Liberal Christianity 2

[Pete]

I have explained to you in the past that your biblical perspective is flawed. I have recommend two books to you to help you with that: "Reading the Bible for all its Worth" by Fee and Stuart, and "Biblical Interpretation: Playing by the Rules" by Stein. You refused to read them at the time, and by the way you are currently handling Scripture, I can see you have still ignored that advice. So, being you refuse to approach the Bible correctly-by understanding context, genre, and theme- arguing Scripture with you would be useless. So, "reflective" questioning that is targeting invalid conclusions is the only way to address the issue with you.

I agree with you that the deaths that you cited are tragic. I would argue that these deaths are not the result of an unjust God being negligent or wicked, but rather that it is an issue of sovereignty and purpose. The Bible tells us that an archangel rebelled and had a following of rebels. The Bible tells us that these beings had authority and dominion over geographical areas and that their power and authority is fueled, it grows, and gains momentum when people join in their rebellion against God. God gave these rebels authority and they still have that authority; the Bible also tells us that the gifts of God are irrevocable. Where it has been said that either God is not in control, or does not have power over all, or is twisted and enjoys torment by not preventing it, God is merely respecting the sovereignty of the beings to which he has granted it; just like he respects yours and mine. Now, these rebels can be defeated, and God will fight against them and defeat these rebels on behalf of those who side with God and against the rebels. The rejection of God, the pursuit of idolatry, and a syncretistic commitment to God by a person or group of people will not get God to fight the rebels that are causing the genocide you are referring to; the "installed" authorities will prevail. Total and exclusive commitment to God will ensure that He will fight and overcome the rebels and grant wisdom to understand His Word.

It's all in the Bible.

I could also ask you to read books but like me I guess you will not read them either. The question for me is what it is that you think they say that is relevant to this topic.

As for the second paragraph, I could not begin to tell you how little that makes sense to me and is based largely on myth (IMO).

The bible says this or that but I still find it an unreliable book to put full faith in and it makes it no easier when I point out contradictions on accounts and people say they cannot see them. I also find it unbelievable when people refer to the whole book as God spoken and inerrant.

It still comes back to you saying my logic and understanding is flawed but I still see no logic in the idea of a loving God who allows mass murder and so much suffering in the world. Any justification for this does not remove that responsiblity from the biblical idea of God.

[Coolhand]

I could also ask you to read books but like me I guess you will not read them either. The question for me is what it is that you think they say that is relevant to this topic.

As for the second paragraph, I could not begin to tell you how little that makes sense to me and is based largely on myth (IMO).

The bible says this or that but I still find it an unreliable book to put full faith in and it makes it no easier when I point out contradictions on accounts and people say they cannot see them. I also find it unbelievable when people refer to the whole book as God spoken and inerrant.

It still comes back to you saying my logic and understanding is flawed but I still see no logic in the idea of a loving God who allows mass murder and so much suffering in the world. Any justification for this does not remove that responsiblity from the biblical idea of God.

Well it would appear that you are stuck then Pete. This confusion you have regarding these simple biblical principals is not going to be a good selling point for your brand of "liberal Christianity." People need answers; all you have is questions.

What your brand of theology appears to promote, is the disregard of the Bible, while at the same time quoting the Bible, but also refusing to handle the Bible correctly. I think it is convenient how your theology releases you from any error and inconsistency, and how it shoots the message and the messenger. Inherent in your theology seems to be this disproportionate pride and confidence in claiming the Bible is wrong, flawed, etc., while asserting that somehow you know better the Word we have been given. Even more ridicules than the insult to the Word of God that you perpetrate is the lack of answers that your theology provides.

Just some observations from a fellow student.

[Tsukino_Rei]

Well it would appear that you are stuck then Pete. This confusion you have regarding these simple biblical principals is not going to be a good selling point for your brand of "liberal Christianity." People need answers; all you have is questions.

What your brand of theology appears to promote, is the disregard of the Bible, while at the same time quoting the Bible, but also refusing to handle the Bible correctly. I think it is convenient how your theology releases you from any error and inconsistency, and how it shoots the message and the messenger. Inherent in your theology seems to be this disproportionate pride and confidence in claiming the Bible is wrong, flawed, etc., while asserting that somehow you know better the Word we have been given. Even more ridicules than the insult to the Word of God that you perpetrate is the lack of answers that your theology provides.

