Liberal Christianity 2

[RabbiO]

An interesting site for me on the topic is :- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Yahweh

Ah yes, a project of the Unification Church and Rev. Moon.

B'shalom,

Peter

[Fawzo]

Can you articulate what is convincing about that arguement to you?

Actual physical evidence from archeological digs with pottery and temples with Yaweh and Asherah on them from Syria and other regions.

Seems Yaweh and Asherah had a thing going on until Asherah started a fling with Baal.

[Fawzo]

Considering that God always was, would it not be logical that perhaps someone heard of Him before the Israelites? Was YHWH no one's God before Moses wrote about Him? Any evidence of Pre-historic existence of the knowledge of God, IMO, does not discredit the biblical God or how He may have communicated with humanity. The similarities of recorded events would, IMO, give more credibility to the written word being more fact than fable, regardless of the myth factor which may have been employed in various cultures.

PS to Pete: Sorry, phone books are not innerrant, besides there are too many characters and no plot.

Lets throw in the likelyhood that there was no Adam and Eve and no original sin and evolution was how we got here, and therefore no need for the sacrifice of the cross, lets toss all the cosmological Biblical events and myths such as Global floods and Human swallowing fish and there seems to me to be a large pile of evidence that the Bible is nothing more than a made for TV movie script.

"War of the Worlds" only on the literary side and the authors aren't still around to apologize and say it was only for entertainment.

[Pete]

Ah yes, a project of the Unification Church and Rev. Moon.

B'shalom,

Peter

Ah! it was late.Sorry but the point is further made:-

See also :- http://www.jstor.org/pss/673271

However, it suggests the name EI was used in earlier times for God . However, what origins Yahweh may of had is difficult as YHWH is not a name, its a description. I am who I am.

Various terms for God:-

EL (Gen 33:20)

EL Elyon (the most high) (Psalms 73:11)

El Olam (the everlasting God) (Gen 21:33)

El shaddai (God Almighty) (Gen 17:1)

El ro-i (the God who sees me of the God of vision) (Ex 6:3)

The Historical Deception by Moustafa Gadalla. Bastet Pub, USA.

[Pete]

Ah! it was late.Sorry but the point is further made:-

See also :- http://www.jstor.org/pss/673271

However, it suggests the name EI was used in earlier times for God . However, what origins Yahweh may of had is difficult as YHWH is not a name, its a description. I am who I am.

Various terms for God:-

EL (Gen 33:20)

EL Elyon (the most high) (Psalms 73:11)

El Olam (the everlasting God) (Gen 21:33)

El shaddai (God Almighty) (Gen 17:1)

El ro-i (the God who sees me of the God of vision) (Ex 6:3)

The Historical Deception by Moustafa Gadalla. Bastet Pub, USA.

El.

The word El () appears in Assyrian (ilu) and Phenician, as well as in Hebrew, as an ordinary name of God. It is found also in the South-Arabian dialects, and in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, as also in Hebrew, as an element in proper names. It is used in both the singular and plural, both for other gods and for the God of Israel. As a name of God, however, it is used chiefly in poetry and prophetic discourse, rarely in prose, and then usually with some epithet attached, as "a jealous God." Other examples of its use with some attribute or epithet are: El 'Elyon ("most high God"), El Shaddai ("God Almighty"), El 'Olam ("everlasting God"), El Ḥai ("living God"), El Ro'i ("God of seeing"), El Elohe Israel ("God, the God of Israel"), El Gibbor ("Hero God").

The commonly accepted derivation of this name from the Hebrew root , "to be strong," is extremely doubtful. A similar root has been explained from the Arabic as meaning "to be in front," "to be foremost," "to lead," "to rule," which would give the meaning "leader," "lord." But the fact that the e in El was originally short, as seen in such proper names as Elkanah, Elihu (), and in the Assyrian "ilu," is strong evidence against this derivation. As in the case of Elohim, it is necessary to admit that the original meaning is not certainly known.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N

[RevRainbow]

Lets throw in the likelyhood that there was no Adam and Eve and no original sin and evolution was how we got here, and therefore no need for the sacrifice of the cross, lets toss all the cosmological Biblical events and myths such as Global floods and Human swallowing fish and there seems to me to be a large pile of evidence that the Bible is nothing more than a made for TV movie script.

