Pete

I believe the twisted way that Fawzo referred to was not that someone may give their lives for another out of love and concern. I believe actually Jesus did that. The twisted way that was being referred to was the insistence that God could not forgive in any other way except insisting someone or something needed to die in order to get that forgiveness and that this is somehow righteous. I also agree according to the bible God forgave errors (call it sin if you want) without sacrifices being present but that message is not what is being presented today. If one looks at fundamentalism (IMO) in context then we have an obscure person of his time living among a small and obscure people of their time presenting the only message of salvation for the world as written in a book that took years to compile and decide what must go in it and even now people cannot all agree on what it means. We also have a perfect God portrayed as someone who made a fallible being and subject to error and described this as in the image of God and his crowning glory of creation. Who is said to have killed himself (except God does not die and cannot die and therefore it is not death as we know it) as a punishment for the errors were that being made by his creation and insisting on this being the only sacrifice for all. We have fundamentalism that insists that no one was saved by the law which was said to have been given from God but despite being declared as righteous it has reports that God carries out some terrible acts (IMO) and has laws that I personally cannot see as righteous. I could list them if you wish but I feel I could fill the forum. I respect your belief in the Trinity and I respect Dan's right to believe as he does but I will not accept that I should not be equally respected and recognized as someone who follows Jesus and has respect for the bible even if we see it in differing ways and I do not agree at all with what fundamentalism says.

Here you go again. You say I reject the bible I actually reject the church's spin on it and how they use it but not the bible. I believe that the roman church destroyed many of the writings that they objected to and I am sure we would not of got hold of the Nag Hummandi or the Gospel of Thomas or the dead sea scrolls if they had got their hands on every copy. There were differing groups who viewed Jesus differently after his death and Paul view was not the only one. His view was the one that eventually appealed to the gentile audience of Rome. Groups like the Ebonites or the Gnostics did not and yet they too had scripture. Interestingly to me the Ebonites used to have their own version of Matthew and they rejected all the writings of Paul. They also continued to celebrate Jewish customs. Yet we have no copies of their scriptures but I hope one day they will be found. We also have the Didache which also talks about Jesus but in a very Jewish sense and its version of the communion ceremony is very different to that of Paul and contained no references to Jesus being a sacrifice or the Wine and Bread being the blood and Body of Jesus. As I have said before the idea of taking in blood and human blood at that was alien to the jews. Its right up there with telling them to eat pork. Paul was from Tarsus which was a Roman free trading port found in what is nowadays southern Turkey. He was exposed to Pagan concepts of taking in the blood of the Gods to share with them and other concepts around at the time like death and resurrection and dying with them in spirit in order to be participate with them. He also admits he did not get what he taught from the disciples or anyone in Galatians chapter one and chapter two shows he was out of step with them. It is only when one brings in books that are considered as forgeries like Peter 1&2 that you get a disciple agreeing with Paul. Paul also contradicts the version of his relationship with the disciples found in Acts. The church as Paul did, uses many OT verses to promote the idea of Jesus being the Messiah and the sacrifice for sin but those verses when taken to their original meaning bear no relationship to Jesus or foretell of his arrival 800yrs later. We have that classic Christmas boast about Jesus being born in Isaiah ch9, but in actual fact was not about Jesus but about reasuring the king that the people of Israel will continue. http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf Then we have the suffering servant that you have quoted from Isaiah 53 as meaning Jesus which was actually written about the Jewish people and not Jesus. http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html In fact much of what the church claims as prophesy for Jesus really never meant Jesus. Despite Paul's boast he was a Jewish scholar I believe this to be untrue. No Jewish follower of Judaism would say that following the Torah was a curse or a burden as Paul describes in Hebrews. In fact followers followers of Judaism see it as a joy. Then we come to your view of God being righteous for wanting something to die in order that he could therefore forgive. I really cannot see how killing the innocent as a sacrifice or not being able to forgive someone unless something or someone dies as being righteous. I do not see how the lack of compassion on people and the unjustly handing out of punishment forever described in the bible as righteous. I still cannot see how destroying cities and all the innocent people in them in order to punish David could be seen as righteous. I also do not understand if God is so perfect and that the crown of his creation was mankind because they were in the image of God and yet it was mankind that was able to be led astray and created the evil in the world. Something is just not perfect there in my view and it cannot be mankind for having this fatal flaw because they never made themselves with it. I could go on and on, but the short of it, for me, is although you quote this and that, but when I look at it in context it all makes little sense to me. I love much of the bible stories but as for seeing perfection in it, I do not. I just see the hand of mankind. Now I do not reject the bible in the context of it having things it can teach but I do in reject it in terms of it being the all the work of a superior being who filled it full of contradictions and inconsistencies and odd values. It's fundamentalism that I reject and not the bible. Its the way fundamentalism portrays the bible that I reject and not the bible. I love some of the teachings of Jesus but find they are at odds with fundamentalism. I know you even take the words of Paul as those of Jesus because you believe they are of the same source. Well I feel Jesus and Paul were very different. We will not agree.