Just some observations from a fellow student.

Because people who are convinced that they already have all the answers have done so much good for the world? People don't need answers, they need humility, compassion, and love. The answers are irrelevant, it's the questioning that transforms and takes the questioner on the journey.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Tsukino_Rei

[Pete]

Well it would appear that you are stuck then Pete. This confusion you have regarding these simple biblical principals is not going to be a good selling point for your brand of "liberal Christianity." People need answers; all you have is questions.

What your brand of theology appears to promote, is the disregard of the Bible, while at the same time quoting the Bible, but also refusing to handle the Bible correctly. I think it is convenient how your theology releases you from any error and inconsistency, and how it shoots the message and the messenger. Inherent in your theology seems to be this disproportionate pride and confidence in claiming the Bible is wrong, flawed, etc., while asserting that somehow you know better the Word we have been given. Even more ridicules than the insult to the Word of God that you perpetrate is the lack of answers that your theology provides.

Just some observations from a fellow student.

For me there are lessons that can be learned from the bible but the idea of the bible being inerrant is something I cannot swallow. Fundamental theology just hangs on repetition (IMO) and the hanging on to principles which I find unfounded but at the same time deliberately being blind to anything that may challenge their stance on the bible.

You may say I am confused and misusing the bible but that is exactly what I think of fundamentalism. If remaining with questions means I am being truthful to my self then I will remain with questions rather than resorting to rhetoric and trying to fool myself into believing that the problems of an inerrant bible do not exist.

Beside your assertion that you feel I am flawed and misusing the bible, you still have not answered my question. How come an all powerful and loving God as described by the bible does not prevent suffering and according to the bible is aware all this would happen before he created it.

Throwing ever increasing complexities based on further myth is not going to move me from the inescapable question that I witness each day I live..

Edited June 25, 2010 by Pete

[Bro. Hex]

What your brand of theology appears to promote, is the disregard of the Bible, while at the same time quoting the Bible...

If I had to choose one-way-or-the-other, I would come down firmly

on the side of completely disregarding the Bible.

But since I have my God-given intellect, and live in a reasonably free country,

free of religious coercion like that which can be found today

in many Muslim countries throughout the world,

and in many Christian countries on the African continent

that have been perversely and unduly influenced by fundamentalism,

and in many European countries prior to the Protestant reformation,

and in many "Catholic nations" still today...

Since I am free to use my God-given intellect as I see fit,

without fear or coercion,

I will occasionally quote from the Bible...

when I think it has something valid and important to say.

And I will ignore/discard/disregard those portions

that don't meet these criteria.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Fawzo]

Fawzo,

As I pointed out in some thread or other, maybe even this one, Jewish sages and philosophers have wrestled with the free will v. omniscience issue again and again. There is no consensus in Judaism, but I align myself with those sages - including Saadia Ben Joseph, the Gaon, who did not believe that G-d is omniscient in the sense of knowing with certainty what choices we will make.

I think you are correct in that belief. What good would it be to play a game or watch a show if you knew every micro-second what was going to happen.

Game programmers try to develop truly random generators just to avoid knowing what will come next.

Maybe the only thing G_d knows for certain is the beginning or start of the game and the end and he allows his random generator or chaos to rule and spice things up in between. He has a really really big bowl of popcorn just waiting to see how things make their way to the finish.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Fawzo

[Coolhand]

Beside your assertion that you feel I am flawed and misusing the bible, you still have not answered my question. How come an all powerful and loving God as described by the bible does not prevent suffering and according to the bible is aware all this would happen before he created it.

Uh, no, I did answer your question, and I know you read it because dismissed it by saying it was myth.

