Dan56

In my view, it doesn't prevent reason, it just interferes with what we think is reasonable. People generally question the bible because they have trouble reconciling some of whats written. There's nothing wrong with questioning what we don't understand or what we struggle to agree with, but the liberal claim is that the bible can't be true because it conflicts with what they think. Isn't that why most people question the bible just as it is written? "Thou shalt not commit murder" is a law that makes sense, so liberals accept that the bible is dead right about that rule. But a rule like "do not commit fornication" might interfere with a persons personal pleasure, so it would obviously need to be the result of biblical altercation. Whats agreeable is true, and whats not agreeable is an inconvenient truth. If only the bible handed out a range of beliefs for us to choose from, then we would all be home free. But unfortunately, Jesus preached one God, one Truth, and one Life. Without any tangible proof one way or the other, I suspect that those who have concluded that the bible was altered, have based their conclusion solely on their dislike of what the bible says. By convincing themselves that scriptures were tampered with, it allows the reader to cherry-pick what "feels right" while disregarding what feels wrong. I'm not from Missouri, but "show me" who edited the scriptures? Cool has repeatedly requested this, but I've seen no evidence that shows me where it happened, just conjecture and opinion. There's zero evidence that Constantine influenced church leaders to change scripture. To the contrary, many NT manuscript fragments have been found which predate Constantine by over a hundred years, which strongly suggest that the council at Nicea preserved the word. NT Manuscripts

Sorry to hear that... Laws with no teeth are useless and ineffective. Your anti-violence stand is admirable, but I doubt it would have brought much comfort to those poor Canaanite kids who were being used as roman candles? If I'm blind, its not deliberately. Why do you suppose the passage suddenly turns from sacrifice to virginity? Why did Jephthah's daughter suddenly request 2 months to bewail her virginity? (Judges 11:37). She was sad over the fact that she would never marry, not that she was going to die. The daughter didn't bewail her coming death, but her virginity. Does that make sense to you? Did God flip-flop against his own law? At the end of two months, the daughter returned to her father, and he carried out his vow (now notice what it says) "She knew no man." That was the sacrifice made imo. Imo, it was a test of faith and obedience for Israel. You are correct sir, we know the Lord was certainly with Joshua. I guess for the same reason God hasn't sent any preachers to preach to Osama bin Laden, it would have been a suicide mission. Forgiveness is there for the asking... If your idea of compassion is a God who stands idly by while people burn children alive in sacrifice to false gods, then I think your asking a bit much?

These are God's judgments and God's laws, not mine. However, regarding the Canaanites sacrificing kids, I do agree with God's decision to kill them. In fact, if I was around back then, I would have helped eradicate that kind of wickedness, and I'm pretty certain you would too. Remember that God did spare Rahab and her family from Jericho, and Lot's family from Sodom & Gomorrah. Not because they were good, but because Rahab & Lot had faith in God. The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' (religious celibacy). The context makes it clear that Jephthah kept her from ever marrying. Human sacrifice did not conform to the law. Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man” (Judges 11:39). It had nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but with a dedicated life to a perpetual virginity. God’s love for the world does not mean he will ignore sin. God is also a God of justice. The second half of John 3:16 list a condition "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish". The Canaanites believed in other gods and they perished.

I personally chose the KJV because it is complimented with study tools which allow the reader to refer back to the manuscripts for precise Hebrew and Greek translations. The modernized English versions are more difficult to reference. That was my point, it would have been difficult for bronze age men to understand a scientific explanation of what causes wind, rain, or snow. God created all things, including nature. I have a feeling that even if God described it in modern scientific terms, you would still claim that his explanation doesn't prove anything? The people of Canaan were wicked; "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). What ought to make you cringe is witnessing a child being burned alive as a sacrifice to false gods. Jihadist kill innocent people in the name of their god, just like the Canaanites did, so comparing that kind of wickedness to God's judgment is ridiculous. Sometimes a slap on the wrist just doesn't suffice, I trust that God made the correct decision by destroying those cities. Yes, prophesy is what makes it all so believable to me. The message was intended for everyone with ears to hear and eyes to read

Prove all things against what? The word of God, which you don't believe is accurate? 1 John 4:1-3 relates. Imo, the parable in Matthew 13 has nothing to do with the Roman Church, unless the RCC is the enemy? We don't do the work, God will take care of the tares, his angels are the reapers who will gather and burn the tares (children of Satan). Jesus explains the meaning in verse 39, I believe it also relates to Rev 14:15.