I guess there are days I envy Dan. He clearly knows what he believes. I am finding it difficult to justify very much to myself and that which I do believe in is riddle with so many questions I just cannot answer. I used to believe that on acquiring knowledge that you would know something more but instead it is for me just an awakening about how much we really do not know for certain and how much more there is to further know. For many faith is about finding the meaning of life. Some say that we are really just trying to find a meaning for our own lives so that we feel more alive within our existence. From what I have learned I cannot with all honesty believe that the bible is the actual words of anything other than man. In fact I cannot believe any scripture to be from anything other than man. I believe there is a spirit within us that is capable of many wonderful things but I do miss those days when things used to be more simpler and I guess shielded for me. Yet, for me it would be dishonest to turn back from what I have learned and how much I am uncertain of. That said if there is any meaning that exists for life then it has to be in love. Without love I doubt our existence would last very long or seem worth while. For me love is the energy of God (IMO) and life and the hope to come. Faith is the not knowing everything but still hoping that it will make sense and turn out for the good of all. I am sure love is the key though. Without it I guess we may as well of remained in the primordial swamp and been oblivious to it all. We owe so much (IMO) to love whether by a friend, lover, parent, society or our spiritual being. No dogma could ever replace that belief for me and if the meaning of life exists then without love it would hold no real meaning or purpose. Hence, the only higher being (call that God or whatever) that could exist for me has to be within the power of love and not condemnation.

That said, I think Dianna makes a good point in that when I look at the history I am sure Jesus never envisaged the many things said to be done in his name. Burning heretics, torturing people of other viewpoints and religions, Crusading off to mass slaughter not only Muslims but also the Cathars throughout Europe, Setting up the Spanish inquisition, Killing Witches and Pagans, repressing people because of their sexuality, justifying the enslavement of Africans etc etc I am not attacking the faith as a whole but I feel I have to recognize the way things have occurred and it fills me with horror and sadness. I really do not think Jesus ever planned it that way even if these things are being said to have been done in his name during those times.

