Why I have such trouble believing in Christianity

[D.W.Washburn]

Now that was bad!

I laughed!

 

[Rajni]

Chuck Norris'?

LOL!

 

[andreha]

Chuck Norris'?

That's funny.

Although, I must point out that only Jesus can travel faster than 1 000 000 000 light years per second. Chuck is good, but he ain't that good.

 

[QuakerOats]

I found a couple of funny captions at lol celebs...

 

[Atlantians]

You are right. The Bible says that no other name than the name of Jesus has been given under heaven by which man shall be saved. It is indeed our mission to tell that to everybody. The thought of me causing someone to go into eternal darkness is very scary and very sad.

Then God Bless you and take heart.

I find it very interesting that for the Gospel to be so vitally important, it sure took a very long while for the good news to get out. Nearly 1500 years just to reach the New World, for instance (unless you're Mormon).

The traditions of God via Noah came to all people.
All are without excuse.

If Christianity is indeed the only way, it would seem that God needs a refresher course in logistics.

God elected whom He will. He is under no obligation.
The light is seen by all, none are without excuse.

Might I suggest to you that one reason for this is that we do not share your interpretation of the Scriptures.

The scripture was speaking for itself. Jesus was speaking for Himself.

I think that most of us have examined the concept of biblical inerrancy and found it lacking.

If your issue was interpretation, as you imply above, then why bring up Biblical inerrancy? Might I suggest that your comment about 'not sharing my interpretation' is merely a canard? Rather: You reject the scriptures themselves.

Not only do the various books of the Bible contain plainly apparent contradictions among themselves,

Hardly.

but, there is also an incongruence between the Bible's view of the world and what we now know to be physical reality. E.g. the sun does not revolve around the earth and no amount of Josh McDowell apologetics can change the fact that the authors of the Bible believed that it did.

The view of the earth and the sun of the ancient near easterners is utterly irrelevant. The Bible never teaches that the Earth is the centre of the Solar System. It uses phenomenological and poetic language in the same manner many today do.

But because you begin from such a different starting point than the rest of us, your posts go largely ignored.

Great point. You are right.
My starting point is the word of God revealed and breathed through scripture, which is sufficient for all.
2 Tim. 3:16- All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB)

Yours is not. Your starting point is entirely based outside of any knowledge of God revealed in scripture, as you reject scripture itself as a starting point.
Any scripture you accept is inconsistently patched together according to your likes and dislikes... or twisted beyond recognition.

If anything I have said is untrue, feel free to attempt a correction.

The Apostle Paul was wise to be a Jew among Jews and a Gentile among Gentiles. Beginning at the same point as his audience, he was more likely to be heard.

Therefore: I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Um ... eh? is right.
Could you try the above again in a more understandable fashion? Thanks in advance!

Ok:

I have found that by not limiting my view of the Divine strictly to a fundamentalist/evangelical/right-wing/conservative-Republican paradigm,

Are you serious in your implication that those terms are synonymous?

Don't you think it's unfair that an all powerful God created the universe with the potential for Satan's rebellion, the fall of man, sin and hell, then turned around and made humans like you responsible for causing others to go into eternal torment? If you have to take the blame, then I think you should also have been allowed to share some of God's responsibility in setting this whole thing up at the beginning.

Who said it was her responsibility? I didn't.

The fact is: God saves whom He will. We are not a 'tabula rasa'.
We are depraved entirely.

Ah, it is God's job to save souls. To say it is up to us to "accept" or "get others to accept" is making us the ones responsible for our own salvation. It is no act of ours that saves us.

Hopefully, Regular Guy can explain better than I. This is the Lutheran teaching on salvation, and I cannot explain it very well!

RegularGuy has rejected the historic teachings of Luther and Lutheranism on the authority of scripture.

I would suggest http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/ for an orthodox and historic Lutheran Perspective.

You did good!

We are saved by grace apart from works of the Law. To say "you must accept" Jesus makes acceptance a work of the Law. We do not participate in our own salvation. If we can save ourselves even a little, then the cross of Christ is of no effect.

Now on what basis do you make this claim when you reject the scriptures as being authoritative and undermine them through the rejection of Biblical inerrancy?