"War of the Worlds" only on the literary side and the authors aren't still around to apologize and say it was only for entertainment.

This is where you and I strongly differ in our beliefs, my good friend. Although it would make for a good movie (Charlton Heston didnt do too bad with it), and although I would agree that it is not inerrant, I do beleive the bible to be Divinely inspired.

To me, that means what is in the bible is there because God wants it there and He uses what is there to help guide me along my path to knowing Him better. It would be the last book I would trash(and never will). I am not saying that God does not use other means, other sacred writings, or Nature to commune with us. What I am saying is that when I asked, this is what I got from Him. I believe it provides the milk of the word for babies and stronger food as one progresses in their spiritual growth.

To say there was no need for the sacrifice of the cross, strikes at the heart of Christianity, IMO, and, if there was no resurrection of Christ, then my faith is in vain. I choose to believe in the finished work of Christ on the cross, His resurrection, and His return. If I am wrong, so be it. Let God be true and all men liars.

Edited July 1, 2010 by RevRainbow

[Coolhand]

Actual physical evidence from archeological digs with pottery and temples with Yaweh and Asherah on them from Syria and other regions.

Seems Yaweh and Asherah had a thing going on until Asherah started a fling with Baal.

I missed this; where was this evidence published?

The word El () appears in Assyrian (ilu) and Phenician, as well as in Hebrew, as an ordinary name of God. It is found also in the South-Arabian dialects, and in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, as also in Hebrew, as an element in proper names. It is used in both the singular and plural, both for other gods and for the God of Israel. As a name of God, however, it is used chiefly in poetry and prophetic discourse, rarely in prose, and then usually with some epithet attached, as "a jealous God." Other examples of its use with some attribute or epithet are: El 'Elyon ("most high God"), El Shaddai ("God Almighty"), El 'Olam ("everlasting God"), El Ḥai ("living God"), El Ro'i ("God of seeing"), El Elohe Israel ("God, the God of Israel"), El Gibbor ("Hero God").

How does this differ from the term "God" that is used pretty much universaly that is referring to God now?

[Pete]

How does this differ from the term "God" that is used pretty much universaly that is referring to God now?

I think God is God then and now but the concept of God has changed within the faith from:-

Polytheists _God being one of many Gods.(http://en.wikipedia....mitic_religion)

then to Henotheist - There are other Gods but God is more superior to others ( Exodus 15:11 ""Who is like You among the gods, O LORD? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders? NIV.)

to Monotheism - there is no other God but God. (Mark 12:32 "There is one God; and there is none other but he") Which is the modern concept of things within Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Monotheism

Paul also it appears drew on the concept of God in others cultures being the same, in some cases, in his saying in Acts 17:23 "For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you".

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pete

[Pete]

This is where you and I strongly differ in our beliefs, my good friend. Although it would make for a good movie (Charlton Heston didnt do too bad with it), and although I would agree that it is not inerrant, I do beleive the bible to be Divinely inspired.

To me, that means what is in the bible is there because God wants it there and He uses what is there to help guide me along my path to knowing Him better. It would be the last book I would trash(and never will). I am not saying that God does not use other means, other sacred writings, or Nature to commune with us. What I am saying is that when I asked, this is what I got from Him. I believe it provides the milk of the word for babies and stronger food as one progresses in their spiritual growth.

To say there was no need for the sacrifice of the cross, strikes at the heart of Christianity, IMO, and, if there was no resurrection of Christ, then my faith is in vain. I choose to believe in the finished work of Christ on the cross, His resurrection, and His return. If I am wrong, so be it. Let God be true and all men liars.