I will say that it amazes me that the God described in the bible is considered as just or that the bible is considered as God's actual words. That said most of the acts described and the people killed were not killed through humble believers like Brother Devon but through religious organisations of power seeking greater influence. I personally think God is for me a source of love and a hope I cling too for all, whether or not others think that is foolish. I look at sin as the errors of being human rather than something that separates us from God. As few would judge their child to eternal punishment for errors I do not believe God does either. I may not believe in the Pauline school of thought and cannot see how the cruel death of someone acts as a sacrifice for my errors or that is somehow a just thing to do. However, to hope for better things to come and a better life than this one for everyone and a belief that God is loving and guiding and that eternal life exists is not for me something negative. Others can say I am foolish and really I do not care. That hope has carried me through some tough times in my life and helped me cope with some of the horrors I have witnessed in the world. I know there is a gulf of difference between what is believed in the Pauline school of thought and mine but I am not of the mind to wipe it out of existence. It is organised religion that I have issue with. The idea that they know best and that there is a great evil awaiting everyone who does not do as they say is for me an issue and not something that I believe is just or humane. I have friends from across the spectrum of beliefs and some of the love they have for people I find inspirational and the idea that God would torture them on the basis of a belief is not something I can entertain in my mind or see as just. I just want to live and let live. The trouble is that is not something that is presented by organised religion and its influence on politics and other beliefs. On the issue of Gay marriage, I do not care that some feel it's a "no no" but why should they have influence over what I believe in on areas of faith and prevent me. Why should some schools be allowed to teach one view of religion only. I went to a faith school (CofE) but today I would never go back to them and I have awoken to the contribution many faiths and non faiths have made for the good of humanity. Do I somehow say to myself that I am somewhat better because of a belief than them and that God (as in the focus of my faith) is therefore right to condemn all who do not believe to hell as I do or do I say imperfect as I am as a human being (warts and all) that there is hope for all and really believe God to be loving and just. Do I say that eternal damnation is just or do I say that love always finds a way in the end for all. I believe in hope, faith and love and eternal damnation does not figure in that for me. The idea of my loving friends burning in a hell for eternity would not adhere me to God and it is a real put off for me, but despite what organised religion says I do not believe in my heart that this is true about God. I am foolish, I am human, I make mistakes and do things wrong sometimes but I see God as a hope to be reach for and not an ogre. I do not want to go on a mission to convert the world and I do not want to condemn the world and all in it either. I just have a hope, foolish that maybe in the eyes of others and believe love is a spirit and worthy of aspiring towards if not in this life but the next. Others can make up their mind on how they see things but there is how I see it.

There are some who do not believe the bible is God's words (just the words of man), do not believe in original sin, or that that Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden actually existed in anything other than folk lore. Try telling Bishop Spong or a liberal or a Quaker or a Unitarian that they believe in the bible is the words of God or that Adam and Eve existed and you will get a raised eye brow and a quick denial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIyVWACkii0

I guess it depends on the Christianity. I have always said that some are more verbal than others but it does not mean that they are the only ones. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_types_of_Christianity_are_there and even this list is not all inclusive.

A horrible thought (IMO). Said to be able to stop such suffering but chooses not to. Could we trust such a person? We do not see God the same way Dan.

God is often seen as the focus of one's faith. Nature would only be seen as God (IMO) if Nature was the focus on one's faith. As for the main debate I would say nature is the cause of the weather. It maybe that they get potentially more tornado disasters in tornado alley but I do not think there is a place on earth that is fully free of potential hazards. Whether that is a tornado, hurricane, flood, tsunami, earthquake, or the catch all of killer asteroids. If God was behind the tornado that hit Kansas Dan then I think the only thing we are to God is possibly his personal snooker table.

I agree Luis. RevPatty, There is no hypocrisy for believing in what you truly believe. It would be hypocrisy to say you believe other than what you truly believe just to fit into someone else's definition of what they feel you must believe. Most of what you say I would go along with too. I do not believe God has a religion. Mankind makes religions. I believe God is best Served by being honest to yourself and what you truly believe. Anything else is dishonest (IMO). If one loves then I do not believe one can be far wrong. Love is the only religion needed (IMO).

I was in a bookshop yesterday and discovered a growing number of books on this topic. At a glance, most refer to the Jewish history and culture and the context in which Jesus and Paul fitted into. They also focus on the absence of which Paul mentions so little of the life of Jesus, his teachings, the places he went, or the parables he taught and Paul's concentration mostly on the three days of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and what this meant to Paul. They focus on Jesus' mission to teach the message of God and the kingdom of God from a Jewish perspective and Paul's teaching of salvation by the blood and body of Jesus. It is often questioned as to whether Paul not only never met Jesus but did not know much of what Jesus is reported to have taught. They also talk about the Pagan perspectives of the time, like virgin births, walking on water, death and resurrections, sharing of blood to participate in the divinity of their Gods and so on. Most believe Paul and not Jesus to be the founder of the Christianity we have today.