I agree with you that the deaths that you cited are tragic. I would argue that these deaths are not the result of an unjust God being negligent or wicked, but rather that it is an issue of sovereignty and purpose. The Bible tells us that an archangel rebelled and had a following of rebels. The Bible tells us that these beings had authority and dominion over geographical areas and that their power and authority is fueled, it grows, and gains momentum when people join in their rebellion against God. God gave these rebels authority and they still have that authority; the Bible also tells us that the gifts of God are irrevocable. Where it has been said that either God is not in control, or does not have power over all, or is twisted and enjoys torment by not preventing it, God is merely respecting the sovereignty of the beings to which he has granted it; just like he respects yours and mine. Now, these rebels can be defeated, and God will fight against them and defeat these rebels on behalf of those who side with God and against the rebels. The rejection of God, the pursuit of idolatry, and a syncretistic commitment to God by a person or group of people will not get God to fight the rebels that are causing the genocide you are referring to; the “installed” authorities will prevail. Total and exclusive commitment to God will ensure that He will fight and overcome the rebels and grant wisdom to understand His Word.

It’s all in the Bible.

It is obvious from the biblical text that God wants to build a family of over comers. A family of people who choose to overcome, not family of people that have no choice to overcome, but people who will in fact choose to be over comers even when it cost them something; or everything.

Again Pete, this is all basic biblical teaching. You have you answers right in front of you.

[Fawzo]

Well it would appear that you are stuck then Pete. This confusion you have regarding these simple biblical principals is not going to be a good selling point for your brand of "liberal Christianity." People need answers; all you have is questions.

What your brand of theology appears to promote, is the disregard of the Bible, while at the same time quoting the Bible, but also refusing to handle the Bible correctly. I think it is convenient how your theology releases you from any error and inconsistency, and how it shoots the message and the messenger. Inherent in your theology seems to be this disproportionate pride and confidence in claiming the Bible is wrong, flawed, etc., while asserting that somehow you know better the Word we have been given. Even more ridicules than the insult to the Word of God that you perpetrate is the lack of answers that your theology provides.

Just some observations from a fellow student.

Cool, what theologies like Pete and mine does is get ones head and mind out of the book and make them think for themself and seek God personally. It might be true that many people aren't ready and can't think for themselves and need the tidy little packages that organized religions deliver to them. The true adventurers leave the little book on the kitchen table and head off for that face to face encounter with God at the top of the mountain which replaces the book with EXPERIENCE.

The book tells us many superstitious silly nonsensical things that no longer apply. It is not okay to kill disobedient children, or kill adulterers and people who work on the Sabbath. The world doesn't sit on four pillars and the earth is not immovable and is covered by a tin sheet seperating the firmanents and a man can't be swallowed by a fish for three days and live to tell about it, unless that fish is a submarine or submersible.

We read fabels as children and then we grow spiritually and the fabels just don't cut it any more.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Fawzo

[Fawzo]

It is obvious from the biblical text that God wants to build a family of over comers. A family of people who choose to overcome, not family of people that have no choice to overcome, but people who will in fact choose to be over comers even when it cost them something; or everything.

Again Pete, this is all basic biblical teaching. You have you answers right in front of you.

Would you care to venture a guess at what God's success rate is by looking at the world around you and recorded history.

It appears to me that His success rate would be lower than that of a Major League Baseball players batting average. Yet if it is God's Will that none should perish and God's Will be done come hell or high water, what should His success rate be?

I can agree with your statement that He may desire a family or Sonship which is an overcomer, but with an eternity to wait why must they all overcome within what would be less then the blink of an eye on God's time line, and do so within the brief span of one human lifetime.

[Coolhand]

Because people who are convinced that they already have all the answers have done so much good for the world? People don't need answers, they need humility, compassion, and love. The answers are irrelevant, it's the questioning that transforms and takes the questioner on the journey.

People do need and are looking for answers; I’m not sure where you are coming from there. I constantly hear questions that specifically start with “If”, “why”, and “how.”

I guess somehow you think that if people have answers they lack other positive traits? Like it is desirable to not know anything, but the point is to be on some kind of philosophical journey? I suppose an agnostic utopia of some sort? That seems irrelevant to life as I know it.

If I had to choose one-way-or-the-other, I would come down firmly

on the side of completely disregarding the Bible.

But since I have my God-given intellect, and live in a reasonably free country,

free of religious coercion like that which can be found today

in many Muslim countries throughout the world,

and in many Christian countries on the African continent

that have been perversely and unduly influenced by fundamentalism,

and in many European countries prior to the Protestant reformation,

and in many "Catholic nations" still today...

Since I am free to use my God-given intellect as I see fit,

without fear or coercion,

I will occasionally quote from the Bible...

when I think it has something valid and important to say.

