but i'm not about to just throw all human reasoning away and uncritically accept stories in the Bible that are obviously not factual or literal, nor intended to be by their authors.
How do you know the Bible stories are not factual or literal?
| 2007/1/25 22:14||Profile|
of course it depends upon the story. but let's pick Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel for starters. There just has to be more people to begin the human race with than this! there is no mention of others being created or where they might have come from.
the story is clearly told to convey a message about mankind and his relationship to a creator God. that's the important part, not the rib stuff.
| 2007/1/25 22:51|
Santa Clara, CA
| Could you be wrong?|
Quote:Yet He created [u]you[/u] ...[i]and me[/i].
I will never believe that God would create the devil,
Quote: Created angel and fallen devil.
which is what the conventional Christian church teaches us.
the devil is a personification of evil which is something against Goodness, and Not the opposite, parallel of it. the spiritual universe is unipolar, and not bipolar (heaven and hell as equal opposites.) those convinced the existence of evil and who identify with the devil as real will expect eternal life in hell with the devil, but they will indeed weep and nash their teeth when they realize that at judgement, time comes to an end and they will simply be removed from it altogether, and it will be as if they never existed in the first place.
Or annihilation, how wonderful! Then there is absolutely no point nor concern whatsoever ... just pphhtt or Heaven.
You are not convinced of [i]the existence of evil[/i]? The guy who robbed you, last year was it? misguided? Hungry? Drug addict ... Bored? Why bother doing all these humanitarian projects you mention?
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
For all the nefarious notions you have attempted to bring forth here ... you have grown worse.
I am convinced of the saving Grace of Christ's sacrifice because ...
Because what? Saved [i]from[/i] .... what? Christ's sacrafice for ... what? A non-existent evil?
1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God's commands or law. 1 John 3. Mat 15. James 4. Sinner neither enjoy the pleasures of nor the peace of piety. Among divines, sin is original or actual. Actual sin, above defined, is the act of a moral agent in violating a known rule of duty. Original sin, as generally understood, is native depravity of heart to the divine will, that corruption of nature of deterioration of the moral character of man, which is supposed to be the effect of Adam's apostasy; and which manifests itself in moral agents by positive act of disobedience to the divine will, or by the voluntary neglect to comply with the express commands of God, which require that we should love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. This native depravity or alienation of affections from God and his law, is supposed to be what the apostle calls the carnal mind or mindedness, which is enmity against God, and is therefore denominated sin or sinfulness. Unpardonable sin, or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is supposed to be a malicious and obstinate rejection of Christ and the gospel plan of salvation, or a contemptuous resistance made to the influences and convictions of the Holy Spirit. Mat 12.
2. A sin-offering; an offering made to atone for sin. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. 2 Cor 5.
3. A man enormously wicked. [Not in use.]
4. Sin differs from crime, not in nature, but in application. That which is a crime against society, is sin against God.
1. To depart voluntarily from the path of duty prescribed by God man; to violate the divine law in any particular, by actual transgression or by the neglect or non-observance of its injunctions; to violate any known rule of duty. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom 3. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned. Psa 51.
2. To offend against right, against men or society; to trespass. I an a man more sinn'd against than sinning. And who but wishes to invert the laws of order, sins against the' eternal cause.
SIN,for since, obsolete or vulgar.
From H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender: - punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin (-ner, offering).
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine raah; as adjective or noun.]
From G1225; a traducer; specifically Satan (compare [H7854]): - false accuser, devil, slanderer.
From H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch enemy of good: - adversary, Satan, withstand.
my problem with so much of what goes on at SI is that everything is rigid fundamentalism. it's a control game played by many in the clergy
Which is what I am sure you will find all the above to be, "rigid" fundamentalism. You prefer to mock the very thing you profess to hold to which is often a complex weave of contradictions making a nice out for yourself and an easy application as to so much that [i]goes on here[/i]. It is all quite absurd. You have as much pride as the devil you believe to be some caricature, some abstract notion or allegory.
You probably are the kindest and most charitable devil that has come through here but no less one regardless. And of course that will just roll right off of you otherwise I would hardly make the utterance. I also realize you will again ignore the more pressing questions posed to you and only tackle and defend your notions and interpretations anyway. Nothing has changed your mind or seemingly given you pause for consideration, you are above it all and we, the 'fundamentalists' are so far below your open minded appreciation for ... any spirit that tickles your funny bone. Rather frightening it is to hear you suggest opening the mind up against 'the control game' as you see it, when you cannot even recognize what this loss off control is allowing you to not even consider.
It is rather perplexing in a way to hear you again 'Bubba' (That is not a slight to any reading this, just a lot of past history here). After all the long threads on evolution (which I personally could care less about in light of so much heart disease of a very serious spiritual and natural sort) and almost a defending of yourself not due to your notions but because of a hope that maybe some of this might cause you to reconsider ... What is it honestly that you think you are going to be able to contribute or challenge a great audience of sincerely God loving Brethren that have come here to share and search their hearts, find the real truth of so much ... pretense out in the world and the world of "Christendom"? Is this really about "control"? Here? Seriously? The great attempt to practically ignore so many denominational pursuits and find the gems or seeds that cut across all these lines of history. Tremendous challenges up against even some long held 'doctrines' ... "Control"? I think there is a great dismantling of pretense and falsity in all it's forms, the vast majority here are far more concerned with manipulation and 'control' than you know or may admit to.
That 'we' as a whole have practically turned back-wards to search and find old paths is not some trip down memory lane or a sentimental romanticism. These are hungry saints. This is life and death, this is no game. How absurd.