It is odd Rabbio that mention the writer converted from Baptist to Judaism, The writer of the book which I recommend called "How Jesus became Christian" by Barrie Wilson also converted from Christianity to Judaism too.

I would also challenge the point about Paul bringing the gospels to the gentile world. Paul very rarely quotes anything that is in the Gospels.The earlier the Gospel the more it seems to contradict Paul. The later the Gospels the more it shows Paulian influences. The church collated the writings that it found acceptable to make the bible. I do not think Paul talked about any other gospel but his own.

Ditto. Thanks Rabbio.

Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Matt 2:27. This is not the teaching of the law on the Sabbath. :- http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/shabbat/sabbath1.htm I am sorry Dan but I still believe Paul and Jesus were very different http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

Believe what you will but I will not agree. Firstly, we only have Paul's word that any such revelation from Jesus took place. Paul never met Jesus whilst alive with the disciples. We have the story from Acts which is confusing:- 1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..." 2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..." 3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..." We also have Paul never referring to this event. We have Paul saying he was never taught by any human. 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. This contradicts Act 9, where is says he spent many days with the disciples. We have Paul saying he did not go to see the apostles for three years and then went away for forteen years. Galatian 1 16........ my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days.19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. Galatians 2 2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem. Paul then opposed the disciples who knew Jesus because they were living as Jews. ------------------------ I also agree with Reverend V's post that Jesus taught as a Jew and supported Torah observance. Paul did not. The two are very different (IMO). The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God. The central message of Paul was the death and resurrection as a sacrifice for sin. My question is if the messages are so different, did Paul really get any mystical revelation from Jesus other than something that he had considered fro himself. I think not.

I think there is another reason. The Roman world was full of helonised religions which they promoted within their empire. Many had assimilated their faiths to accommodate Roman beliefs but there was a problem with Judaism. For one thing it was monotheist and secondly it was not accepting of other faiths. The Romans did not like this and it was no mistake that they turned the Jewish Temple into a Pagan temple after their attack in 70 AD. Judaism also required circumcision and observance of the Torah. The Romans and the Greeks before this had often humiliated and persecuted the Jews for having circumcisions. Paul came across with another belief structure which assimilated some of the beliefs around at the time and also did away with Torah observance. This made it very much more acceptable to many on the outskirts of Judaism and much easier for the acceptance of Constantine who as we remember remained a Pagan until he was about to die and then was baptised a Christian. I doubt that Paul's motives were driven by greed but I do believe it was driven by influence. I see nothing or little, that suggests to me that he had anything to do with the Jews in Jerusalem who actually met Jesus and Paul does say this in Galatians. The idea that he had a conference (as described in Acts) with them and that he was to be the apostle to the gentiles is very debatable and there is no account anywhere other than in Acts that this occurred. However, the Jews have always seen their faith as a revelation for them only and what the gentiles did was up to them. So for a Jew to say to Paul that he could have the Gentiles is of no surprise to me. It is also to note that the disciples continued as Jews and except in (IMO) very dodgy letters like Peter 1&2 which most scholars see as not from Peter. there is no evidence that the disciples in Jerusalem ever accepted Paul's teachings. Paul although inspired (and I am not saying God inspired here) in many of his writings I would say created his own theology and started his own faith. This promoted him in the eyes of many but not all as we often hear of him arguing with others who disagreed with him. For me Paul was a Maverick. It is also no accident that Acts had to be written to give him credentials of succession and Paul himself often disagrees with what it says in Acts. It is also no accident (IMO) that the NT starts with the Gospels and then Acts and then Paul's letters when in fact they were written in terms of age as Paul's letters, the Gospels and then Acts. For me Paul is the founder of Christianity and Jesus was of the Judaic faith and had differing teachings.