That is the fundamental concept of things. I would say that the writers of the books of the bible were inspired from what they heard and experienced of God but that is not the same as being inspired writers writing directly from God. I know that is the claim in differing parts of the bible but that does not mean (IMO) that it therefore is inspired directly from God.. If there was a direct link between scripture and God then I believe there would be no contradictions but that is the crunch, in that fundamentalist say they cannot see them but liberals can.

For me even if Jesus did die and was not resurrected then Jesus would still inspire me and others.

For some like Paul Tillich who reported to say his faith would remain intact even if they could prove Jesus never existed. I think that is understandable for what better fact or myth can teach one of God (IMO).

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

I think God is God then and now but the concept of God has changed within the faith from:-

Polytheists _God being one of many Gods.(http://en.wikipedia....mitic_religion)

then to Henotheist - There are other Gods but God is more superior to others ( Exodus 15:11 ""Who is like You among the gods, O LORD? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders? NIV.)

to Monotheism - there is no other God but God. (Mark 12:32 "There is one God; and there is none other but he") Which is the modern concept of things within Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Monotheism

Paul also it appears drew on the concept of God in others cultures being the same, in some cases, in his saying in Acts 17:23 "For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you".

The ancient semetic people used the word EL much the same way that people all over the world use the the GOD; common usage.

My point is that it proves nothing other than there was a universal concept of God, just like there is today.

[Fawzo]

This is where you and I strongly differ in our beliefs, my good friend. Although it would make for a good movie (Charlton Heston didnt do too bad with it), and although I would agree that it is not inerrant, I do beleive the bible to be Divinely inspired.

To me, that means what is in the bible is there because God wants it there and He uses what is there to help guide me along my path to knowing Him better. It would be the last book I would trash(and never will). I am not saying that God does not use other means, other sacred writings, or Nature to commune with us. What I am saying is that when I asked, this is what I got from Him. I believe it provides the milk of the word for babies and stronger food as one progresses in their spiritual growth.

To say there was no need for the sacrifice of the cross, strikes at the heart of Christianity, IMO, and, if there was no resurrection of Christ, then my faith is in vain. I choose to believe in the finished work of Christ on the cross, His resurrection, and His return. If I am wrong, so be it. Let God be true and all men liars.

And I have no problem whatsoever with your belief system friend. It works for you and you're not one going around condemning others and telling them your way is the only way, even if your faith in the "NEED" for the cross may hint at it rather strongly. Your tolerance, wisdom and compassion has been evident to myself and I'm sure all others who tread these sacred halls.

It brings you great comfort and I am gladdened by that. You stated in an earlier post that you believed God needed the blood sacrifice, before he could offer us forgiveness. It just strikes me a bit odd that God would "Need" anything. Yet if he desires anything or creates anything than it seems aparent to me, he must have needs. Saying God is NEEDY makes me reflect.

[Coolhand]

If there was a direct link between scripture and God then I believe there would be no contradictions but that is the crunch, in that fundamentalist say they cannot see them but liberals can.

It is not that the fundamentalists do not see the "apparant" contradictions but rather that they research them in light of genre, author, cultural context, textual context, theologically, thematically, and linguisticly and find that when properly handled there is no contradiction. Meaning can change over time which is why it is important to establish the meaning at the time of authorship prior to application in a time era other than the time of authorship. But now I am just repeating myself.

For example, we have just agreed that Micah 6:8 encapsulates how we should treat each other and carry out our business. Yet, the God that is talking about having mercy and being just is the same God that simultaneously is labeled as mean, nasty, and cruel: YHWH. He is praised one minute, and slandered the next; same God. If the text understood as whole (instead of taking line from line like reading a bunch of fortune cookies) it would show that. In this case, the interpreter seems to be one in contradiction, not the text.

[Coolhand]

For some like Paul Tillich who reported to say his faith would remain intact even if they could prove Jesus never existed. I think that is understandable for what better fact or myth can teach one of God (IMO).

I would say that Tillich is more of a philosopher than a theologian, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to prove. The apostle

was quoted as saying that if Christ has not risen then our faith is usless.

APOSTLE PAUL

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 15:12-19.

