. Granted, you did ask for the case. But, I suggest it is clear you made a number of statements that you suggest that you are pre-disposed to not give that case due consideration. For example, I have stated that Paul re-interpreted the Old Testament narrative. I think the unbiased response would be something like this:

"Clearly it is possible that the same story can have multiple interpretations, each equally consistent with the details of the story; go ahead and make your case."

Instead, I suggest you said stuff like this:

I'm not buying into any interpretation. I'm just stating that the Jewish interpretation is much more straightforward than Paul's and easier to follow. For example, the Bible verses I quote clearly seem to indicate a Messiah who will change the world and usher in an era of utopia. Jesus did not do that. Paul re-interpreted this to mean a "personal change" and a "spiritual utopia". But you've really got to shove a square peg in a round hole to make that interpretation work with the prophecies in Isaiah.

Well, that is indeed your position (although I think you misread Paul on the "spiritual utopia" stuff). But surely you must be aware that the "ease" and "straightforwardness" of an interpretation are not the only metrics of an interpretation. If that were the case, then all allegory and certain other literary devices would lose their power. Since you surely must be aware of this, I suggest that, perhaps subconsciously you resist consideration of alternative ideas. It's interesting how in your response above, you misread me as suggesting that you are close-minded because you don't agree with my interpretation. Well, I never said anything like that; instead, I suggested that you resisted consideration.

Another example that I suggest demonstrates a real, albeit perhaps subtle, a priori disinclination to give even-handed consideration to new ideas:

I'm saying its difficult to see how outlandish Paul's interpretation was now that is has been filled out and developed over 2000 years by theologians and philosophers like Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

I suggest that use of the word "outlandish" is a tell-tale sign of someone who really has their heels dug in. More later.