Wow, I thought that for a moment that was me speaking. I notice on reading the Didache that Jesus is never referred to as God but the good teacher. They celebrated Communion too but it was never about Jesus' death sacrifice and the bread and wine being the being the blood and body. All had Jewish meanings. The idea of taking in blood of any kind, all be it wine, is something alien to Jews. You might as well as said lets all eat pork. For me Paul was a maverick preacher preaching what he believed to be true rather than following what the disciples who knew Jesus had to say. Galatians 1:11 "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,..............." NIV

As I understand it, the JW's believe the 144,000 is made up of only those who are practicing at the time when Jesus returns. It is not the full congregation of the JWs. Although I disagree with their perspective I find them to be very kind and loving people but that said I find that membership has many obligations which I would never accept or agree too. That said I think Brother Kaman's comment is valid. Although I disagree with their viewpoint and the organisation has cause much stress to my family it would be good if they were able to join us and give their perspective first hand here. However, I doubt they will but who knows..

I do not know AV. The group I had contact and supplied me with a copy of the New World translation and many of the documents about and from the Watchtower was called the Reachout Trust. The JWs have made many attempts because of my family being associated with the organisation to recruit me. All failed. I used to argue from the material of the Reachout trust. They would then go away and speak to the elders and then come back with their reply. This went on for about two years. I then gave up and asked them if they were enjoying this process. They said no and so I dropped it. Since then the tactic shifted to showering me with kindness but no more debates. However, recently one member tried again to convince me of the viewpoint they held. I just said I have studied the history of the bible and what I have learned is not compatible with being a JW. To my surprise he was lost for words. It seemed that they were all geared up to talk about the meaning of differing bible verses for them but not history. I have witnessed the many meetings and the group practicing to answer difficult questions and they have also some useful programmes on their computer to help them answer questions but when it comes to history there was nothing.

Hi Cool I wish the best of luck. It is hard for a Jehovahs witness to question their teachings. The organisation drums it into them that their salvation depends upon it. They are controlled by a group of elders in their meetings and sent studies each week from the Watchtower. As I have been informed that only those who are active and witnessing JW's at the time of Jesus' return are going to heaven and this produces a lot of fear. So much so that they would rather stop talking to you than discuss things if you challenge them successfully. I know this because I have family who are JWs and they have been asked by their elders not to discuss their ministry with me anymore. I was also informed that some meting have a black book in which they put the names of people who are not to be resurrected. They see the 144,000 as the rulers with Jesus in the next life and they will be in power. So leaving the organisation or challenging it is not easy for people. There are families who do not talk to each other because of this organisation and I admit we had a difficulty for several years. There are good organisations who are made of ex-members who will give you any insider info you may want. There is also a lot on line too. http://4witness.org/jehovahs_witness/jw-witness-door.php I was in contact with one for a while to help me understand what was going on. I forget the name now but I will come back to you with the name when I look again at the info.

I first got ordained for a laugh. However, as time went on I began to appreciate the religious freedom of the ULC and its universal fellowship. The ULC has been there for me through thick and thin and each changing idea I have had. Its a growing experience for me and I am very grateful it exists. I now could not think of any other mainstream church I would want an ordination from and I am very proud of my ULC ordination.

The Church of England is also like that and as its a national church there are so many who are just nominal members. There is also the mistake that all members agree with the church or its function. There has been some mighty splits on the issue of women ministers and now women Bishops, Conservative and liberal theology, Gay and lesbian minsters and also same sex marriage. I am sure there are many more splits to come.

I m sure that there are many problems with pi charts and even with quantitative research. For instance, I know of people who are Wiccans, Atheists, and Hindus, who go to church. Whether, one agrees or disagrees with them is not at issue (IMO). My point is that church attendance is often the measure used as to who is an evangelical Christian and who is not. It is recognised in the UK and in many countries in Europe that church attendance is getting less and I suspect that spiritual viewpoints are replacing those of organised religion. If we are saying that Evangelicals are on the increase in the Uk then one has to say on what criteria one is basing that on. If its a percentage of church attendance of said churches then I would say the result would be flawed because the overall number of church attenders has significantly fallen against the overall population. As you have pointed out that more people do not attend church than attend and they may have a mixture of reasons for not doing so including having other faiths.