 

[DeanM]

The traditions of God via Noah came to all people.
All are without excuse.

One wonders how the story of the great flood appears in so many different cultures, yet there are so many different gods being thanked.

God elected whom He will. He is under no obligation.
The light is seen by all, none are without excuse.

http://theadventureblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/primitive-tribe-remains-uncontacted.html

But here's a great picture for the link-weary.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Who said it was her responsibility? I didn't.

andreha said the thought of her causing someone to go into eternal darkness is very scary and very sad. Perhaps you can help me assure her that she is not responsible for causing anyone to go into eternal darkness so she will not be burdened with such scary and sad thoughts.

 

[TheManeki]

http://theadventureblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/primitive-tribe-remains-uncontacted.html

But here's a great picture for the link-weary.

Thanks for reminding me about this!

Yup. Very bad at logistics.

Bringing Noah into the picture isn't much of a help, either, since an omniscient God would realize that "Noah's traditions" don't cut the mustard in terms of salvation. If they did, Jesus wouldn't have been needed.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

RegularGuy has rejected the historic teachings of Luther and Lutheranism on the authority of scripture.

I will address first the form of this comment and then its substance.

Form: Atlantians, if you wish to take issue with me, please direct your remarks to me. To talk about a person is rude. I know that you believe yourself to be right, but being right in no way exempts one from the requirements of civility and decency. I recommend that you read the 13th chapter of First Corinthians. Read the entire epistle for its fullest context, the 13th chapter for the immediate context, and pay especial attention to the second verse.

Do I need to remind you that you are a guest in WWMC? The welcome mat on the doorstep is in no way an invitation to defecate on the living room carpet.

Substance: This remark of yours has no substance. It is an ad hominem attack. You impugn my Lutheran orthodoxy because I reject biblical inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy was not even articulated until the 19th century. At that it was a reaction against the perceived "threat" of rising modernism. I know that some quotes of Luther's are used as proof-texts for his own adherence to inerrancy. In the larger context of his life and works it becomes clear that he was by no means an inerrantist in the modern sense of the word.

Although I think that inerrancy is wrong-headed, I would not go so far as some do to brand it heresy. Because bibliology is not addressd in the creeds, and because it is not necessary for salvation, I believe that inerrancy falls within the spectrum of Christian orthodoxy. However, when a doctrine of inerrancy is made a test of orthodoxy, or when it shades (as so often it does) into bibliolatry, it becomes both heretical and dangerous.

I would suggest http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/ for an orthodox and historic Lutheran Perspective.

The website to which you have linked represents a minority Lutheran voice.

Now on what basis do you make this claim when you reject the scriptures as being authoritative and undermine them through the rejection of Biblical inerrancy?

The authority of Scripture does not depend upon its inerrancy.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Once more unto the breach...

Great point. You are right.
My starting point is the word of God revealed and breathed through scripture, which is sufficient for all.
2 Tim. 3:16- All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB)

Your starting point is your interpretation of the Bible. As I tried to suggest above, you might want to make the case for inerrancy before you expect others to share your view. And for what it's worth, circular arguments are not proof.

Yours is not. Your starting point is entirely based outside of any knowledge of God revealed in scripture, as you reject scripture itself as a starting point.
Any scripture you accept is inconsistently patched together according to your likes and dislikes... or twisted beyond recognition.

If anything I have said is untrue, feel free to attempt a correction.

If you really want to know about my hermeneutical principles, try asking a question instead of making baseless accusations.

 

[Followers4christ]

Hmmm, thanks everyone for encouraging me so much. I have honestly been considering Hinduism lately and I think I may very well choose to be a Hindu.

If you choose to reject Christ and become of the Hindu religion then thats your choice. But please next time you claim to be a christian and follow Christ count the cost and understand that following Jesus Christ is a radical step. That should not be taken lightly for God dose not want lukewarm,thumb-sucking christians (Matthew 7:21-23,Revelation 3:15-16). He wants a bride that will follow him to the ends of the earth and leave everything else behind (Luke 9:23,Luke 9:57-62). If someone really loves God then they should not let their own selfish desires come between them and God.For God is love and why would anyone not want that for thier lives.

 

[JacksLadder]

The traditions of God via Noah came to all people.
All are without excuse.