And I will ignore/discard/disregard those portions

that don't meet these criteria.

Could you summarize the Bible in one sentence? You know, like capture the main thought or purpose. Or, do you see a main thought or purpose that runs through the whole Bible?

[Fawzo]

Could you summarize the Bible in one sentence? You know, like capture the main thought or purpose. Or, do you see a main thought or purpose that runs through the whole Bible?

I know you asked Pete, but my summarization is:

An Omniscient Deity who has to kill and sacrifice a portion of himself, to appease himself, for something he himself is complicit and responsible for.

[Bro. Hex]

People do need and are looking for answers; I’m not sure where you are coming from there.

I constantly hear questions that specifically start with “If”, “why”, and “how.”

I am sure that this is true of many, many people.

Perhaps it is even true of most people.

It is not, however, true of everyone.

There are those among us who crave the sort of "certainty"

that belief in an inerrant Bible seems to offer.

There are others among us who cannot accept easy answers,

who cannot accept answers "provided by others",

who by their very nature, have to decide for themselves.

One kind of person is not necessarily

better, or worse, than the other.

We were not all made the same.

Each of us must find his own path.

My path may not suit you,

as yours does not suit me.

I have to say, I think that is "a good thing".

Could you summarize the Bible in one sentence?

You know, like capture the main thought or purpose.

Or, do you see a main thought or purpose that runs through the whole Bible?

In a word, "No."

The Bible is a compendium of a whole lot of different "books"

written by a whole lot of different "authors"

over a whole lot of different "epochs",

in different "cultures",

in which the very words used

may have different meanings,

from one book to another.

Some of the stories are borrowed

from civilizations and peoples

from ages past (pre-biblical).

Some of the origins can be pointed to,

and others are a complete mystery.

The only synopsis that I could possibly venture is this one:

The Bible is a storybook,

about how many people from a distant past

understood the relationship between God and man,

and how they believed that God acts in our lives

and how he acted in the past.

It is a storybook.

[Coolhand]

Cool, what theologies like Pete and mine does is get ones head and mind out of the book and make them think for themself and seek God personally. It might be true that many people aren't ready and can't think for themselves and need the tidy little packages that organized religions deliver to them. The true adventurers leave the little book on the kitchen table and head off for that face to face encounter with God at the top of the mountain which replaces the book with EXPERIENCE.

The book tells us many superstitious silly nonsensical things that no longer apply. It is not okay to kill disobedient children, or kill adulterers and people who work on the Sabbath. The world doesn't sit on four pillars and the earth is not immovable and is covered by a tin sheet seperating the firmanents and a man can't be swallowed by a fish for three days and live to tell about it, unless that fish is a submarine or submersible.

We read fabels as children and then we grow spiritually and the fabels just don't cut it any more.

I disagree Fawzo and would say that the approach you are describing disregards what was given to us to help us know God and know about God.

And here comes the pride statement where you claim that you are farther advanced spiritually than those who participate in organized religion. Not much has changed.

The Old Testament is rich with examples of God’s love and mercy. I have spent too much time trying to explain this to people on this forum, who have political reasons and personal reasons for holding that portion of the Bible in disdain, who use their faulty understanding of the Old Testament to encourage themselves that they should continue to disregard and criticize it, and encourage others to adapt the same philosophy regarding it. BUT, you are in luck! I am in between classes and the time to give you a brief summary that may help.

Abraham

We start with the creation in chapter one. Chapter two, interestingly enough, instead of God being called elohim, He is now referred to YHWH elohim. Many attribute this to being because of two different authors. A better understanding is that the master story teller is alerting the reader that there is going to be a covenant coming; a foreshadow. In chapter three the fall of man occurs and then guess what; a covenant. The woman is told that her seed will crush the head of the serpent, referring to Satan which indicates this fierce spiritual battle that we are all born into. This was not the complete covenant, only part of it. The covenant revelation is continued in chapter 9:27. Some of you guys that read the Hebrew text will get what I am saying here, others may not, but in 9:27b (the second half of vs 27) Japeth (in the Hebrew) is the object not the subject, so what is being said is that God will dwell in the tents of Shem. This further reveals where God’s covenantal salvation to man is going to come from. Continue to chapter 12:2-3 and you will the complete revelation of God’s covenantal salvation: through Abraham God is going to bless the whole world. So far, we have the fall (Eden), the flood (Noah), and the flop (tower of babel), and then the promise to bless the world through Abraham and his ‘seed’.

Moses

The law is then given to Moses which detail God’s purity standards. God called His people, delivered them from the Egyptians, and blessed them so that they would be a blessing to the rest of the world. Make no mistake; they were to be totally free of the practices of the nations that were around them. They were to be a pure nation that was supposed to draw all other nations to God. With the strict rules, also came the very presence of God dwelling among them, which no other nation has enjoyed since.

Joshua

This conquest period is the period that gets most of the heat (IMO) from people. Go in and kill them all; not very loving or merciful, right right. However, God’s enduring mercy and love is only promised to those who love Him and carry out is world mission to draw all people to Him. These nations which were “removed” from the land refused the calling of God to deal justly with others regardless of the hundreds of years of warnings that God had given them. They were judged; straight up. Neither God nor the Bible makes any bones about that; that they were judged.

David

Through David, the covenant with Abraham was reaffirmed and continued; the world was to be blessed by Israel, and they were to be God’s missionary agency through which the world was to be drawn to God.

David was the second king of Israel; the kings brought the need for the prophets, and the kings wrote the wisdom literature.

So far, we have the Torah (the teaching), the Neviim (the prophets), and the Ketuvim (the writings); the main point minus all the gory details, which are abundant. This blessing of Abraham is the central theme of the Old Testament which would be continued through the New Testament.

Jesus

We start off in Matthew where the genealogy introduces Jesus as the son of David, the son of Abraham, which shows not only that Jesus is a continuation of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, but also the fulfillment. The Kingdom of Heaven/God was the major theme of Jesus’ teaching; a continuation of the blessing of Abraham.

This basic presupposition (blessing of Abraham- kingdom of God) is required in order to understand the context of the Bible and what the point of all that goes on in the Bible means. Without this understanding of the main points of Scripture the parables of Jesus make no sense, Revelation makes no sense, Pentecost makes no sense, the problem of evil makes no sense, redemption and salvation make no sense, etc.

Now, the ball is in your court. You can consider this brief outline as you reflect on what you know about the Bible.

Regarding the claims that the Bible is full of fables, you have to conclude that on your own. Jonah and the fish, well, Jesus who came back from the dead believed it was historical and not mythical. Regarding the attempts to superimpose to cultural and ritual demands of the Torah on society today, or to even suggest that it is proper to impose those culture demands today misses the point. That culture is long gone, however, the moral and ethical principals expressed are timeless and should be observed; per Jesus and Paul.

[Coolhand]

Would you care to venture a guess at what God's success rate is by looking at the world around you and recorded history.

It appears to me that His success rate would be lower than that of a Major League Baseball players batting average. Yet if it is God's Will that none should perish and God's Will be done come hell or high water, what should His success rate be?

I can agree with your statement that He may desire a family or Sonship which is an overcomer, but with an eternity to wait why must they all overcome within what would be less then the blink of an eye on God's time line, and do so within the brief span of one human lifetime.

Finish that sentence: "God id not willing that any should perish but..........." Do you not acknowledge that you have a degree of sovereignty and freedom to choose your path for yourself?

[Coolhand]

I know you asked Pete, but my summarization is:

An Omniscient Deity who has to kill and sacrifice a portion of himself, to appease himself, for something he himself is complicit and responsible for.

Notice how you lay all the blame on God in your synopsis. That is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Adam did the same thing.

[Coolhand]

The only synopsis that I could possibly venture is this one:

The Bible is a storybook,

about how many people from a distant past

understood the relationship between God and man,

and how they believed that God acts in our lives

and how he acted in the past.

It is a storybook.

Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and Jesus; these are all fictitious and/or mythical characters?

[Bro. Hex]

Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and Jesus; these are all fictitious and/or mythical characters?

.

I didn't say that.

But I really could not care less

whether they were historical figures,

or whether they are only mythical.

Factuality is not the important aspect.

It is the story that really matters.

If and when any of it matters.

I say "only mythical",

because whether or not they were historic,

they most certainly are mythical characters.

It is of course possible (and a not infrequent thing) for someone "to be both".

Napoleon was both.

Mohammad was both.

Jesus was both.

Caesar was both

Alexander the Great was both.

Mythical does not mean "false"

It means "Larger than life".

Which is another matter entirely.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Coolhand]

Note to Cool: In a way, if we use OT wording, God can send evil our way (We would not say it like that today!). 1 Peter 4:12 16 "....think it not strange the fiery trial which is to test you...if any man suffer as a Christian...." Is God evil because He allows us, and not just Christians, to suffer, have fiery trials, etc.? Does it not also say that "whom the Lord loves, He chastens?" -Heb 12:16

When bad (evil) things happen to "good" people, we say God "allows" it only because we don't completely understand why these things are so. But when they do happen, we must have faith and trust in God who does know why these things are so.

Right, evil can cover a pretty broad range. Let me clarify what I am saying:(a) It is unbiblical to suggest that God chastens people by killing them, giving them aids, HEP C, diabeties or any other disease; (b) the diseases listed in 'a' (and all others) are not God's chastening but are destructive attacks sent to us from Satan, not God; © any of these attacks (or evil) against a person should result in the person seeking God's deliverance, power, and wisdom to fight it; not succomb to it; (d) God's chastening is to restore us, not destroy us.

[Pete]

Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and Jesus; these are all fictitious and/or mythical characters?

Do you know Cool, I have not a clue whether they all existed or not, however, one thing I feel certain of is that they have been surrounded in myth and portrayed as individuals capable of performing thngs that no other human (and I include you in that) of today can do.

For me, some of the events in the bible maybe true and some I very much doubt. The trouble is as I see it, it is difficult to say what is true when so much has been ornamented with such fantastic premises. I mean you try walking on water.

As for needing to have answers I feel that is something that most people have but that does not mean in anyway that I will swallow just about any answers just because I have a need an answer. Sometimes one suspends not knowing until something sounds more plausible.

I believe that most of the problems of this world has been started with someone believing that they are the only ones with the truth and therefore every one else should believe as they do. If being a Christian means I have to swallow the whole bible as a book of truth then I guess I would call myself a non Christian and a Jesus follower, because I just cannot swallow that. As Fawzo has said there are some terrible things portrayed about God in the bible and I personally would not want to associated with the description given by the bible. For me the idea of a god who would drown the whole world and then be prepared to die to save everyone shows a complete inconsistency.

Regarding my question that I believe you have not answered. It is not enough (IMO) to say that you understand the will of God and then dismiss the question by saying that is up to God with no further explanation that can proven and are not based in hearsay or myth. Somethings may or may of not happened in that past but I do not believe the bible is in anyway proof that they did occur. Blaming all on Satan is a great cop out (imo) but one still then has to acknowledge who it is who created Satan and is allowing Satan (in you description) to reek havoc and refuses to prevent this until some unknown time (perhaps after an extended tea break) in the future. Then you ask me to put confidence in God as described in the bible as being loving.

As for the message of the bible I would agree with Fawzo's statement "An Omniscient Deity who has to kill and sacrifice a portion of himself, to appease himself, for something he himself is complicit and responsible for."

Edited June 26, 2010 by Pete

[Fawzo]

Right, evil can cover a pretty broad range. Let me clarify what I am saying:(a) It is unbiblical to suggest that God chastens people by killing them, giving them aids, HEP C, diabeties or any other disease; (b) the diseases listed in 'a' (and all others) are not God's chastening but are destructive attacks sent to us from Satan, not God; © any of these attacks (or evil) against a person should result in the person seeking God's deliverance, power, and wisdom to fight it; not succomb to it; (d) God's chastening is to restore us, not destroy us.

It wasn't Satan that gave Miriam leprosy, or that forced Ananias and his wife Sapphira to give up the ghost and drop dead. It wasn't Satan that had 70,000 Hebrews killed because David took a census.

The Bible clearly portrays the earth as God's footstool. He controls the waves of the sea and the winds of the air. Not a sparrow falls that god is not aware of and the very hairs on our head are numbered by God.

God is in complete control according to the Bible.

I will agree with your last statement of "God's chastening is to restore us, not destroy us." but someone needs to remind Noah's flood victims and Sodom and Gomorrah