Stranger still, hardly am I even remotely angry however this sounds, it's too long as usual... I just don't know that any pleading and questioning and learning or humbling or reconsidering is possible. You wish to tear to shreds that which is held in high esteem, the scriptures and here I was just foolish to think that Ron's (Philologos) challenges to you where often too ... strenuous and thus the 'moderator hat' intervention, holding out hope. To my opinion? Hardly, am half way to the beginning it seems most often, but that you can so easily disallow and ignore whole large sections of what is written to suit your preconceived notions and assumptions is ... incredible.
I know this is a large waste of time sadly. Perhaps it's for others benefit. Perhaps you might read through this terrible rigid fundamental controlling bit just to see how far from it you really are ... it's difficult not to be cynical, I just do not know what else there is;
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=10733&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go]Jonathan Edwards - Undiscerned Spiritual Pride[/url]
| 2007/1/26 0:22||Profile|
I just wanted to say that everything I said was in love, and I hope it was received in love as well.
May Christ be yours,
| 2007/1/26 8:25||Profile|
Do you not see that you are falling for the same line that Eve did when the Serpent asked her "Yea, hath God said...?" This caused her to rationalize: (Gen. 3:6) It was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desired to make one wise.
In using a "pick and choose" approach to the Scripture are you not doing what Eve did in seeing the BOOK as one which contains ideas which will make you wise? Sir, I fear for you....
Your posts remind me of a quote by Ravi Zacharias: Is it possible that somewhere in the deepest recesses of the human heart we are not really battling intellectual ideas as much as fighting for the right of our sexual proclivities and our passionate indulgences?
~Ravi Zacharias, Lessons from the Battle of Ideas, 11-21. Does this apply here?
Sir, I fear for you....
PS: BTW, I am not clergy, just a 59 YO wife, mother and grandmother to 8 children. I do not believe someone just because he says he is clergy. The Bible is my point of reference and the Holy Spirit confirms it in my Spirit. When the Bible uses words like "is", "was", "shall be", "must" I take it to mean that exactly. Need no other human logic to understand that - even a child knows that much!
| 2007/1/26 9:33||Profile|
Bubba wrote: "of course it depends upon the story. but let's pick Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel for starters. There just has to be more people to begin the human race with than this! there is no mention of others being created or where they might have come from."
| 2007/1/26 11:14||Profile|
i've been following your post carefully and still i have a hard time trying figure out how you draw some of your conclusions.
When i read stuff like "there just has to be" and "there is no mention of" and then conclude with a statement like "the story is clearly told" i have to say that is just poor reasoning. So was "the rib stuff" nothing more than extra filler or an overlooked redundancy? If not then what does it convey? Do you believe in the virgin birth?
Its hard to tell from your post, but do you believe Cain and Abel were real people or mythical figures? If mythical, was Jesus then referring to the mythical blood of a mythical Abel in Matthew 23:35 when he says, "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias...". If that be the case, would'nt we have to conclude that Zacharias is also a mythical figure?
Stretching back to the first page you wrote:
by restricting Biblical accounts to being literally true, much of the meaning and intentions of the authors is lost.
biblical literalism is a crutch for those with weak faith.
I believe you have it backwards, when i was weak in faith i was looking for any reason to substitute my own thoughts for Biblical writ. Restricting the Biblical accounts means avoiding harmful or errant interpretations of what we 'think' the authors might have meant or intended. It allows you to come up with empty concepts like the redundant nothingness of the void, nothing more than a euphemism for HELL. Not trying to sound harsh, but that looks to me like someone grabbing for a crutch.
| 2007/1/26 11:19||Profile|
| Re: Could you be wrong?|
"You are not convinced of the existence of evil? The guy who robbed you, last year was it? misguided? Hungry? Drug addict ... Bored? Why bother doing all these humanitarian projects you mention?
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
Mike, i haven't yet finished reading your post but wanted to respond to this right away. yes there is a whole litany of the confoundingly stupid and unproductive activities of mankind. and there is a mindset held by some that is against Good for merely antagonistic reasons. i don't see these as "evil" in the sense that some malevolent spiritual force is guiding or directing them. they are nothing more than callousness, stupidity, and blindness. they are not the opposite of love, which is directed by a creative Spiritual force inherent in the universe that we identify as God the Father.
i am not calling good evil, nor evil good. i am saying that the conception and personification of the devil as the source of evil is just and only that. adam and eve ate of the apple because they didn't heed the warning of the consequenses that would follow, this is not productive and is stupid behavior, but i don't see it as the equivalent opposite of the force of love.
PS. question: Did Adam have a belly button?
| 2007/1/26 11:55|
| Re: Could you be wrong?|
Mike and fellow SI participants:
you make a good point in asking me what i'm trying to do. here it is; this ministry proports to propagate and support the teachings of the Christian Church and the sermons and ministry of evangelical Christianity. as a Christian i don't like to see what i consider shaky foundations being put underneath the Gospel of Jesus. when the devil (to use your conceptioning) comes along and gives the fundamentalist Church a good wacking, it will come apart at the seams because its foundation excludes everything that God's creation around us is telling us. when you have convinced your followers that science and evolution are of the devil and that hard sciences don't matter in the face of THE WORD, then you are endangering people spiritually. i chose this online ministry at random one day long ago because it seemed like there were some thoughtful people corresponding about serious issues in an open and Christian manner. I am grateful for the chance to participate and voice my perhaps too frequent or persistent contrarian positions, but i mean no ill will nor abuse of you, sir. a friend recently reminded me when i was lamenting a seemingly intractable situation that the only activity to address it was prayer. good advice.
| 2007/1/26 12:29|
I know your being swamped with posts, but I am curious to know what your authority is in truth? How do you know of something is true or not?
By what standard do you compare a "story" to see if it is true or not?
| 2007/1/26 12:56||Profile|