Agreed the sins of the fathers have lead some people to damnation. To bad but just the way it is. A father or mother can screw up a child for life. That dose not however make the child unaccountable for actions for the law is written on their hearts.

 

[DeanM]

If someone really loves God then they should not let their own selfish desires come between them and God.For God is love and why would anyone not want that for thier lives.

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, it sounds like you're taking issue with a member whose path seems to be on shaky ground.

Imagine how the disciples must have felt.

 

[Rajni]

Originally Posted by Chaela I have found that by not limiting my view of the Divine strictly to a fundamentalist/evangelical/right-wing/conservative-Republican paradigm,

Are you serious in your implication that those terms are synonymous?

I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
They make up a paradigm which weighed in heavily on my Christian worldview for a good 20 or so years.



.

 

[Bick]

"The" Bible consisted of autographs penned by the apostles and/or their contemporaries. "The" Bible no longer exists because "The" autographs no longer exist. Therefore, whatever fragments of manuscripts you may possess are not "The" Bible written by God. They are fallible copies transcribed by fallible men who do not possess supernatural apostolic authority to produce inspired inerrant Scripture as in the case of the originals. Until you can produce "The" authentic Bible and not just a bunch of modern reproductions, then it is only logical to doubt your authority in proclaiming what God did or did not write.

MY COMMENTS: Of course the original autographs no longer exist. But Hebrew Scribes were trained to copy exactly from the originals, and then, through the centuries, more copies, called 'scrolls', were made.

Most English versions of the OT basically use the Masoretic Text.

As for the Greek Scriptures. There are over 5000 manuscripts, some small, some almost complete. While variances do occur between the Byzantine Texts and the Alexandrian or Western Texts, nothing is changed as to the Cardinal Doctrines of Salvation, Justification, etc.

Here is a quote from a web site commenting about the textual differences:

"This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray. (22)
​

To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,

We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus."


My friend, I urge you to research the history of the New Testament, and you will see that what we have today in the English versions is the true Theology, the true message of love and hope for mankind because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, his burial and his resurrection.








​

 

[Im_A]

if I get in trouble for this, oh well, i think it needs to be said.

i've noticed your icon changes off and on quite a bit, between completely different world views that i would personally find hard to imagine how one could go through those changes so quickly but i also see in your profile and blogs that you suffer from some disability and i remember in a thread in Non-Christian Religion about you thinking about changing to Hinduism and how other people knew of your disability that you suffer from. your getting no help here. i mean i understand funny stuff going on a thread in a discussion (meaning the chuck norris stuff), but come on, this redundant theological debate? take it to the theology forum in my opinion. this is a thread about someone's faith shaking, and that person suffers from a disability. the theological debate is meaningless in comparision to someone that suffers from a disability and may be having a hard time figuring out her own worldview about things. it never ceases to amaze me how people are more prone to defend their perspective than try to help someone out. the sad fact, non-religious people and religious people are all guilty of it.

my opinion Paladingirl, take a break from religion. do you think its possible that religion is enhancing whatever disability you suffer from? now this isn't to say that i'm saying give up on it. i briefly read some of your blogs just to try to get a better picture of your situation. i noticed your going to a psychologist and thumbs up to you for that ya know? seriously, that's great, i hope that it's been going good for you since that date that you posted about that and keep it up . you mentioned about the guy your with in your blogs. how he's demading you to change. and i don't know the context of your relationship so i'm not going to judge it either way. but a consideration, your dealing with this disability all the time i take it. your in a relationship that the person is saying change, change, change. and i've noticed your icons are always, changing, changing, changing.

hon, my opinion, focus on the one absolute you know...you, your life. whatever disability you suffer from, keep finding the ways that you can through your psychologist to keep it under control. and maybe when that is more under control, maybe you'll be able to think clearer about the issue of religion. if your relationship with this guy is constantly changing, that won't help anything either. so focusing on just your life right now, and to control the things you suffer from, maybe get this relationship of yours in better standing (i say that will all respect but i'm of the opinion that a man that demands change, change, change from a woman that suffers from a disability of some sort, something isn't right about that to me personally. no man should demand change from a woman in that situation, he should be a man and help you find the ways to better your life) and maybe you'll find yourself able to make a better, more clear desicion for your life in the area of religion.

maybe you have already. its been awhile since you've posted in this thread. i did notice that less than a month ago, you said you were close to becoming a Hindu, and now your icon says Methodist. i hope the best, and just remember, you get other areas of your life in control you may find yourself able to make clear and more substantial desicions for other areas in your life. i sure hope the best for you.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular.

Sounds like agreement with an established faith determined the correct reading. Faith was necessary to determine the reading rather than the reading necessary to determine the faith. Otherwise, how would you know what it is you were trying to establish in the first place?

We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured;.....

Looks like a case of believing is seeing rather than seeing is believing. If one does not wish to obscure their faith, they will give themselves permission to believe scripture was not seriously corrupted. Faith is the permission slip you give yourself to believe things when there is no indisputable evidence.

The two quotes above extracted from your post contain a subtle hint of circular reasoning. If you believe the bible because it supports your faith and disbelieve that which does not support the bible, then you’ve already come to the conclusion that your faith was right before bringing the bible into it.

My friend, I urge you to research the history of the New Testament, and you will see that what we have today in the English versions is the true Theology, the true message of love and hope for mankind because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, his burial and his resurrection.

I have 35 years of acquaintance with the New Testament. What I finally discovered is what I believe Jesus discovered. The first great heresy in Western Abrahamic religion was committed by Jesus Christ who believed Himself to be God, for he said things like, “I and my Father are one. He who has seen me has seen the Father. Before Abraham was, I AM. I am the resurrection and the life.” Unlike in Eastern religions, that is something you are not supposed to believe in the Western world, much less say out loud. Jesus tried to find language in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures with which to express his state of consciousness. He certainly did have a transformation of consciousness and was crucified for it. He had committed an act of insubordination and treason against the idea of cosmic government. If you believe that God is a monarch like some kind of giant “ego”, then to claim of equality is to introduce democracy into the Kingdom of Heaven, to usurp divine authority and speak in its name without proper authorization. And they asked Jesus by what authority he spoke, and he was tricky about answering. He asked them by what authority John the Baptist spoke. Was it by the authority of heaven or men? Notice , he did not ask by what authority Isaiah or Moses spoke. Moses became an official authority, and if you could wrangle it that what you said was simply an extension of what Moses said because rabbi so-and-so said it, who got it from rabbi so-and-so, who got it from rabbi so-and-so who got it from Moses, then it’s okay. To be an authority today in the academic world depends on documentation. It’s not enough to say, “For I say unto you.” You must put in your footnotes. The more the footnotes, the more the authority. So when somebody speaks as authority it simply means they speak as the author. That’s all it means. It’s a statement of which you are the author and for which you assume responsibility. That is to speak with authority. It is to speak from the origin. The real Gospel of Jesus was hushed up from its inception. It was about waking up and finding out who you are. When the Jews were about to stone Jesus for blasphemy, they said it was not for any good works that he had done, but because he being a man made himself God. He pointed out that in their law it says ye are gods. He asked why they would stone him for claiming he is a son of God. In the KJV it says “the” son. The word “the” is in italics, because it was interpolated by the translators. In Greek, leaving out the definite article is equivalent to having the indefinite article. It should read “a son of God”. To be a son of God is to be of the nature of God. What happened was that because this was blasphemy to the Jews, it also became blasphemy for the Christians for anyone else but for Jesus to say. Okay Jesus, you are Divine. We will let you say it, but there it stops. No more of this panentheistic god/man businesses. As a result the real message of Jesus was made irrelevant by making Jesus the exception instead of the prototype. He got kicked “upstairs” so to speak, in spite of the fact that he said greater works shall you do. Religious authorities will have none of it, because you just cannot have that kind of thing going on in a monarchical universe. They treat the Kingdom like a pyramid and they are at the top right under God being His mouthpieces and representatives. The Bishops of the Church established a monarchy on earth, and the sacraments became the door. Protestants turned the Bible into the sacramental door. The words of Jesus are fossilized as if God cannot still speak. He is bound by His own Scripture not to go beyond that which is written. It is time for the old monarchial model to be replaced. It is important for the human being to realize in some sense of the word, whatever it means; he is actually one with God. To recognize you are a part of God is another way of saying you feel profoundly rooted in and connected with the universe. The whole energy that expresses itself in the in the galaxies is intimate. It is not something to which you are a stranger but is that with which you are intimately bound up, that in your seeing, hearing, talking, thinking and moving, you express that in which we all live and move and have our being. And if you don’t know and feel that, naturally you feel alien and a stranger in the world. Those who feel a stranger are likely to eventually feel hostile. They end up trying to bring others into submission to their will, authority and belief system. The notion of panentheism is blasphemy because the institutional church says you can’t have that going on in a monarchial universe or have democracy in the Kingdom of Heaven. I ask you by what authority you believe what you do, and you will likely point to a book. It is a set of Scriptures to which you submit, but you did not author them. I say it is the authority of men. What I point to is the same kind of awakening, realization and transformation of consciousness that Jesus experienced. It is patterned after authenticity not literary hearsay. I don’t need to appeal to Moses, Peter, Paul or rabbi so-and-so. Only non-mediated spirituality maybe testified to as first-hand exprience, not the transmission of literary hearsay. My hope is that one day you stop to wonder why Jesus used John the Baptist’s as an example to answer the Pharisees when they accused him of blasphemy. Dare to go against the Pharisees like Jesus did, despite the fact that the authorities tell you that you are sinful, depraved, fallen and that it is blasphemous to believe otherwise. Jesus asked in the Gospel of John that the disciplines may be one, even as the Father and Jesus were one. Jesus also said “I AM”. Along with Jesus and the disciples, you also have access to the Christ consciousness that realizes, “I AM”. You are part of the Divine democracy. May you wake up and realize your“authentic” true Self. Stop judging your experiences according to Scripture and start judging Scripture according to your experiences.

 

[AzA]

...If you believe that God is a monarch like some kind of giant “ego”, then to claim of equality is to introduce democracy into the Kingdom of Heaven, to usurp divine authority and speak in its name without proper authorization. And they asked Jesus by what authority he spoke, and he was tricky about answering. He asked them by what authority John the Baptist spoke. Was it by the authority of heaven or men? Notice , he did not ask by what authority Isaiah or Moses spoke. Moses became an official authority, and if you could wrangle it that what you said was simply an extension of what Moses said because rabbi so-and-so said it, who got it from rabbi so-and-so, who got it from rabbi so-and-so who got it from Moses, then it’s okay. To be an authority today in the academic world depends on documentation. It’s not enough to say, “For I say unto you.” You must put in your footnotes. The more the footnotes, the more the authority. So when somebody speaks as authority it simply means they speak as the author. That’s all it means. It’s a statement of which you are the author and for which you assume responsibility. That is to speak with authority. It is to speak from the origin....

My hope is that one day you stop to wonder why Jesus used John the Baptist’s as an example to answer the Pharisees when they accused him of blasphemy.

You have given the answer.

Funny enough, I introduced this idea to a few friends at a Bible study recently. They had never looked at it that way. John dissociated from every traditional source of authority and power, even those to which he was entitled by birth. And that was as deliberate as his prenatal care. For Jesus, the Dissociator was the greatest prophet.

(May I put in a request for shorter paragraphs from you, Tube? )

 

[D.W.Washburn]

In Greek, leaving out the definite article is equivalent to having the indefinite article.

This is not entirely the case. The lack of an article does not always indicate a lack of particularity in Koine Greek. Sometimes a noun is used without the article because it is considered the unique example of its kind. For instance, at Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint, and again at John 1:1, the words "In the beginning..." occur without the article. Obviously they are not to be translated "In a beginning...."

Whether, in any particular book of the Bible, Jesus is to be considered one child of God among others, or the unique (KJV liked "only-begotten") Child of God, is a matter requiring careful exegesis.

This is a quibble, however. Your overall point, reading the Scripture in light of experience and not vice-versa, is well taken.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

You have given the answer.

I have to admit plagiarizing Allan Watts for this one.

(May I put in a request for shorter paragraphs from you, Tube? )

My answer is the same as the maid on Family Guy when asked to do things she does not want to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVK4Dc4wBAE