TILLICH, PAUL (1886–1965)

German–American Protestant philosophical theologian

Paul Tillich was born in East Prussia. Following research at Breslau and Halle and an army chaplaincy in World War I, Tillich embarked on a teaching career that took him to the Universities of Berlin, Marburg, Dresden, Leipzig, and Frankfurt. It was a period marked by an interest in philosophy, particularly that of the early nineteenth–century idealist Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854). But this was combined with contemporary existentialism and religious socialism. The advent of Hitler terminated his academic career in Germany.

Thanks to Reinhold Niebuhr (1893–1971), Tillich obtained a post at Union Theological Seminary, New York, in 1933. In 1940 he became an American citizen and subsequently held professorships at Harvard and Chicago. Tillich published a large number of shorter writings, including sermons, which attracted the attention of the intellectual public. His chief work was his three–volume Systematic Theology (1951–1963), which sets out the philosophical position that underlies his shorter works. After his death Tillich’s widow, Hannah, published a revealing and controversial biography entitled From Time to Time.

To those familiar with traditional theology, Tillich’s Systematic Theology is like a museum of Picassos. While some of the subjects have an oddly familiar look, the perspectives are often startling and strange. His whole approach has a highly abstract quality. The Bible is rarely quoted, and only occasional reference is made to the classical theologians. Instead, there is a great deal of talk about existence and being. The reason for this is Tillich’s desire to investigate the structure of reality which, for him, is represented symbolically in the Bible.

Basic to Tillich’s approach is his rejection of what he calls supranaturalism—belief in God over and above the world. Instead, Tillich believed in being. Tillich’s God was a purely immanent God. He is the ground of our being or Being itself. At this point Tillich’s position is scarcely distinguishable from pantheism. He maintained, however, that there was a break between what he called essence (or pure being) and existence (our life and that of all other creatures as it actually is). For Tillich, the biblical story of the Fall was a symbol of this alienation between ourselves and the ground of our being. The alienation is overcome by Jesus as the Christ or (to use Tillich’s language) the Bearer of the New Being. For Christ lived so close to the ground of his being that in him there was no existential estrangement. This closeness to the ground of his being is for Tillich what in other theologies is the divinity of Christ. For him, Christ is the key symbolic figure who mediates the overcoming of estrangement between ourselves and the ground of our being.

All this is combined with a radical skepticism about the historical value of the Gospel accounts. For Tillich, what matters is not historical truth but the symbolic value of the biblical stories. This explains the tension between the vivid realism of Tillich’s preaching and the profound historical skepticism of his other writings. A story may make great impact as a symbol giving insight into the structure of reality (as in a fictional novel, play, or film), and at the same time be without historical foundation.

Tillich’s position is best described as an existential ontology, since it combines the existentialist’s interest in the tensions of human existence with a theory of being. Although it was presented in a modern idiom, it was essentially a restatement of the early nineteenth–century idealism of men like Schelling, on whose writings Tillich conducted his postgraduate research. It has strong affinities with Buddhism, with which Tillich expressed considerable sympathy towards the end of his life. He rejected the need for Christian missions in Japan on the grounds that many Japanese already had a greater insight into the reality of being through their own religion than the missionaries who came to convert them.

Other important works include The Protestant Era (1948), The Shaking of Foundations (1948), The New Being (1955), The Eternal Now (1963), and Morality and Beyond (1963). C.Brown

J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort and Donald Mitchell, Who's Who in Christian History, Illustrated Lining Papers. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1997, c1992).

[Bro. Hex]

For example, we have just agreed that Micah 6:8 encapsulates how we should treat each other and carry out our business. Yet, the God that is talking about having mercy and being just is the same God that simultaneously is labeled as mean, nasty, and cruel: YHWH.