Because mine basically says the same thing in a single sentence.. Concise and efficient ("Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God.") I see nothing in the quotes from Paul that would deny the trinity? Christ becoming our high priest after the order of Melchizedek does not negate the triune. Melchizedek means "king of righteousness". Melchizedek was the image of God's Spirit, and became our intercessor. Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" and also "For this is love of God: that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grevious" (1 John 5:3).

For me, the word of God isn't alleged, nor are there variants of his word, because its contained in the bible. So I didn't need to rummage around and cherry-pick what I think is true, God conveniently condensed it all into one book. In Psalms 135:7, the KJV uses "treasuries" instead of "storehouses". Its expected that God would speak in the language which people commonly used when speaking of his works, and would not go into a philosophical or scientific explanation of the phenomena of nature. He brings the wind out of his treasuries - Where he has, as it were, treasured it up, to be used when there should be occasion for it. Genesis 2:5&6 state that it had not rained on earth, so you could surmise that rainbows could not have occurred until after the flood. But even if the rainbow existed before the flood, it became emblematic of the covenant (God's promise). This would be like bread and wine existing before the Passover, but after the Passover these preexisting emblems took on a new meaning. Yes, God did institute the death penalty for breaking some of his laws. And yes, I think God was justified in destroying 30 cities, they were warned and ignored God, which is never a wise thing to do. If a person believes God created everything on earth in 6 days, then its obviously not difficult to believe he's capable of turning a woman into a pillar of salt. These are referencing 2 different cups imo. One is mentioned when Jesus is answering a disciple and the other in prayer to the Father. Jesus willfully accepted the cup before him (crucifixion), but he obviously regretted the other cup, being the cup of wrath poured out after the days of tribulation.

The Godhead is revealed in 3 distinct ways, which are one. God the Father is the unseen, omnipresent source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. The Father is the thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the deed making it a reality. The Father loves us, Jesus calls us, and the Spirit quickens us. The common denominator is this trinity, which act with singularity of purpose. I've read all the Gnostics, and I understand Gnosticism. The definition I included was from the dictionary; "Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God." Paul was not Gnostic, he was clearly a proponent of the trinity; "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14), "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord .And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). My understanding of pagan comes from the definition; 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. 2. a person who is NOT A CHRISTIAN, Jew, or Muslim. 3. an irreligious or hedonistic person. If Paul believed in multiple Gods, was not a follower of Christ, and a confessed heathen, then I suppose your correct in defining him as a pagan or Gnostic... The only misdirection is your effort to rewrite the bible to fit a personal philosophy. All your quotes from these so called "scholars" is just biased opinions. The bottom line is that if the Gnostics are right, then the bible is false. And if the bible is right, then all Gnostic writings are heresy. I'm banking on the bible. I don't believe the inspired books were censored, the effort was to preserve them. What was burned was counterfeit gospels written by unknown authors who had no connection to the apostles. People who don't like the biblical message have always tried to change it, by arguing that others must have altered what it says. Its as true today as when the Gnostics were written, people insist on trying to turn the truth into a lie. What is it about the biblical Jesus that you find so revolting? Its so easy to believe and accept, I just don't understand the resistance? Try accepting it instead of investigating it. Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word.

"Gnosis" is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God. The Gnostics had an agenda, they wanted to recast Jesus into a different light because he did not fit their theology. The only way gnosticism could gain acceptance was to discredit the bible. No evidence exist that any verses were edited out of Paul's letters, gnostic interpolations would directly conflict with what Paul actually wrote. We are taught by the written word as well as the indwelling Holy Spirit, so the church political hierarchy could never deny the Holy Spirit, even if they wanted too. The gospels were never infused with paganism, they don't teach polytheism. Gnosticism is an ancient false philosophy written by uninspired anonymous people, they were never biblical manuscripts. Its not difficult to spot them as forgeries because they directly conflict with scripture. In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake were not the ones reading Thomas, Judas, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Gnosticism posed no threat to the empire or Constantine because it denied that Jesus was God who had come in the flesh.

This would also be my question.. IMO, Matthew 28:19 is almost a moot point. When we say "in Jesus name", aren't we invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yeshua literally means “YHVH is salvation”. Jesus said that he and his Father are "one". Jesus also sent "his" Holy Spirit. Thus, when baptizing in Jesus name, its inclusive of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His name is the catalyst for the three. The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus “in His name.” This is because Jesus is the “common denominator” in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent in John 14:26; "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were removed, the over-all content of the NT supports the trinity.

Just wanted to add my sympathy towards your loss. Sounds like your Dad struggled with some vices, but I reckon we all do to some extent. Losing family members isn't always unexpected, but it had to be somewhat traumatic to see him go the way he did.

Well, when people opposed building the mosque near ground zero, they were referred to as Islamic bigots. So I guess anyone who opposes the Gainesville church for burning the Quran next Saturday, is a Christian bigot? Technically, neither is illegal, so both have the religious freedom to build or burn whatever they want. I don't personally support the mosque or the book burning, so I guess religious bigotry runs in my blood

Ten people being murdered is what angers me... Mentioning where the 10 victims were from doesn't bother me at all. The media wasn't provoking an Islamic response, they were simply reporting another Islamic attack. The only prejudice demonstrated was against the 10 people who were executed for being Christians.

How To Get Results from United Airlines! A musician named Dave Carroll recently had difficulty with United Airlines. United apparently damaged his treasured Taylor guitar ($3500) during a flight. Dave spent over 9 months trying to get United to pay for damages caused by baggage handlers to his custom Taylor guitar. During his final exchange with the United Customer Relations Manager, he stated that he was left with no choice other than to create a music video for youtube exposing their lack of cooperation. The Manager responded : "Good luck with that one, pal". So he posted a retaliatory video on youtube. The video has since received over 6.5 million hits. United Airlines contacted the musician and attempted settlement in exchange for pulling the video...... Naturally his response was: "Good luck with that one, pal". Taylor Guitars sent the musician 2 new custom guitars in appreciation for the product recognition from the video that has lead to a sharp increase in orders. Here's the video ....

Christianity does share roots in Judaism, Jesus didn't change one jot or tittle of the law, but the New Covenant is what differentiates the faiths. Same God, but different interpretations of books like Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. You don't need to justify anything Pete. I think its great that you believe what makes sense to you. From a fundamentalist point of view, its a start Perhaps the main difference between fundamentalist and liberals is that liberals discard what they find contradicting and fallible about the bible, while fundamentalist assume the bible is correct and anything that we can't embrace, can't grasp, or can't agree with, is the result of our own lack of understanding. I hope we all keep questioning and wondering about what doesn't make sense to us. "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).

Say what? Jesus said; "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Jesus said; "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). Jesus said; "Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father save Me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour" ( John 12:27). Jesus taught it and he did it, that's the faith I'm talking about. What threats? The biblical quotes simply support what I believe; that Christ was the sacrificial lamb and that he was resurrected. Its seems strange that you guys (liberal Christians) are trying to inject Judaism to support your belief in no hell. Its evident that since you don't want to accept what the NT says about eternal damnation and the lake of fire, that your trying to use Jewish interpretation of the OT to refute what the NT clearly teaches... Seems like quite a stretch to me. Especially since most liberal Christians have less trust in what the old testament teaches than they do the New. Believing in the sacrifice of Christ and his resurrection is Christianity 101. You are correct, they aren't essential tenants of other faiths, which was my point. IMO, liberal Christianity is a different faith when those 2 essential tenants are thrown out. Don't confuse a lively debate with an absence of respect for others. Having an equal love for others does not mean you can't disagree with them. In fact, not expressing disagreement with others when you think they're wrong, could be construed as not caring about them.

My point was that there is no remission of sin accept through Christ. Its not a question of; "if you do not obey him you will fry". I agree with you in the sense that the is of no consequence for Christians who have firmly established their faith in God through Christ. But the devil is of influence in those who are wishy-washy in their belief. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). I'd ask you that if most liberals don't believe Jesus died for our sins, whether or not you also don't believe he was resurrected from the dead? I don't understand how a person professes to be Christian if they are in denial of those 2 essential tenants of the faith?

Well, your definitely very liberal. You don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins? Your right, he didn't have too, but he did so that we won't need to die for our sins. If you only believe in a self-imposed judgment, then I'm guessing your future is in pretty good hands? The difference between liberalism and fundamentalism is that liberals agree with many sayings of Jesus the man, while fundamentalist embrace Jesus as the Christ (Emanuel), the only begotten Son of God. The question then becomes; Is agreeing with the teachings of Jesus enough to gain salvation, or is it a necessity to believe and accept Christ as our personal savior? I believe we are all dead to sin until we believe Jesus paid for our transgressions. We can all appreciate Jesus, but if we deny the cross, we deny Christ. "...The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1;7-10)

So, what we've established is that the basic liberal view is apathetic towards most of the bible. Most liberal Christians share a disdain for the mean & nasty God of the old testament, but they semi-embrace the more loving God presented in the new testament. Liberals also don't believe the bible is literally true, but appreciate selected sayings that appeal to them. They seem to have a difficult time reconciling the OT God for killing thousands of people, with the more loving God represented by Christ in the gospels. Its understandable that a person would prefer to believe and accept a God who loves us and ask us to love one another, instead of a God who condemns evil and sin? This seems to be the basic obstacle that separates liberal from fundamental Christians. Liberals are turned-off by a God who's capable of turning Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, killing everyone in Jericho, and destroying evil by flooding the world, while fundamentalist understand what provokes God's anger. The question was posed;"Why didn't God hear the prayers from the victims of the Holocaust?" But if God eliminated the evil Nazi regime by destroying Germany, wouldn't the liberal response be to condemn God for doing so? If not, why would liberal Christians reject God for destroying evil in Noah's time while simultaneously expressing outraged that God did not intervene against the evil Nazis for killing 6 million Jews? It baffles me when Christians characterize God's judgment as being too harsh when his wrath was provoked against wickedness in the past, but would fully endorse God ending evil today?

Many people pray to many gods, but praying 'in Jesus name' differentiates a Christian prayer from other prayers. It simply identifies the authority that a believer is submitting his prayer through. Praying through Jesus name means the same thing as praying according to the Will of God (John 14:13&14). Praying for things that are in agreement with God’s Will is the essence of praying in Jesus name (1 John 5:14-15). We also pray in Jesus name because He and the Holy Spirit intercede for us, according to the Will of God (Romans 8: 26&34).

It would seem that your characterization of fundamentalist being controlling and condescending is an assertion that lumps all fundamentalist into the same category, yet you request that fundamentalist not form any similar conclusions about liberal Christians? While its true that fundamentalist accept all scripture as inspired, we also differ in various interpretations of what means what. To presume that fundamentalist are all identical, may not be anymore accurate than assuming all liberals think alike. And why is it okay for Pete (liberal Christian) to quote scripture (below), but its a no no for a fundamentalist to quote verses to illustrate their point of view?

Is it God's fault if good allows evil to exist, or is it our fault? A predominately Christian nation (America) sat on their hands and watched the holocaust happen, so why blame God when we had the power to stop it? When we finally got off our butts, God was with us, our prayers were answered, and good triumphed over evil. If King David or Joshua refused to fight, would God had given them the victory? God hears prayers and will give us the victory, but I believe he expects us to make an effort to fight the good fight. If we our willingly lead as sheep to the slaughter, its not God's fault.

No truer words were ever spoken Who rejected the dominion of God (Tree of Life) and chose the evil entity? Who had foreknowledge that through Christ, all evil authority would be defeated, and eventually destroyed?

A good summarization of the characters used through history to bring about God's plan. Nice review. Good post, I enjoyed your 'Open Pulpit' post too. My only disagreement, or lack of understanding, is with your 2 points listed above. They seem contrary since the first sentence says that a person can be Christian while still practicing Buddhism or the Wicca religion. While the second sentence implies there are no more Wiccans, Buddhists, or Catholics once we accept Christ. I agree with the latter.

If you were an animal, then I'd agree.... But God also designed the gray matter between our ears so that we could understand his parameters and the consequences for violating them. If your thingofambob only fit one hoochiekoo so that adultery couldn't exist, then I have a feeling you would be complaining about a lack of free choice. Keep in mind that God also created us with the capacity to love, so if a man loves his wife more than himself and the wife loves her husband more than herself, then adultery won't exist.