Actually, YOU may be talking about "the same God" (YHWH, who I will now, for the sake of distinction, refer to as the demiurge), but when I am speaking about "God"; when I hear the words of Micah 6:8. I am listening to an echo of the voice of The All, the "God-above-god" of the Pleroma, who has existed from before the creation of time, and who would never have reason to say "there is no god beside me" (Isaiah 45:5) nor to say " Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). I am listening to the voice of THAT God...not YHWH...not the god who is mean, nasty, vengeful and cruel.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Coolhand]

Actually, YOU may be talking about "the same God" (YHWH, who I will now, for the sake of distinction, refer to as the demiurge), but when I am speaking about "God"; when I hear the words of Micah 6:8. I am listening to an echo of the voice of The All, the "God-above-god" of the Pleroma, who has existed from before the creation of time, and who would never have reason to say "there is no god beside me" (Isaiah 45:5) nor to say " Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). I am listening to the voice of THAT God...not YHWH...not the god who is mean, nasty, vengeful and cruel.

No....the text, that you were saying was your favorite text, says that. Whether or not you are hearing voices is irrelevant....lol.

[Pete]

It is not that the fundamentalists do not see the "apparant" contradictions but rather that they research them in light of genre, author, cultural context, textual context, theologically, thematically, and linguisticly and find that when properly handled there is no contradiction. Meaning can change over time which is why it is important to establish the meaning at the time of authorship prior to application in a time era other than the time of authorship. But now I am just repeating myself.

Liberals often see that so called research by fundamentalists as jumping through hoops and chasing ones tail to try and prove a point. A bit like a second hand car salesman. However, that just makes me suspicious and more doubting of fundamentalists as a source of truth.

For example, we have just agreed that Micah 6:8 encapsulates how we should treat each other and carry out our business. Yet, the God that is talking about having mercy and being just is the same God that simultaneously is labeled as mean, nasty, and cruel: YHWH. He is praised one minute, and slandered the next; same God. If the text understood as whole (instead of taking line from line like reading a bunch of fortune cookies) it would show that. In this case, the interpreter seems to be one in contradiction, not the text.

But that concept is only seen by you. Who says one cannot take what has meaning and disregard the rest. Oh! yes, fundamentalists.

Cool your view only works if I accept that the whole bible is the work of God and all is edible. The trouble is I do not and neither do many other liberals. I see the continuing demand that I should take it all whether I really agree with it or not as a controlling action by fundamentalists. I recognize that my challenging the bible is seen as a direct challenge to what you and fundamentalists believe but what can I do. I have to be true to myself. I just do not believe in an inerrant bible and you do.

I would say that Tillich is more of a philosopher than a theologian, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to prove. The apostle

was quoted as saying that if Christ has not risen then our faith is usless.

APOSTLE PAUL

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 15:12-19.

TILLICH, PAUL (1886–1965)

German–American Protestant philosophical theologian

Paul Tillich was born in East Prussia. Following research at Breslau and Halle and an army chaplaincy in World War I, Tillich embarked on a teaching career that took him to the Universities of Berlin, Marburg, Dresden, Leipzig, and Frankfurt. It was a period marked by an interest in philosophy, particularly that of the early nineteenth–century idealist Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854). But this was combined with contemporary existentialism and religious socialism. The advent of Hitler terminated his academic career in Germany.

Thanks to Reinhold Niebuhr (1893–1971), Tillich obtained a post at Union Theological Seminary, New York, in 1933. In 1940 he became an American citizen and subsequently held professorships at Harvard and Chicago. Tillich published a large number of shorter writings, including sermons, which attracted the attention of the intellectual public. His chief work was his three–volume Systematic Theology (1951–1963), which sets out the philosophical position that underlies his shorter works. After his death Tillich's widow, Hannah, published a revealing and controversial biography entitled From Time to Time.

To those familiar with traditional theology, Tillich's Systematic Theology is like a museum of Picassos. While some of the subjects have an oddly familiar look, the perspectives are often startling and strange. His whole approach has a highly abstract quality. The Bible is rarely quoted, and only occasional reference is made to the classical theologians. Instead, there is a great deal of talk about existence and being. The reason for this is Tillich's desire to investigate the structure of reality which, for him, is represented symbolically in the Bible.

Basic to Tillich's approach is his rejection of what he calls supranaturalism—belief in God over and above the world. Instead, Tillich believed in being. Tillich's God was a purely immanent God. He is the ground of our being or Being itself. At this point Tillich's position is scarcely distinguishable from pantheism. He maintained, however, that there was a break between what he called essence (or pure being) and existence (our life and that of all other creatures as it actually is). For Tillich, the biblical story of the Fall was a symbol of this alienation between ourselves and the ground of our being. The alienation is overcome by Jesus as the Christ or (to use Tillich's language) the Bearer of the New Being. For Christ lived so close to the ground of his being that in him there was no existential estrangement. This closeness to the ground of his being is for Tillich what in other theologies is the divinity of Christ. For him, Christ is the key symbolic figure who mediates the overcoming of estrangement between ourselves and the ground of our being.

All this is combined with a radical skepticism about the historical value of the Gospel accounts. For Tillich, what matters is not historical truth but the symbolic value of the biblical stories. This explains the tension between the vivid realism of Tillich's preaching and the profound historical skepticism of his other writings. A story may make great impact as a symbol giving insight into the structure of reality (as in a fictional novel, play, or film), and at the same time be without historical foundation.

Tillich's position is best described as an existential ontology, since it combines the existentialist's interest in the tensions of human existence with a theory of being. Although it was presented in a modern idiom, it was essentially a restatement of the early nineteenth–century idealism of men like Schelling, on whose writings Tillich conducted his postgraduate research. It has strong affinities with Buddhism, with which Tillich expressed considerable sympathy towards the end of his life. He rejected the need for Christian missions in Japan on the grounds that many Japanese already had a greater insight into the reality of being through their own religion than the missionaries who came to convert them.

Other important works include The Protestant Era (1948), The Shaking of Foundations (1948), The New Being (1955), The Eternal Now (1963), and Morality and Beyond (1963). C.Brown

J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort and Donald Mitchell, Who's Who in Christian History, Illustrated Lining Papers. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1997, c1992).

Well yes, that is what it is reported as what Paul said but I have more respect for Paul Tillich then I do for the so called apostle Paul and I do not believe my faith is useless.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Well yes, that is what it is reported as what Paul said but I have more respect for Paul Tillich then I do for the so called apostle Paul and I do not believe my faith is useless.

Fine with me. Just realize that you are taking a philosophical approach to a theological issue.

But that concept is only seen by you. Who says one cannot take what has meaning and disregard the rest. Oh! yes, fundamentalists.

Cool your view only works if I accept that the whole bible is the work of God and all is edible. The trouble is I do not and neither do many other liberals. I see the continuing demand that I should take it all whether I really agree with it or not as a controlling action by fundamentalists. I recognize that my challenging the bible is seen as a direct challenge to what you and fundamentalists believe but what can I do. I have to be true to myself. I just do not believe in an inerrant bible and you do.

No Pete, my view only works is you approach the Bible objectively. By the way, I do not argue for innerancy regardless of how many times you say that I do.

[Fawzo]

I missed this; where was this evidence published?

http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=34&Issue=2&ArticleID=11

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

[Coolhand]

Liberals often see that so called research by fundamentalists as jumping through hoops and chasing ones tail to try and prove a point. A bit like a second hand car salesman. However, that just makes me suspicious and more doubting of fundamentalists as a source of truth.

What method do you use to meake sure you are honestly comparing apples with apples?

[Pete]

What method do you use to meake sure you are honestly comparing apples with apples?

I ask myself is this in the spirit of God's love and the God experience that I have. It has to make sense to me and I do not accept a thing just because its in the Bible.

No Pete, my view only works is you approach the Bible objectively. By the way, I do not argue for innerancy regardless of how many times you say that I do.

Well tell me something that you do not believe in the bible?

Tell me also that you see an issue between what Jesus did and scripture and what Paul is said to have said. Take a topic like women and gender equality.

Jesus on Women:- http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm

Bible on Women:- http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Paul on Women:- http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm