Proposal for definition in FAQ of "Christianity"

[Rhamiel]

Amen Rhamiel thank you brother
May i ask if you believe it is appropriate to place the fact we believe the bible to be inspired, before the nicene creed, showing what we do believe and the scriptures from whence the belief comes?
I am not sure, this is very thin ice we skate on, I do not want to offend very liberal christians (some of which I can not even see how they can call themselves christian but others say the same thing about Catholics so oh well)
The Bible is the Word of God might be a good way to put it, everyone should be able to agree on that right? Does that mean the Bible is without error? I say yes others might say no but we are all christians right?

[Time2BCounted]

Not that I expect a straight answer, since you've singularly seen fit to dimiss my presence in this thread, and have a track record now of deflecting uncomfortable questions, but . . .

can Christianity exist without the Bible?
God saw fit to give it to us for some reason CC

What do you suggest that reason is? Or do you not believe God gave it to us in the first place? And why did you ignore the questions put to you in my last post to you? Because they are hard?

[chaoschristian]

How does one build a house CC?

Are there standards which must be followed? Where do we find these standards? What purpose do these standards serve?

Were there Christians before the 4th century?

[Rhamiel]

the 4th or 5th CC i know of said can Christianity exist without the Bible?
it can and did in the apostolic period, would it be good to not have the Bible any more, no it would not be good but Christianity would survive

[chaoschristian]

God saw fit to give it to us for some reason CC

What do you suggest that reason is? Or do you not believe God gave it to us in the first place?

Until we can arrive at a common ground for talking about scriptures, then we'll go round and round on this.

Like I said, scriptures are God inspired. Scriptures are not God given, if I understand what you mean by that term.

[Time2BCounted]

the 4th or 5th CC i know of said
it can and did in the apostolic period, would it be good to not have the Bible any more, no it would not be good but Christianity would survive
Brother what do you think of the way we have this worded presently in our proposal?

We believe (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15) in the inspiration of the bible and recognize it is the infallable Word of God as it was penned in the original manuscripts.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[Time2BCounted]

Until we can arrive at a common ground for talking about scriptures, then we'll go round and round on this.

Like I said, scriptures are God inspired. Scriptures are not God given, if I understand what you mean by that term.
You would disagree then that God instructed men to write these things in a book?

[Nadiine]

Not that I expect a straight answer, since you've singularly seen fit to dimiss my presence in this thread, and have a track record now of deflecting uncomfortable questions, but . . .

can Christianity exist without the Bible?
We have one, so it's a moot question -
further, it wouldn't matter either way; neither answer (yes or no) directly supports your point either way.

[Melethiel]

Why are you so against moving that bit down to the bottom, so it does not appear to make amendments to the Creed, or so that it does not appear to place the Bible above God?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Can we knowingly reject the scriptures and not expect an impact on our relationship to God?
Wow, you totally missed the point.

I didn't say anything about rejecting the Scriptures. I'm saying that you're just plum wrong- belief in God is not dependent on our belief in the Scriptures; belief in the Scriptures is dependent on our belief in God.

[Time2BCounted]

Why are you so against moving that bit down to the bottom, so it does not appear to make amendments to the Creed, or so that it does not appear to place the Bible above God?
The nicene portion defines our belief and bases it on scripture.

The portion just before it is identifying the source. Imho this is proper etiquite, and i believe most agree. No one here has decided this is how it will stand, we are waiting for more input. So far we have one opposed, 3 or more in favor and 1 in the middle.

Let me ask it this way, Would anyone be opposed to placing our belief in the scriptures as inspired, AFTER the nicene section? If so why?

[Time2BCounted]

Wow, you totally missed the point.

I didn't say anything about rejecting the Scriptures. I'm saying that you're just plum wrong- belief in God is not dependent on our belief in the Scriptures; belief in the Scriptures is dependent on our belief in God.
I'm trying to understand brother, im not opposing you. What i dont understand is the implicaiton that we can come to a proper understanding of God without the bible?

Even Apollos was misrepresenting salvation until he was shown in the scriptures that Jesus is Lord.

Can it be done? Of course God is able, but He chose instead to give us His word.

The point we are asking is, can we deny this word and still be 'followers'? Are we not to live by every word that procedes from His mouth?

Why did God instruct men to 'write in a book'?

[stumpjumper]

You would disagree then that God instructed men to write these things in a book?

There are a number of ways of talking about inspiration.

No matter how you look at it, though, you have to at least recognize that the Bible contains a fully human aspect.

Christ was the same....

[stumpjumper]

I'm trying to understand brother, im not opposing you. What i dont understand is the implicaiton that we can come to a proper understanding of God without the bible?



You're not a Barthian are you? :P

[Time2BCounted]

There are a number of ways of talking about inspiration.

No matter how you look at it, though, you have to at least recognize that the Bible contains a fully human aspect.

Christ was the same....
Stumpjumper
May i ask why you have a wiccan greeting in your custom title?

[stumpjumper]

Stumpjumper
May i ask why you have a wiccan greeting in your custom title?

It's not wiccan.

It's a Lutheran hymn...

[Time2BCounted]

It's not wiccan.

It's a Lutheran hymn...
Stump
I want everyone to be aware of possible motives against the christian here

1 you dont realize my background

To all my brothers and sisters, let me say i think SOME opposition here may be coming from something other than good intent.

I have a background in the occult. My father was satanist, my brother a mystic, my nephews wiccan, and ex gf that was wiccan and i can ASSURE you, that if you doubt my suspicions, IF youll pm me, i will give you links to wiccan boards and you will see their common oft used "hello" and "good bye" is "Blessed be"

So we must be wise and consider possible sources and ulterior motives of dividing christians and derailing threads to slow this process

[D'Ann]

Someone called? :wave:



The reality is, Erwin did 'deal with it' on 777. He dealt with the fact that on an anonymous, mediated format such as the internet it is pure folly to try and judge who is and is not a Christian, that on an ecumenical website, missioned to bring together Christians of various backgrounds and faith traditions, is it folly to so tightly constrict who is and is not Christian as to undermine the mission of the community.

The problem has been dealt with.

I have stated repeatedly that the current FAQ is sufficient. It is sufficient (even if I find it personally to be deficient) because it works for the mission of the site.

And that is what is to guide us, and will certainly guide Erwin.

The proposed FAQ is both deficient and insufficient in terms of the mission of Foru.ms. It is insufficient because it, as written, excludes large portions of the current community. I believe that many good people have taken the time and effort to point this out to those editing this draft document. Editors, you would do well to take heed.

For those who simply cannot accept or adjust to the 777 reforms, two choices are provided: remain in your congregational sub-forum, where you have the freedom and the priviledge to define and refine to your own satisfaction, or leave.

I really do hate that last part. I really do hate to see people leave. Erwin's created an interesting (if frustrating at times) community, and for every person who leaves the community is less and less.

Having been on the receiving end of 'Well if you don't like it here, just go.' I know that pain that can cause. Please believe me when I say I mean no malice. But if the place is really stressing you out that badly, then go. Options abound. Other communities exist. The world is full of people trying to connect, birds of a feather and all that. Take wing and set yourself free, and experience the joy of assuredness that whereever you alight, Jesus will be there waiting for you.

Not that I expect a straight answer, since you've singularly seen fit to dimiss my presence in this thread, and have a track record now of deflecting uncomfortable questions, but . . .

can Christianity exist without the Bible?

I know that you and some others feel that Erwin "dealt" with this on 7/7/7, but obviously, many of us disagree with how he did it, therefore, this thread among many more have been started. What Erwin did was remove a strong foundation and structure that helped to identify and give a basis of what Christ taught about Christianity. I don't agree with what Erwin did and so, in my mind, it's not settled and it never will be until there is some structural foundation, other than, anyone who says they are a Christian, is a Christian concept. Although, I do applaud the 5 Christian principles, they, by themselves is not a strong structural foundation.

Jesus gave us a strong structural foundation with His words defining what it is to walk the Christian life and Erwin removed those defining words when he removed the Nicene Creed. If he wanted to be more inclusive, then instead of removing the Nicene Creed, he should of added the Apostle Creed along with the Nicene Creed which would of given much more room for being inclusive and yet keeping the structural and sound foundation that was originally given to us by Christ in His Word.

I'm trying to understand brother, im not opposing you. What i dont understand is the implicaiton that we can come to a proper understanding of God without the bible?

Even Apollos was misrepresenting salvation until he was shown in the scriptures that Jesus is Lord.

Can it be done? Of course God is able, but He chose instead to give us His word.

The point we are asking is, can we deny this word and still be 'followers'? Are we not to live by every word that procedes from His mouth?

Why did God instruct men to 'write in a book'?

Before there was a "Bible" as we know it, there was Traditions and those Traditions were preached and taught from generation to generation and then the monks put those Traditions into books which were then combined into one book that we now call the Bible.

In order to understand Christianity and to grow in our faith, we should study and know the Word of God and the Traditions. I believe that is why the Bible was written, to give us instructions and guidance and to encourage us to continue to walk in Christ with faith, hope and love.

It's not wiccan.

It's a Lutheran hymn...

Yup, it is. I don't have a problem with it, myself.

p.s.:

I like what the OP had to say so far. I do wish that we could add that part about Mary being the mother of Jesus and thus, because of Jesus being God in the flesh... that would technically make Mary the mother of God... along with a few other points made here in this thread.

[stumpjumper]

You're not a Barthian are you? :P

I gotta go to an Odyssey Of The Mind meeting so I'll answer my own trick question and give you some Barth about the scriptures while I'm at it...

Barth wasn't much for what went by the term of natural theology and believed that we must look towards God's self revelation in Christ (which was recorded in scripture) as the one unique and special mode of understanding and receiving God's vision for our lives.

Anyway, to tie this back to this post of yours:

You would disagree then that God instructed men to write these things in a book?

Barth made this analogy between the Word of God and the Bible:

"It is impossible that there should have been a transmutation of the one into the other or an admixture of the one with the other. This is not even the case even in the person of Christ. As the Word of God in the sign of this prophetic-apostolic word of man, Holy Scripture is like the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ. It is neither divine only nor human only. Nor is it a mixture of the two nor a tertium quid between them. But in it's own way and degree it is very God and very man, i.e., a witness of revelation which itself belongs to revelation, and historically a very human literary document." ~ Barth's Dogmatics series..

[kiwimac]

Blessed be is also the opening line of a number of hymns.

Blessed be the tie that binds.
Blessed be the name of Jesus
Blessed be that Child
Blessed Be The Everlasting God
Blessed Be The Fountain
Blessed Be The Lord God Almighty
Blessed Be The Name
Blessed Be The Name (Clark)
Blessed Be The Name (Pickett)
Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord
Blessed Be The Rock

Take your pick.

[Time2BCounted]

You dont answer any questions

Do you agree or disagree that God told men to write His words in a book?

[Time2BCounted]

Kiwi, what do you know of the occult my friend? Are you aware 'blessed be' is also an occultish welcome and good bye? I will pm links to folks to see for themselves if you dont want to acknowledge this is the truth

[tulc]

So we must be wise and consider possible sources and ulterior motives of dividing christians and derailing threads to slow this process

...or you could stop looking for a conspiracy and concentrate on the things actually being said? :)
Blessed Be the Tie that Binds 1. Blessed be the tie that binds
Our hearts in Christian love;
The fellowship of kindred minds
Is like that to that above.
2. Before our Father's throne
We pour our ardent prayers;
Our fears, our hopes, our aims are one
Our comforts and our cares.
3. We share each other's woes,
Our mutual burdens bear;
And often for each other flows
The sympathizing tear.
4. When we asunder part,
It gives us inward pain;
But we shall still be joined in heart,
And hope to meet again.
5. This glorious hope revives
Our courage by the way;
While each in expectation lives,
And longs to see the day.
6. From sorrow, toil and pain,
And sin, we shall be free,
And perfect love and friendship reign
Through all eternity.
©2001, Wendell Kimbrough Music.
Used by permission. All rights reserved


Blessed be the Name

All praise to Him Who reigns above
In majesty supreme,
Who gave His Son for man to die,
That He might man redeem!
Refrain
Blessed be the Name! Blessed be the Name!
Blessed be the Name of the Lord!
Blessed be the Name! Blessed be the Name!
Blessed be the Name of the Lord!
His Name above all names shall stand,
Exalted more and more,
At God the Father’s own right hand,
Where angel hosts adore.
Refrain
Redeemer, Savior, Friend of man
Once ruined by the fall,
Thou hast devised salvation’s plan,
For Thou hast died for all.
Refrain
His Name shall be the Counselor,
The mighty Prince of Peace,
Of all earth’s kingdoms Conqueror,
Whose reign shall never cease.
Refrain
tulc(just a thought) :)

[kiwimac]

Kiwi, what do you know of the occult my friend? Are you aware 'blessed be' is also an occultish welcome and good bye? I will pm links to folks to see for themselves if you dont want to acknowledge this is the truth

I am well aware of one of the meanings of blessed be. But I don't immediately think Wiccan when I see it used. I have a number of wiccan friends including a chap I have from time to time taught with in Comparative Religion.

[Nadiine]

I gotta go to an Odyssey Of The Mind meeting so I'll answer my own trick question and give you some Barth about the scriptures while I'm at it...

Barth wasn't much for what went by the term of natural theology and believed that we must look towards God's self revelation in Christ (which was recorded in scripture) as the one unique and special mode of understanding and receiving God's vision for our lives.

Anyway, to tie this back to this post of yours:

Barth made this analogy between the Word of God and the Bible:

"It is impossible that there should have been a transmutation of the one into the other or an admixture of the one with the other. This is not even the case even in the person of Christ. As the Word of God in the sign of this prophetic-apostolic word of man, Holy Scripture is like the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ. It is neither divine only nor human only. Nor is it a mixture of the two nor a tertium quid between them. But in it's own way and degree it is very God and very man, i.e., a witness of revelation which itself belongs to revelation, and historically a very human literary document." ~ Barth's Dogmatics series..
Maybe some folks should spend more time IN THE WORD OF GOD.. since after all, God says that he confounds the "WISE" in His simplicity.

Sadly, the greeks stumbled becuz they were after wisdom & knowledge (that puff up) and missed out on the knowledge of the Truth!

2 Timothy 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=7&version=49&context=verse)
always learning and never able to
come to the knowledge of the truth.

[tulc]

Kiwi, what do you know of the occult my friend? Are you aware 'blessed be' is also an occultish welcome and good bye? I will pm links to folks to see for themselves if you dont want to acknowledge this is the truth

So? :scratch: That doesn't mean everyone who says it is wicca, :)
tulc(just because they disagree doesn't make them evil) :sigh:

[kiwimac]

Maybe some folks should spend more time IN THE WORD OF GOD.. since after all, God says that he confounds the "WISE" in His simplicity.

Sadly, the greeks stumbled becuz they were after wisdom & knowledge (that puff up) and missed out on the knowledge of the Truth!

2 Timothy 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=7&version=49&context=verse)
always learning and never able to
come to the knowledge of the truth.

Lots of assumptions here about both Karl Barth and Stumpjumper.

[Nadiine]

Kiwi, what do you know of the occult my friend? Are you aware 'blessed be' is also an occultish welcome and good bye? I will pm links to folks to see for themselves if you dont want to acknowledge this is the truth
Yes it certainly is - in my former chat/debate that I was in, we had a nontrinitarian guy that was always there - and out of the blue, he started coming in the chat with "blessed be" and said it when he left.
We told him what it meant, that pagans used it, and he said he knew, but he means it in a godly way.

I don't doubt a pagan mite feel HIJACKED by someone claiming to be "christian" and using their greetings & salutations. (or, they could be rejoicing for other reasons I won't mention)

I find it offensive for a Christian to be taking pagan 'lingo' & using it with Christians - I wonder if the pagans will start putting fish or doves on their bumpers next?
heh :tutu: :tutu:

[tulc]

Maybe some folks should spend more time IN THE WORD OF GOD.. since after all, God says that he confounds the "WISE" in His simplicity.
Sadly, the greeks stumbled becuz they were after wisdom & knowledge (that puff up) and missed out on the knowledge of the Truth!

...and the Jews seek a sign, both of them were wrong. What's your point? :scratch: God called both Jews and Greeks, and using a little wisdom from 2000 years of Christian thinkers can't be all bad. (IMHO) :sorry:
tulc(who's a pretty simple guy himself) :)

[D'Ann]

Scriptures with blessed be:


Genesis 9:26

26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Genesis 14:9

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Psalms 28:6-9 6 Blessed be the LORD, because he hath heard the voice of my supplications. 7 The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth; and with my song will I praise him. 8 The LORD is their strength, and he is the saving strength of his anointed. 9 Save thy people, and bless thine inheritance: feed them also, and lift them up for ever. Psalms 18:46

46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

Psalms 21:31

21 Blessed be the LORD: for he hath shewed me his marvellous kindness in a strong city.


There are a ton of scriptures that use this term. I've never associated this term with wicca or any other non-Christian concepts. Although, I've never been involved with other non-Christian concepts either. I guess... the best solution is that we don't get caught up with this term and get back to the topic at hand.


The above scriptures are located in the Kings James Version Bible.

[Time2BCounted]

Lots of assumptions here about both Karl Barth and Stumpjumper.
No assumption at all... its a pagan greeting and identifier

He can use it if he likes, but it does raise a question imho as to possible motives concerning why he opposes clarifying the truth

[Time2BCounted]

Scriptures with blessed be:



[/COLOR][/I][/B]There are a ton of scriptures that use this term. I've never associated this term with wicca or any other non-Christian concepts. Although, I've never been involved with other non-Christian concepts either. I guess... the best solution is that we don't get caught up with this term and get back to the topic at hand.


The above scriptures are located in the Kings James Version Bible.
Theres also this

http://www.freewebs.com/wiccan-76815/
The Wiccan Place
Blessed Be

http://blessedbe.sugarbane.com/
Wiccan Altar Information and Supplies

http://groups.msn.com/WiccanTribe
Welcome to
Wiccan Tribe
Upon a dark and windy hill,
On Samhain's eldritch night
I saw the Crone with withered hands
By balefire's burning light
Her eyes were full of wisdom,
The threads of life she span
And sang "Blessed Be! And Blessed Be!
And Blessed Be again!"


http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store.aspx?s=abornpagan.16704
~A Born Pagan Store~ : Blessed Be!

[chaoschristian]

Jesus gave us a strong structural foundation with His words defining what it is to walk the Christian life and Erwin removed those defining words when he removed the Nicene Creed.

Now, unless my eyes deceive me, that's the Nicene Creed sitting there pretty as can be in the FAQ.

Funny, if Erwin removed it he didn't do a very good job.

No, what Erwin did was acknowledge the folly of providing special priviledges to some and whacking others over the head based on the Creed.

He didn't remove the Creed, he removed the evil that had built itself up around the creed.

[kiwimac]

Yes it certainly is - in my former chat/debate that I was in, we had a nontrinitarian guy that was always there - and out of the blue, he started coming in the chat with "blessed be" and said it when he left.
We told him what it meant, that pagans used it, and he said he knew, but he means it in a godly way.

I don't doubt a pagan mite feel HIJACKED by someone claiming to be "christian" and using their greetings & salutations. (or, they could be rejoicing for other reasons I won't mention)

I find it offensive for a Christian to be taking pagan 'lingo' & using it with Christians - I wonder if the pagans will start putting fish or doves on their bumpers next?
heh :tutu: :tutu:

Do hope you are not talking about Stumpjumper here?

[tulc]

And technically we Christians said it first, they stole it from us! ;)
tulc(thinking about coffee) :)

[kiwimac]

No assumption at all... its a pagan greeting and identifier.

Not in this case, in this case it is a line from a hymn or are you calling Stumpjumper a liar?

[Time2BCounted]

Not in this case, in this case it is a line from a hymn or are you calling Stumpjumper a liar?
Kiwi should we just believe everything everyone tells us or do we try using some logic and wisdom, weighing words by fruits and actions?

[chaoschristian]

Brother what do you think of the way we have this worded presently in our proposal?

I think you are using an anachronistic and erroneous interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[chaoschristian]

We have one, so it's a moot question -
further, it wouldn't matter either way; neither answer (yes or no) directly supports your point either way.

What, pray tell, would you articulate as my point Nadiine?

[D'Ann]

Theres also this

http://www.freewebs.com/wiccan-76815/
The Wiccan Place
Blessed Be

http://blessedbe.sugarbane.com/
Wiccan Altar Information and Supplies

http://groups.msn.com/WiccanTribe
Welcome to
Wiccan Tribe
Upon a dark and windy hill,
On Samhain's eldritch night
I saw the Crone with withered hands
By balefire's burning light
Her eyes were full of wisdom,
The threads of life she span
And sang "Blessed Be! And Blessed Be!
And Blessed Be again!"


http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store.aspx?s=abornpagan.16704
~A Born Pagan Store~ : Blessed Be!

I'm not saying that other non-Christian religions are not using this term. What I am poorly saying is that it is only a term and we probably shouldn't concentrate on it to the point of taking this thread off topic imho. In other words, if they are using this term, along with some curses from the Bible, that is a separate issue from this thread. I don't agree with Stumpjumper on many things, but I truly don't believe that he is a wiccan and I truly believe that his use of this term has nothing to do with wicca.

Now, unless my eyes deceive me, that's the Nicene Creed sitting there pretty as can be in the FAQ.

Funny, if Erwin removed it he didn't do a very good job.

No, what Erwin did was acknowledge the folly of providing special priviledges to some and whacking others over the head based on the Creed.

He didn't remove the Creed, he removed the evil that had built itself up around the creed.

Well, he removed it on 7/7/7 and the last that I had checked, it wasn't there. So, my mistake... mea culpa. I didn't know that he put it back. Or has he put it back along with stating that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian? I haven't recently looked on the FAQs... again, mea culpa... my fault. So thank you for letting me know. If you were being sarcastic, it wasn't necessary. If you were just stating something to help me out, thank you.

And technically we Christians said it first, they stole it from us! ;)
tulc(thinking about coffee) :)

Very good point... and I love coffee too.

[kiwimac]

Occam's razor indicates that we should take the simplest possibility when we look at two differing possibilities. In this case, the simplest explanation (and the most Christian) is to accept Stumpjumper at his word.

Further, let me add, I have spoken with stumpjumper many times over the time he and I have been members here, SJ is a follower of Christ.

As for Kiwi do you just believe everything everyone tells you or do you try using some logic and wisdom?

That is perilously close to a defamation under the rules of this site, please withdraw it asap. I could arrogantly assert that as you, for instance, use neither you are in no place to judge but that would make me as inflammatory as you are perceived to be.

[tulc]

He can use it if he likes, but it does raise a question imho as to possible motives concerning why he opposes clarifying the truth

His motives has been clear from the start, and for you to imply otherwise is simply wrong. :sigh:
tulc(and reflects badly on you , not him) :(

[NewGuy101]

Can we just get back to the point? This thread has seriously been derailed by adhominims.

[D'Ann]

So far, here is what I've found regarding Christianity statements in the FAQs:

All Foru.ms Rules will be based on the following Five Christian Principles:

Two Greatest Commandments - Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)

1. Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.

2. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (No flaming, no trolling etc)
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


Three Relevant Commandments from the Ten Commandments - Exodus 20:7,15-16 (NIV)

3. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God. (Respect the name of God and Jesus - no anti-Christ messages or images - Satanism is considered anti-Christ, so the promotion of Satanism apart from apologetics debate and exclusively Satanic symbols are prohibited)

4. You shall not steal. (No illegal activities promoted, no copyright infringement, no contractual breaches etc)

5. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."


The Five Christian Principles will provide overall guidance to staff and members in developing forum rules and enforcing those rules. Forum rules are developed collaboratively by staff and members and will basically be more detailed interpretations and expansion of the above principles. Forum rules may expand from the above principles and add things not covered by the above principles but the above principles cannot be contradicted. Forum rules should be developed with the above principles in mind with the focus on the vision of this site.

2. Nicene Christian

Subforums can go further in depth and use additional Creeds and/or Scripture to separate Nicene Christians from Non-Nicene Christians, or may choose to set the optional sections as absolutes if they so choose, for example, to prohibit Nestorianism, Chiliasm, etc.

A Nicene Christian, is one who ascribes to the Nicene Creed (as follows with Scripture references):


We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

Yet, there is some variance amongst Nicene Christians.
* Some, but not all add the filioque
* Some, but not all adhere to Baptism for the remission of sins.
* Some, but not all attribute Mary as the mother of God.
* Some, but not all, believe Christ will reign for a literal 1000 years ending before the final judgment.
* Some, but not all believe Jesus did but God did not die on the Cross
* Some, but not all will not ascribe to creeds, yet their beliefs are in many cases summarized by the Nicene Creed, but out of deference to Sola Scriptura, they will not agree to any creed created by man.

For purposes of Foru.ms, the above statements for purposes of being identified as a Nicene Christian are optional. Examples of Nicene churches are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist, Reformed, Anglican etc.

3. Non-Nicene Christian

These are members who identify themselves as Christian, but for any number of reason cannot accept all or part of the Nicene Creed, outside of the previously mentioned options. Examples of Non-Nicene churches are Unitarian, Latter-Day Saints (Mormon), Jehovah's Witnesses etc.

LINK (http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=definition_christian#faq_definition_christian_content)



I wish that he would add the Apostle Creed too. But that is a battle for another day.

Thanks.

[Time2BCounted]

Amen bro and thank you

Whats your opinion on where we stand with the definition thus far?

The one in the op is up to daye with current tweaks

[D'Ann]

Amen bro and thank you

Whats your opinion on where we stand with the definition thus far?

The one in the op is up to daye with current tweaks

Well... I know you are talking to someone else... LOL

But so far, it looks good. Thanks.

[Joykins]

D'Ann, the FAQ defines "Christian" as "a follower of Jesus" and further says


Subforums can go further in depth and use additional Creeds and/or Scripture to separate Nicene Christians from Non-Nicene Christians, or may choose to set the optional sections as absolutes if they so choose, for example, to prohibit Nestorianism, Chiliasm, etc.

A Nicene Christian, is one who ascribes to the Nicene Creed (as follows with Scripture references):

<insert annotated and scripture-referenced NC here -- same as it used to be.>

--this is all included in the Definition of a Christian section.

[D'Ann]

D'Ann, the FAQ defines "Christian" as "a follower of Jesus" and further says



<insert annotated and scripture-referenced NC here -- same as it used to be.>

--this is all included in the Definition of a Christian section.


Thanks... I figured that one out... LOL

:)

God Bless you and your family.

[chaoschristian]

You would disagree then that God instructed men to write these things in a book?

That you ask that question in the manner you did is indeed very telling.

'To write these things in a book' presupposes the format, the codex, that we currently have. It also presupposes that revelation is arrived at through writing. Futher more it presupposes that the authors of scripture are mere divine scribes. Finally is presupposes that the revelation that is provided is in fact indicative fact.

Scriptures are the reflections of the divine revelation of men over time. They are necessarily phenomenological, and now after nearly two thousand years of existance (in the current canon) also necessarily mythic in nature.

The original manuscripts are lost to us. Belief in their inerrancy is irrelevant unless they are recovered. What we have we know we have in error - in that there is convincing textual, anthropological, and archeological evidence to indicate that the format in which the Bible occurs is more a product of tradition than it is of fact.

These things alone are not enough to undermine the authority of scripture. We arrive at that through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. But it is important for integrity's sake not to overstate the case when it comes to the nature of scriptures, nor to erroneously place our faith in a collection of texts.

Certainly it is grievious error to state that Christianity is wholly defined by scripture alone.

[Joykins]

I like this one myself

Numbers 6:24-26

[Nadiine]

This must be what the early Christians felt like - I can empathize now.

[tulc]

This must be what the early Christians felt like - I can empathize now.

Really? How so?
tulc(just curious) :)

[Nadiine]

Really? How so?
tulc(just curious) :)
nothing I want to spell out here tulc lol :cool:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

This must be what the early Christians felt like - I can empathize now.

Erm- I don't think so. They had bishops to guide them.

[Time2BCounted]

Erm- I don't think so. They had bishops to guide them.
They had no written word by which to judge the guidance?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

They had no written word by which to judge the guidance?

Depends on how early you are talking. Paul's letters were some of the earliest writings.


Nevertheless, it wasn't up to the members of various churches to hammer out doctrine. That had properly taught and ordained bishops to teach them.

[Time2BCounted]

Depends on how early you are talking. Paul's letters were some of the earliest writings.


Nevertheless, it wasn't up to the members of various churches to hammer out doctrine. That had properly taught and ordained bishops to teach them.
So youre saying before paul we had no written word of God? Nothing by which God said "write it in a book"?

Jesus quoted from what?

[Nadiine]

Erm- I don't think so. They had bishops to guide them.
No, that wasn't what I was insinuating by my comment - not that you could have known either, i purposely left it vague & open.

[kiwimac]

Actually the OT was not fully canonised until 70 BCE. Jews of Jesus day had individual scrolls of individual books or perhaps the whole of the Torah.

[Rhamiel]

SA while that bit about the bishops is true you could have found a nicer way to say it insted of just being a wet blanket,
Nadiine, it is kind of like what the early christians went through and you have a very nice kitty-hat

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

So youre saying before paul we had no written word of God? Nothing by which God said "write it in a book"?

Jesus quoted from what?

The OT is pretty useless for most Christian doctrine. The doesn't change the matter of the role of bishops in the early Church.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No, that wasn't what I was insinuating by my comment - not that you could have known either, i purposely left it vague & open.

Why's that?

[chaoschristian]

Jesus quoted from what?

From very large scrolls.

[stumpjumper]

Well if I can be called a wiccan around here, I'm gonna have to point out that this section of the "proposed definition of Christian" is heterodox:

Christians also acknowledge the inspiration of the bible and recognize it is the infallable Word of God as it was penned in the original manuscripts.The "Word" of God is Christ, not the Bible.

John 1:1

John 1:14

The Logos/Word of God cannot and should not be conflated with a collection of books about God even if those books are the inspired books of God's people.

Why don't you just leave the FAQ alone? These changes are wandering hither and yonder into heresy...

Also, how do those who believe in Unconditional Election (Calvinists) feel about this section?:

Lastly and most importantly:

Christianity teaches that without love, we cannot be saved. If we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven.I really don't think any strict Calvinist would put an action of our doing before justification....

[Time2BCounted]

Well if I can be called a wiccan around here, I'm gonna have to point out that this section of the "proposed definition of Christian" is heterodox:

The "Word" of God is Christ, not the Bible.

John 1:1

John 1:14

The Logos/Word of God cannot and should not be conflated with a collection of books about God even if those books are the inspired books of God's people.

Why don't you just leave the FAQ alone? These changes are wandering hither and yonder into heresy...

Also, how do those who believe in Unconditional Election (Calvinists) feel about this section?:

I really don't think any strict Calvinist would put an action of our doing before justification....
The changes are eliminating heresies, not creating them

[Time2BCounted]

The OT is pretty useless for most Christian doctrine. The doesn't change the matter of the role of bishops in the early Church.
Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness... pretty useless now is that what youre saying?

The great and terrible day of the Lord holds no importance to come?

What about being men of unclean lips, in the midst of a land of people of unclean lips?

Should man NOT live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God?

[stumpjumper]

No assumption at all... its a pagan greeting and identifier

He can use it if he likes, but it does raise a question imho as to possible motives concerning why he opposes clarifying the truth

Let me give you my motives.

First, let me say that I have no issue at all with the Bible or the Truth as you like to call it. I teach Sunday School along with my wife and just today we gave a lesson "the Fall" from Genesis. It was an old Lutheran Church Missouri Synod lesson we had to follow which was a bit strange since I've always attended an ELCA congregation.

Anyway, I followed the lesson anyway even though it was overly literal and somewhat confusing for the kids. Even though I may not believe it is literal truth, there is a real and very true message to be found within and, because I see a wide-ranging and open-ended message, I can teach a literal version of the message and realize that my hope that it speaks to these kids in some way is not unfounded.

So, I, the wiccan, helped these kids understand their sinful nature and the need for a savior. Of course, I did this after also assisting, along with my wife, three of my kids distribute communion by intinction within which we say "Christ's Blood Shed For You"

Maybe a belief in the Real Presence makes me a wiccan? Dunno.

Anyway, back to the statement "He can use it if he likes, but it does raise a question imho as to possible motives concerning why he opposes clarifying the truth".

I find that most of your clarifications are nothing of the sort. I find your clarifications, while perhaps attempting to be more specific, are much more nebulous and misleading.

It makes no sense to talk about the authority of scripture unless you talk about who has the authority to interpret scripture.

Anything that is written, must also be read and interpreted. Shall we just go with what you or I think or feel scripture means?

It makes no sense to talk about narrowing down a definition if we don't first start with discussing all the groups that a definition should include.

I tend to think that those who wrote the FAQ did think about all of those groups while I fail to see any effort on your part to do such a thing...

[stumpjumper]

The changes are eliminating heresies, not creating them

Well then stop conflating Logos with Graphe.

Don't define the second part of the Holy Trinity as a collection of books....

[Melethiel]

The nicene portion defines our belief and bases it on scripture.

The portion just before it is identifying the source. Imho this is proper etiquite, and i believe most agree. No one here has decided this is how it will stand, we are waiting for more input. So far we have one opposed, 3 or more in favor and 1 in the middle.

Let me ask it this way, Would anyone be opposed to placing our belief in the scriptures as inspired, AFTER the nicene section? If so why?
Generally, in writing, the source is placed after the quote.

[Time2BCounted]

Generally, in writing, the source is placed after the quote.
i made the change ;)

You can vote for or against it here if you are a forum member... if not a member you can still feel free to discuss it... this is just a preliminary vote....
http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=39538471#post39538471

[Melethiel]

Christians also acknowledge the inspiration of the bible and recognize it is the infallable Word of God as it was penned in the original manuscripts.
Can't believe I missed this...stumpjumper is absolutely correct. The phrase "Word of God" is used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ.

[stumpjumper]

A vote for what?

If you are really concerned about evangelizing then here's a good forum to do so: http://foru.ms/f13-general-apologetics.html

It's called General Apologetics and you can interact with non-Christians.

It's one of the few sub-forums that I have frequented regularly for a good couple of years now.

If you are really concerned about bringing people to Christ, why not post there?

[Time2BCounted]

[/size][/color][/size][/color][/font]Can't believe I missed this...stumpjumper is absolutely correct. The phrase "Word of God" is used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ.
So it is used to describe the written word too and that is the precedent. ;)

[Time2BCounted]

A vote for what?

If you are really concerned about evangelizing then here's a good forum to do so: http://foru.ms/f13-general-apologetics.html

It's called General Apologetics and you can interact with non-Christians.

It's one of the few sub-forums that I have frequented regularly for a good couple of years now.

If you are really concerned about bringing people to Christ, why not post there?
Lets insure THE Christ they are brought to is THE Christ that can save them

[Miracle Storm]

The OT is pretty useless for most Christian doctrine. The doesn't change the matter of the role of bishops in the early Church.
I'm sorry I'm reading here end to where I last read....

But did you really just say that? wow, just wow.

[stumpjumper]

So it is used to describe the written word too and that is the precedent. ;)

No it's not.

The Bible is never, ever defined, described, or considered the Logos of God.

I could get specific and say that you may experience the Word of God when scriptural passages are read out loud and the Spirit is present but specifics don't seem to be helping much here.

I can tell you, though, that if you nail the Bible to a Cross you get a book with a bunch of holes in it.

The Word that became flesh and dwelt amongst us? No. You get a lot more than a book with holes....

[stumpjumper]

Lets insure THE Christ they are brought to is THE Christ that can save them

Is there more than one actual Christ?

[Melethiel]

The OT is pretty useless for most Christian doctrine. The doesn't change the matter of the role of bishops in the early Church.
OT is useless for Christian doctrine? Methinks you need to read more Church Fathers. :)

[Time2BCounted]

Is there more than one actual Christ?
Are you implying there are no False Christs?

How many 'types' of false Christs can you come up with?

People claiming to be Christ?
A christ who misrepresents the Christ presented in the bible?

[stumpjumper]

Are you implying there are no False Christs?

If something is false, it is not true, real, or actual.

That's just basic use of the dictionary...

How many 'types' of false Christs can you come up with?Probably an infinite number.

But, guess what, they are not real.

They are not actual.

And the real Christ is the ONLY one that anyone can be brought to.

How can you bring someone to something that is not real?

Also, let me just add as a caveat, that we do not first choose Christ. Christ chooses us and then we accept that realization.

I don't believe in things that don't exist and I don't believe that any of the infinite number of false Christs exist in actuality...

[PreachersWife2004]

There's some guy who claims he is Jesus - he got some pretty widespread news coverage when he did it, and he has his followers (who, apparently, are numerous) get tattoos of the number 666, because he says he IS 666. But also Jesus. There's a lot of other creepaliciou stuff about him, but I'd say he's what I would term a "false Christ".

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

OT is useless for Christian doctrine? Methinks you need to read more Church Fathers. :)

Actually, I read them often.

Our primary Christ-related doctrine has come from the NT itself.

[PreachersWife2004]

That certainly doesn't render the OT as useless.

[stumpjumper]

There's some guy who claims he is Jesus - he got some pretty widespread news coverage when he did it, and he has his followers (who, apparently, are numerous) get tattoos of the number 666, because he says he IS 666. But also Jesus. There's a lot of other creepaliciou stuff about him, but I'd say he's what I would term a "false Christ".

True.

But then that person is not Christ.

They are not the One who saves.

Whom do we have our trust in as humanity?

[stumpjumper]

Actually, I read them often.

Our primary Christ-related doctrine has come from the NT itself.

But even Jesus of Nazareth, the marginal Jew that he was, based much of his teachings upon the Tanakh...

[Melethiel]

Actually, I read them often.

Our primary Christ-related doctrine has come from the NT itself.
But that doesn't make the OT useless. Much Christian teaching can be drawn from the OT...particularly from the Psalms and Prophets.

[Nadiine]

And the real Christ is the ONLY one that anyone can be brought to.
technically that's false. Scripture tells us that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, as do his servants.
People can be brought to a FALSE "Christ" - what is FALSE while believing it's true.

I remember David Koresh in Waco years back who claimed He was Jesus. (cult)
We called him a false Christ, and people believed he was Christ. :doh: They were indeed led or brought to a 'false Christ' - his claim was to be Christ, but it was false.
errgo the term.
They were decieved.

How can you bring someone to something that is not real?
Easy, you make them believe it's true - when it isn't.

[Gukkor]

I'm not sure what's going on in this thread, but I get the vague feeling that I don't want any part of it.

[chaoschristian]

But that doesn't make the OT useless. Much Christian teaching can be drawn from the OT...particularly from the Psalms and Prophets.

Indeed. The only way to reach full understanding of the NT is through the OT.

[Nadiine]

I'm not sure what's going on in this thread, but I get the vague feeling that I don't want any part of it.
don't you want to be a scholar too? ^_^ :P

[tulc]

What doctrines are being taught here on foru.ms that lead to false Christs? Because I keep reading about being saved from them by having the perfect FAQ here. Can you give examples? :scratch:
tulc(just a curious guy) :)

[chaoschristian]

So it is used to describe the written word too and that is the precedent. ;)

Oy. You're going to have to substantiate that assertion in the face of two thousand some years of teaching.

There's the Word of God as presented in John, and then there's the Word of God, the traditional declarative and annunciation that procedes prophetic statement.

It's a modern error to confound and conflate the two. The Bible is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Bible.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But even Jesus of Nazareth, the marginal Jew that he was, based much of his teachings upon the Tanakh...
stumper, am I looking at a Lutheran with a Karl Rahner icon and a vague reference to John Meier's work?

[united4Peace]

Yes it certainly is - in my former chat/debate that I was in, we had a nontrinitarian guy that was always there - and out of the blue, he started coming in the chat with "blessed be" and said it when he left.
We told him what it meant, that pagans used it, and he said he knew, but he means it in a godly way.

I don't doubt a pagan mite feel HIJACKED by someone claiming to be "christian" and using their greetings & salutations. (or, they could be rejoicing for other reasons I won't mention)

I find it offensive for a Christian to be taking pagan 'lingo' & using it with Christians - I wonder if the pagans will start putting fish or doves on their bumpers next?
heh :tutu: :tutu:
What's wrong withthat?
I mean...that would be similiar to a Multifaith Group where people get together and learn about each others faiths (not try to change each other but instead learn and respect).
They share songs, prayers etc...
Christians, Jews, Islams, whats wrong with a Wiccan?
Or should a Christian only stick with Christians? Hmmm


I know of a wiccan that belongs to a Christian group Im in...great guy actually and no one has a prob with him :)

[edb19]

But that doesn't make the OT useless. Much Christian teaching can be drawn from the OT...particularly from the Psalms and Prophets.

Agreed. In fact I've always been taught that the entire Scripture from "In the beginning, God" through "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." is Christocentric.

[PreachersWife2004]

There's a lot of "great" non-Christians out there - but being great isn't what gets us to heaven, is it? Some of my best friends are atheists and it really bothers me that they aren't going to be in heaven with me, unless they change what they believe.

[Gukkor]

don't you want to be a scholar too? ^_^ :P

While I appreciate the offer, I'm afraid I've already spent most of my brief life to this point with my head in the clouds, pondering matters most would deem "scholarly" from a Christian standpoint. I'm now trying to ground myself a bit. So for now, I'll let others argue over the proper definition of "Christianity." I'm content to call myself Christian and believe what I believe regardless of others' opinions. :D

[Time2BCounted]

Oy. You're going to have to substantiate that assertion in the face of two thousand some years of teaching.

There's the Word of God as presented in John, and then there's the Word of God, the traditional declarative and annunciation that procedes prophetic statement.

It's a modern error to confound and conflate the two. The Bible is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Bible.
What do you consider to be 'the word of God'?

Do you consider the Pentateuch 'Word of and from God'?

If not why?

If you DO, do you agree they predate Christ?

[Miracle Storm]

While I appreciate the offer, I'm afraid I've already spent most of my brief life to this point with my head in the clouds, pondering matters most would deem "scholarly" from a Christian standpoint. I'm now trying to ground myself a bit. So for now, I'll let others argue over the proper definition of "Christianity." I'm content to call myself Christian and believe what I believe regardless of others' opinions. :D
Whoops I almost shouted Amen!!

God knows who are His! :hug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

I'm not sure what's going on in this thread, but I get the vague feeling that I don't want any part of it.

I'm with you, hon. Let's go out for ice cream instead! :clap:

[kiwimac]

The Word of God is Jesus. He is described as Logos or Word. The Bible is NOT Logos is it Graphe, ie Written.

If I wanted to be pedantic I could assert that Jesus is the Ur-Logos the Word ever-spoken and existing through all eternity, while the Bible is a time-constrained and limited collection of writings.

[tulc]

If you DO, do you agree they predate Christ?

Predate the creater of the universe? :scratch:
tulc(that would be a neat trick) :sorry:

[Time2BCounted]

The Word of God is Jesus. He is described as Logos or Word. The Bible is NOT Logos is it Graphe, ie Written.

If I wanted to be pedantic I could assert that Jesus is the Ur-Logos the Word ever-spoken and existing through all eternity, while the Bible is a time-constrained and limited collection of writings.
I didnt say the written word was logos. Of course the word transwlated into 'Word' is differant brother, its 2 differant languages. :)

Nevertheless there is a written word of God that God told men to write in a book and some of these writings predats Christ, is this true?

[tattedschmoe]

what i would like to know are these questions:

if we go and make a set definition of what a Christian is, by what standard are we going to use?

by who's limited knowledge are we going to attempt to define ourselves by?

by what tradition are we going to use this from? and lastly...

is it that dire important for CF to become a fake ecumenical council and if it is, for what purpose and reasoning?

(if anybody responds and do not hear back from me very soon it is because i am working the next 2 days and that is the only reason my response may be a little late.)-God Bless you all!

[Angel4Truth]

Did anyone notice that Jesus kept repeatedly referencing what was written when He spoke to everyone?

[Nadiine]

Did anyone notice that Jesus kept repeatedly referencing what was written when He spoke to everyone?
Yes absolutely Angel, and He also repeated "that the prophecy might be fulfilled".
His mission was to fulfill OT prophecy as well.

This is why I find the bible so important and mandatory as "inspired" for a person claiming Christianity. It's not just optional to believe; He made claims and the writers made claims - we either believe them, or we deny them.
I believe. :bow:

[PreachersWife2004]

Nadiine, I agree with you. When people tell me that they don't believe certain parts of the bible are no longer relevant to society, I often wonder how they go through and decide which parts they don't like.

I've actually met and spoke to Christians who don't believe there was a flood - that the "story" is just to illustrate God's power. Some believe the whole book of Job is a recording of a conversation between God and Satan and that Job never existed. And of course, lots of people believe that the bible that says homosexuality is wrong is an outdated bible and not meant for the current times.

How DOES one pick and choose which parts of the bible he wishes to believe, especially with Jesus saying "I AM the word"?

[Nadiine]

I didnt say the written word was logos. Of course the word transwlated into 'Word' is differant brother, its 2 differant languages.

Nevertheless there is a written word of God that God told men to write in a book and some of these writings predats Christ, is this true?
Absolutely. JESUS QUOTED SCRIPTURE HIMSELF. How can anyone try to weasel out of these facts we have in scripture?
It also says that Jesus took the disciples aside and showed them all the places where the OT spoke of Him.

Then, we use the NT to understand who Christ is, what He taught & how we're saved under the Grace Covenant Christ brought in. It always interests me how people want to ditch the Bible as "inspired authority from God", YET COUNT ON THAT NT FOR THEIR OWN SALVATIONS -another way other than LAW from the OT's we all have.

If you count on it for ANY PART of your faith in the God that's defined and described within it, then you are trusting that word as TRUTH about God to the point of claiming this religion.
How ridiculous to claim that God, then shun the very bible you all use to base your own salvational information on.
If that's the case, you should be more worried than anybody on this planet for accepting such a probably erroneous religion :swoon: :eek: :eek: :eek: :help:

Do any of us place our souls in the hands of failed writers or liars?

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, I agree with you. When people tell me that they don't believe certain parts of the bible are no longer relevant to society, I often wonder how they go through and decide which parts they don't like.

I've actually met and spoke to Christians who don't believe there was a flood - that the "story" is just to illustrate God's power. Some believe the whole book of Job is a recording of a conversation between God and Satan and that Job never existed. And of course, lots of people believe that the bible that says homosexuality is wrong is an outdated bible and not meant for the current times.

How DOES one pick and choose which parts of the bible he wishes to believe, especially with Jesus saying "I AM the word"?
Absolutely PreachersWife:thumbsup: ... I sat and thought this out one day.. here's what they're saying basically by claiming we can yank out anything we disbelieve:
"I know more than the author of this book, even tho I didn't live in that time and I wasn't there to know whether it's true or not.
Even tho the NT writer Paul teaches many things I do not believe (that are false or lies), I DO believe the parts about Jesus' love for me and how I can have that salvation.
Further, I am the sole authority on all spiritual truths because it's up to me to decide what parts are true - and I base this solely on what I think at the time I read it, even tho I have no formal education in Greek, Hebrew, ancient Greek & Hebrew customs, scripture study, science, archaeology or history...
And, that whatever I think is true in the Bible IS TRUE, and whatever I decide isn't true, ISN'T TRUE in reality. Truth is what I decide it is, not what it is in reality."

What they have done is said, I AM THE TEACHER AND AUTHORITY OF WHAT IS TRUE; the Bible doesn't teach ME by having me reformulate my current thinking, I decide what is true based on all my current knowledge and experiences.

And, truth is subjective (if I don't believe something, then it is not literally true becuz I don't believe it).

That God has put each person (w/ God knowing how limited their understanding is and their inclination & susceptibility to sin and wanting to be their own god) no matter what their age or credentials, in charge of knowing what's true and false in that bible for their spiritual wellbeing and even salvation. :scratch:

*Who is a 20 year old novice to pick and choose what parts are true based on little to no knowledge and become the spiritual authority and adviser on what is true?
Pit that 20 yr old novice against a 60 yr old veteran theologian who's had decades of experience following the Lord, with their formal education on scripture & they'll crumble apart in their ignorance.

Lastly, that 20 yr old novice may have experiences that show them something indeed WAS TRUE from the bible that they originally denied... it means one thing, they were wrong --

Peter said this about Paul's writings:
2 Peter 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=16&version=49&context=verse)
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort,
as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness

Hosea 4:6-7
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being priest for Me;
Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.


Rejecting God's word as truth is dangerous - probably to our own ruin.
We either let GOD teach us, or we set ourselves up as the teacher and sole authority on truth.

[PreachersWife2004]

Nadiine, I'd rep ya for that post, but I already repped ya yesterday. Guess I better go find some more people to rep!!

[chaoschristian]

What do you consider to be 'the word of God'?

Question asked and answered.

Do you consider the Pentateuch 'Word of and from God'?

The Jews certainly considered it that way. And that's something to keep in mind when reading scripture. But I can't answer you yes or no clearly until I also know what you mean when you say 'Word'? Are you referring to the Logos or not in this case? Within the context of speaking of Christian theology it's important to make this distinction, as I am sure you are aware.

If not why?

Can't answer, see above.

If you DO, do you agree they predate Christ?

Ummm . . . technically, nothing predates Christ. Care to restate that?

[chaoschristian]

I didnt say the written word was logos. Of course the word transwlated into 'Word' is differant brother, its 2 differant languages. :)

It's a common enough assertion at Foru.ms and in real life that one must ask for clarification out of hand.

Nevertheless there is a written word of God that God told men to write in a book and some of these writings predats Christ, is this true?

'that God told men to write in a book' is a poorly conceived assertion.

'some of these writings predat[e] Christ' is technically within the context of Christian theology false.

[PreachersWife2004]

So if God didn't tell men to write the bible, who do you assert did tell them?

[chaoschristian]

So if God didn't tell men to write the bible, who do you assert did tell them?

I don't.

My claim is that scriptures are necessarily phenomenological expressions of men's encounters with the Divine.

[Nadiine]

So if God didn't tell men to write the bible, who do you assert did tell them?
yes, namely when such a large part of scripture tells the future and is prophetic - which was fulfilled thru Christ and His teachings continue to be supported to this very day.

[kiwimac]

I don't.

My claim is that scriptures are necessarily phenomenological expressions of men's encounters with the Divine.

Excellent reply.

Part of the problem for most of us outside of the evangelical churches is that the geological and biological records make it clear that there never was a global flood (as an example.)

There are really only two responses to this, one is to declare that the scientists are wrong and that the Bible is completely inerrant. The second is to recognise that as the Bible is a human response to the divine some portions of it are going to be quite wrong in some areas.

To those who would argue that that leaves us with an inauthoritative bible which we can then ignore the only response is 'rot.' I engage daily with the Bible, I have studied it in the Greek and Hebrew, I prayerfully and conscientiously consider what is said within its pages and MOST of those who hold to the same position (ie number 2 above) do likewise.

I have found, over the years, that those folk most unwilling to actually engage with scripture are those who declare it completely inerrant.

[PreachersWife2004]

Kiwi, could you please provide a link to the assertion that a global flood never occurred?

[Joykins]

Nadiine, do you think it is possible to read the Bible without bringing one's own experiences and mental schemas into it? The very act of reading is basically communication between two people--the author and the reader--and you have only to say the same thing to a group of people to see that each will remember it slightly differently.

For a very long time, the Bible has been read (interpreted) by the church through the framework set in place by the church--by the bishops of Nicea, among others. Remove that framework and you have an every man for himself kind of deal when it comes to interpreting scripture, and indeed you have only to read General Theology or even the main CC forum to find out that different interpretations abound. You don't have to accuse each group of ignorance or selfishness when reading the Bible when each group can produce a scholar or saint.

[PreachersWife2004]

I believe that the bible is all inerrent, and I do actually engage with the scriptures. Nice try on that one, Kiwi.

There are even atheists out there who admit that there is great evidence that a flood did actually occur.

And why would a Christian wish to believe a scientist, who is probably an atheist to begin with, over the word of his creator? I just don't get that...it really does baffle me.

Nothing in the bible says that God always has to make sense to us. There are many things that we can't explain with our human, sinful minds, but that doesn't make them any less true.

There is no real physical, geological or biological evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, except for the testimony of his disciples, that *gasp* men wrote. Yet we as Christians hold firm to this belief.

[Joykins]

Kiwi, could you please provide a link to the assertion that a global flood never occurred?


This is the best site I know on the topic, run by a Christian who used to be a "flood geologist."

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#flo

[chaoschristian]

Kiwi, could you please provide a link to the assertion that a global flood never occurred?

There's an entire forum for that here at Foru.ms.

Get into that in this thread and prepare yourself for a major derail.

Bringing this back on topic: I have seen churches rewrite the creed (one even went so far as to continue calling it the N/C Creed!) to include the necessity of scriptural inerrancy/infallibility all to substationate an indicative historical-scientific view of interpretation that - you guessed it - was used to assert an additional required belief in neo-creationism in order to be considered Christian.

Bottom line is this: if this proposal is written as adopted, do all the TEs at Foru.ms have to roll a natural 20 to pass a purity check?

[PreachersWife2004]

This is the best site I know on the topic, run by a Christian who used to be a "flood geologist."

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#flo

Thanks, I'm going to have hubby take a look at it. Appreciate you posting the link.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[chaoschristian]

Well, gotta run to help tear out carpeting.

Here's my question for the day:

Since these FAQs and various other documents and statements are necessarily political statements, what are the expected practical outcomes if this draft is indeed adopted as Foru.ms policy?

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, do you think it is possible to read the Bible without bringing one's own experiences and mental schemas into it? The very act of reading is basically communication between two people--the author and the reader--and you have only to say the same thing to a group of people to see that each will remember it slightly differently.
I'm simply saying, that we are severely arrogant to think that WE are the authority to decide which Bible verses are randomly true and false.
To proclaim that we know more than the eyewitness when we were not even there.

Experience is very shakey to base truth on as well I might add. If I don't personally experience something, does that make denial of something someone else experiences necessary?
If I can't fathom something in my mind, does it give me legitimacy to emphatically deny it or call it FALSE? (namely of a Supernatural, all knowing God?).

If we take ANY of what is written by any author as truth to place our souls on the line, then we need to seriously worry that the same authors who teach lies or falsity & error in one area, CAN EASILY BE LYING OR WRONG IN THE AREAS WE ACCEPT and we've risked our soul on their fallibility or purposeful lie.

I'd also add that we accept the eyewitness testimony of just ONE eyewitness in our civil courts of justice - yet here we have 40 authors who weave a covenantal plan over a span of thousands of years who all share the same story (and foretellings/prophecies) of the God of Israel, and we decide we can just dismantle it on our own personal whims?

I call that arrogance. Either accept what they all teach as eyewitnesses of God in their era's, or don't place your trust in it at all.
If it's false and untrustworthy in one area, then it's a piece of swiss cheese; full of holes that shred the foundations of support THAT YOU USE FOR YOUR OWN TRUTH. (ie. you fall on own sword and then lack evidence for your own beliefs)

That's the point I'm relaying - and this is mostly done by utter NOVICES today who have no formal study or education in things they need to know to form better judgments & opinions.

And who don't even understand that subjective & relative truth (which they take on as their worldview) are self defeating positions.
BOTH assert absolute truth statements -about truth- while denying absolute truth exists. :doh: :help: :swoon:

Is this anything to base theology on? (or anything else for that matter)?

[Joykins]

I'm simply saying, that we are severely arrogant to think that WE are the authority to decide which Bible verses are randomly true and false.
To proclaim that we know more than the eyewitness when we were not even there.

Is there anyone here doing that or is this just some general rant?

[Nadiine]

Is there anyone here doing that or is this just some general rant?
why do you call that a "rant"? http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39560245&postcount=374

I made legitimate statements with reasoning behind them.
Is it false? or do you just dislike it?

[Miracle Storm]

Excellent reply.

Part of the problem for most of us outside of the evangelical churches is that the geological and biological records make it clear that there never was a global flood (as an example.)

There are really only two responses to this, one is to declare that the scientists are wrong and that the Bible is completely inerrant. The second is to recognise that as the Bible is a human response to the divine some portions of it are going to be quite wrong in some areas.

To those who would argue that that leaves us with an inauthoritative bible which we can then ignore the only response is 'rot.' I engage daily with the Bible, I have studied it in the Greek and Hebrew, I prayerfully and conscientiously consider what is said within its pages and MOST of those who hold to the same position (ie number 2 above) do likewise.

I have found, over the years, that those folk most unwilling to actually engage with scripture are those who declare it completely inerrant.
ooh ooh and I want to know what killed the dinosoars!!! :doh:

The word tells you there was a global flood. If you don't believe portions, what leads you to believe any of it at all...I seriously don't even want an answer, just hope you all that do not believe that all Scripture is God breathed, infallible, would think a little on it.

[Joykins]

why do you call that a "rant"? http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39560245&postcount=374

I made legitimate statements with reasoning behind them.
Is it false? or do you just dislike it?

I don't think it applies to those who oppose this proposal in general, anymore than calling us wiccans or implying we aren't Christians or other smear tactics. I also saw a lot of capital letters, bold, colors, etc. which says "rant" to me *shrug*

You should also know the more formatting in a post the more difficult it is for some of us to read.

[PreachersWife2004]

Joykins, it just means she firmly believes what she is writing, and more power to her. By the way, I do not associate the word rant with positive construction, either. I think it's a little rude to say the least.

[Miracle Storm]

I don't think it applies to those who oppose this proposal in general, anymore than calling us wiccans or implying we aren't Christians or other smear tactics. I also saw a lot of capital letters, bold, colors, etc. which says "rant" to me *shrug*

You should also know the more formatting in a post the more difficult it is for some of us to read.
Actually that is helpful to me to understand someone's tone and meaning better. Since we can't express our meaning with voices in tones. We have underline, italic, bold, colors, font sizes and smilies...:) ME likes smilies..

...and her post was no more off topic than most of the posts I have seen randomly thrown in here.
Plus hers was a good read.

Thanks Nadiine. :thumbsup:

[united4Peace]

ooh ooh and I want to know what killed the dinosoars!!! :doh:

The word tells you there was a global flood. If you don't believe portions, what leads you to believe any of it at all...I seriously don't even want an answer, just hope you all that do not believe that all Scripture is God breathed, infallible, would think a little on it.

ooh ooh and I want to know what killed the dinosoars!!!



The ice age is one Theory...:)

[Joykins]

By custom all caps = yelling
By custom bold = emphasis
By custom large font or different colors = emphasis.

Definition of rant:

A rant is a widespread and distinctive phenomenon of emotional speech or writing in the form of a series of complaints or attacks, about a topic of interest, many times political in nature.

It is not intended to be negative or rude, just a description that I think fits her post.

If she intends her post to characterize those who disagree with her position, then furthermore it is a straw man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) I am attempting to discover if she intended that or not, which she has not yet answered.

[Nadiine]

I don't think it applies to those who oppose this proposal in general, anymore than calling us wiccans or implying we aren't Christians or other smear tactics. I also saw a lot of capital letters, bold, colors, etc. which says "rant" to me *shrug*

You should also know the more formatting in a post the more difficult it is for some of us to read.
Joykins, please don't sidestep the CONTENT, what about the content do you disagree with?

It looks to me like you're trying to deflect the issue by pointing to esthetics.
What is it about my content/statements/points that you take issue with exactly?
(this is a common tactic people use and I see this often) you also hadn't commented on my STYLE of posting prior to this...
please keep to the issue of the statements.

[Miracle Storm]

By custom all caps = yelling
By custom bold = emphasis
By custom large font or different colors = emphasis.

Definition of rant:

A rant is a widespread and distinctive phenomenon of emotional speech or writing in the form of a series of complaints or attacks, about a topic of interest, many times political in nature.

It is not intended to be negative or rude, just a description that I think fits her post.

If she intends her post to characterize those who disagree with her position, then furthermore it is a straw man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) I am attempting to discover if she intended that or not, which she has not yet answered.:yawn:

derail - to cause to fail or become deflected from a purpose; reduce or delay the chances for success or development of:

[Joykins]

Joykins, please don't sidestep the CONTENT, what about the content do you disagree with?

It looks to me like you're trying to deflect the issue by pointing to esthetics.
What is it about my content that you take issue with exactly?


If you intend it to apply to kiwimac's, or stumpjumper's, or chaoschristian's, or my position, then you have a straw man--the position you describe is not the one of those we hold.

If you intend it otherwise, it just seemed like something in this thread might have given you an idea to post it. (If you find the word "rant" objectionable then I don't insist.)

I would like you to clarify so I don't respond inaccurately.

[Miracle Storm]

I'm simply saying, that we are severely arrogant to think that WE are the authority to decide which Bible verses are randomly true and false.
To proclaim that we know more than the eyewitness when we were not even there.

Experience is very shakey to base truth on as well I might add. If I don't personally experience something, does that make denial of something someone else experiences necessary?
If I can't fathom something in my mind, does it give me legitimacy to emphatically deny it or call it FALSE? (namely of a Supernatural, all knowing God?).

If we take ANY of what is written by any author as truth to place our souls on the line, then we need to seriously worry that the same authors who teach lies or falsity & error in one area, CAN EASILY BE LYING OR WRONG IN THE AREAS WE ACCEPT and we've risked our soul on their fallibility or purposeful lie.

I'd also add that we accept the eyewitness testimony of just ONE eyewitness in our civil courts of justice - yet here we have 40 authors who weave a covenantal plan over a span of thousands of years who all share the same story (and foretellings/prophecies) of the God of Israel, and we decide we can just dismantle it on our own personal whims?

I call that arrogance. Either accept what they all teach as eyewitnesses of God in their era's, or don't place your trust in it at all.
If it's false and untrustworthy in one area, then it's a piece of swiss cheese; full of holes that shred the foundations of support THAT YOU USE FOR YOUR OWN TRUTH. (ie. you fall on own sword and then lack evidence for your own beliefs)

That's the point I'm relaying - and this is mostly done by utter NOVICES today who have no formal study or education in things they need to know to form better judgments & opinions.

And who don't even understand that subjective & relative truth (which they take on as their worldview) are self defeating positions.
BOTH assert absolute truth statements -about truth- while denying absolute truth exists. :doh: :help: :swoon:

Is this anything to base theology on? (or anything else for that matter)?
:holy: Quoted for TRUTH & artistic ability in expressing thoughts and emotion. :amen: :clap:

[Joykins]

Joykins, please don't sidestep the CONTENT, what about the content do you disagree with?

It looks to me like you're trying to deflect the issue by pointing to esthetics.
What is it about my content/statements/points that you take issue with exactly?
(this is a common tactic people use and I see this often) you also hadn't commented on my STYLE of posting prior to this...
please keep to the issue of the statements.

You posted about a nameless group of people who twist scripture for reasons about which you speculate.

I want to know if this is intended to apply to those who disagree with you on this thread.

[Miracle Storm]

The ice age is one Theory...:)

eh. Yo. I seen that movie, my kids really enjoyed it. Saber toothed tiger an elephant with like um fangs and a lil wierd animal took care of a baby. Whoa theories are cool aren't they? Especially since their based on what Could of happened, just like that movie...:cool:

[Joykins]

You posted about a nameless group of people who twist scripture for reasons about which you speculate.

I want to know if this is intended to apply to those who disagree with you on this thread.

In other words: I see no reason to address an attack on a position I don't hold unless the poster thinks I hold it.

[Nadiine]

You posted about a nameless group of people who twist scripture for reasons about which you speculate.

I want to know if this is intended to apply to those who disagree with you on this thread.

That's besides the issue (and so is my posting style) - what specifically is wrong with or false about my relayed assertions and statements?
It actually doesn't matter WHO they apply to (whether a whole group or any individual) they obviously apply to anyone who decides they can dismantle the bible at will either by ignoring passages that exist or claiming portions are false or erroneous while they use other portions of it (usually and conveniently, the beneficial portions that are in their personal favor) themselves as truths to base their own beliefs/ worldviews on elsewhere.

So I ask again, what exactly is wrong with my statements and points relayed in the original post here:
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39560245&postcount=374 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39560245&postcount=374)

and/or here:
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39557986&postcount=359 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39557986&postcount=359)

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm not even sure it's about people twisting scripture. I think it had more to do with people who think they can totally disregard whole parts of scripture. Not sure which is worse, though.

I tend to agree that one who thinks they can pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe are somewhat arrogant to think that they have the power to discern which is right and which isn't right.

But of course, it's an easy stance to have, because most of us use the bible to support our claims or refute other claims. If one doesn't believe in certain parts of the bible, they can choose to ignore or not believe whatever part of scripture we are quoting.

[NewGuy101]

I'm not even sure it's about people twisting scripture. I think it had more to do with people who think they can totally disregard whole parts of scripture. Not sure which is worse, though.

I tend to agree that one who thinks they can pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe are somewhat arrogant to think that they have the power to discern which is right and which isn't right.

But of course, it's an easy stance to have, because most of us use the bible to support our claims or refute other claims. If one doesn't believe in certain parts of the bible, they can choose to ignore or not believe whatever part of scripture we are quoting.
I've actually pointed this out in several debates. It seems that their problem is epistemological since they seem to think that their reasoning is more accurate than God's word.

[Joykins]

OK, I'll give my opinion, I don't know if it has to do with proving you wrong though. You're fighting a fight my particular dog isn't interested in.

Absolutely PreachersWife:thumbsup: ... I sat and thought this out one day.. here's what they're saying basically by claiming we can yank out anything we disbelieve:
"I know more than the author of this book, even tho I didn't live in that time and I wasn't there to know whether it's true or not.


In looking at the Bible, I am particularly interested in placing it in historical context. How (as far as we know) would the contemporary readers have understood the passage? Sometimes we make assumptions about scriptures that make sense based upon what we know about the world. The parable of the 10 minas has a totally different meaning in a capitalist worldview than it does to the worldview of an oppressed people in a pre-capitalist society (I didn't make that up because I think I'm all that. My former pastor preached it). Modern "end times" teachings can likewise impose a modern worldview on apocalyptic literature.

Putting things in context includes taking into account scholarly findings in all disciplines, not only those that reinforce my own assumptions.

Sometimes these will conflict with some things the Bible appears to say. In which case there are number of possibilities (not just TRUE or FALSE).

1. We misunderstand the evidence.
2. We misundersand the Bible
3. The Bible is deceptive
4. The evidence is deceptive.

Note that BOTH 3 and 4 make God to be a liar, which I do not believe. So 1 and 2 remain possibilities. That is why we are always trying to learn more.

I am also not interested in things the Bible does not say even though many people think it does. The Bible, for example, does not say "The Devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose" nor does it say anything about contraception.


Even tho the NT writer Paul teaches many things I do not believe (that are false or lies), I DO believe the parts about Jesus' love for me and how I can have that salvation.


I don't think Paul lies. I do think Paul had his own worldview and culture and he expresses things related to them. This is definitely not calling him a liar! Paul did much to tear down the kinds of barriers I am about tearing down also :)

Further, I am the sole authority on all spiritual truths because it's up to me to decide what parts are true - and I base this solely on what I think at the time I read it, even tho I have no formal education in Greek, Hebrew, ancient Greek & Hebrew customs, scripture study, science, archaeology or history...

Incidentally, kiwimac has a divinity degree, and I do have some formal education in Greek, ancient Greek customs, scripture study, literature, science, and history. Really, anyone with a good undergrad degree can obtain some measure these things if they want to.


And, that whatever I think is true in the Bible IS TRUE, and whatever I decide isn't true, ISN'T TRUE in reality. Truth is what I decide it is, not what it is in reality."


Unlike the Bush Administration apparently, I have never been party to this kind of hubris. I consider myself a member of the reality-based community ^_^

I believe what the Bible has to teach me, and that the Bible contains spiritual and practical truths. I don't believe every poetical, mythical, or legendary thing in the Bible necessarily happened exactly as described, but I do believe the moral and spiritual lessons are true for our lives.


What they have done is said, I AM THE TEACHER AND AUTHORITY OF WHAT IS TRUE; the Bible doesn't teach ME by having me reformulate my current thinking, I decide what is true based on all my current knowledge and experiences.

And, truth is subjective (if I don't believe something, then it is not literally true becuz I don't believe it).


I know nearly no one who thinks that way. Mostly people will acknowledge that our ways of knowing truth is incomplete. Otherwise why would the Bible be silent on specifically 21st century issues?

Many of us can read accounts of OT genocide apparently instructed by God and we experience the dissonance of reading that God instructed something we perceive of as very wrong. This is not a minor issue to me. I don't know how to resolve it. How do you account for God (who is all goodness) being portrayed demanding something your conscience knows is evil? This is not me twisting the scripture to make it convenient for me in my personal behavior. It's not like I'm a person who directly benefits from running a genocidal regime.

I am no 20-yo, I am 37 and have been exploring these issues since early childhood.

[*Starlight*]

The word tells you there was a global flood. If you don't believe portions, what leads you to believe any of it at all...I seriously don't even want an answer, just hope you all that do not believe that all Scripture is God breathed, infallible, would think a little on it.

Hmm... *thinks a little on the above statement* Fallacy of the excluded middle, also known as false dilemma?

:holy: :angel:

[Nadiine]

OK, I'll give my opinion, I don't know if it has to do with proving you wrong though. You're fighting a fight my particular dog isn't interested in.



In looking at the Bible, I am particularly interested in placing it in historical context. How (as far as we know) would the contemporary readers have understood the passage? Sometimes we make assumptions about scriptures that make sense based upon what we know about the world. The parable of the 10 minas has a totally different meaning in a capitalist worldview than it does to the worldview of an oppressed people in a pre-capitalist society (I didn't make that up because I think I'm all that. My former pastor preached it). Modern "end times" teachings can likewise impose a modern worldview on apocalyptic literature.

Putting things in context includes taking into account scholarly findings in all disciplines, not only those that reinforce my own assumptions.

Sometimes these will conflict with some things the Bible appears to say. In which case there are number of possibilities (not just TRUE or FALSE).

1. We misunderstand the evidence.
2. We misundersand the Bible
3. The Bible is deceptive
4. The evidence is deceptive.

Note that BOTH 3 and 4 make God to be a liar, which I do not believe. So 1 and 2 remain possibilities. That is why we are always trying to learn more.

I am also not interested in things the Bible does not say even though many people think it does. The Bible, for example, does not say "The Devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose" nor does it say anything about contraception.


I don't think Paul lies. I do think Paul had his own worldview and culture and he expresses things related to them. This is definitely not calling him a liar! Paul did much to tear down the kinds of barriers I am about tearing down also :)

[/color]

Incidentally, kiwimac has a divinity degree, and I do have some formal education in Greek, ancient Greek customs, scripture study, literature, science, and history. Really, anyone with a good undergrad degree can obtain some measure these things if they want to.
[snip]

I believe what the Bible has to teach me, and that the Bible contains spiritual and practical truths. I don't believe every poetical, mythical, or legendary thing in the Bible necessarily happened exactly as described, but I do believe the moral and spiritual lessons are true for our lives.

I know nearly no one who thinks that way. Mostly people will acknowledge that our ways of knowing truth is incomplete. Otherwise why would the Bible be silent on specifically 21st century issues?

Many of us can read accounts of OT genocide apparently instructed by God and we experience the dissonance of reading that God instructed something we perceive of as very wrong. This is not a minor issue to me. I don't know how to resolve it. How do you account for God (who is all goodness) being portrayed demanding something your conscience knows is evil? This is not me twisting the scripture to make it convenient for me in my personal behavior. It's not like I'm a person who directly benefits from running a genocidal regime.

I am no 20-yo, I am 37 and have been exploring these issues since early childhood.
Um, first off to address this portion:
The Bible, for example, does not say "The Devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose" nor does it say anything about contraception

We have scripture of Jesus in the desert where Satan uses scripture deceptively and Jesus corrects Him.
So I think even tho it doesn't SAY Satan doesn't, you have an example of Satan doing just that where we can conclude that he does. But I do get your point and agree. We can't make doctrine with what ISN'T taught directly - but we CAN know right & wrong from taught concepts; like below:

Contraception - I agree. It doesn't. (that's not to say that we can violate other teachings regarding taking life) to say 'abortion' is a Godly form of contraception.
*pandoras box* sorry

K, the issue isn't about "genuine seeking", it's our attitude in coming to the Bible - looking at the Bible from a certain perspective before we even open it:

Is this the truth of God? Can I trust what's in here? Or is this a bunch of authors writing some speculative ideals that didn't necessarily come from God and that may not at all be true including the events they describe?
There's a world of difference in how one approaches the Bible and how they will read & interpret it.

As for events you deny happened:
[You know many people claimed King David never existed. But archaeology eventually proved them wrong - as it has many others who denied certain people existed or events occurred.]

Anyways, one group presupposes that ALL of God's word is right and true, and it's their duty to seek HIGHER understanding from its content; thereby allowing God to mature them in their faith and wisdom - rather than bring God down to their level of understanding & stick Him in their boxed limitations.

The other presupposes that they are the authority and need to pick out what is believable and where it is in error and to disregard that as any truth or light to grow or mature by.

All these things promote or hinder spiritual growth & understanding. For instance, a girl I know refuses to accept ANY verses in the Bible that show Israel killing the pagan tribes & nations, anything that shows God killing people or judging them, She REMOVES.
Why? Because "GOD IS LOVE", therefore these do not coincide with the God she accepts who is loving & gentle & accepting of everyone.

Instead of understanding that other verses also claim God has other attributes of holiness, justice, righteousness and wrath, she rejects those to cling only to "love". As if love is remiss of justice. (what is love without justice? It's UNFAIR and it's unprotective of the innocent. It also removes God Sovereignty over man and that all souls are HIS to take back to Himself; our life is not our own)
Instead of seeking to understand who God is (thereby GROWING in relationship & knowledge of Him), she creates a god she prefers from it. That is idolatry isn't it? making your own god and rejecting the one who gives revelation of Himself?
They don't love the Bible God, they love their 'god' they created.

This is why I take issue with people who randomly decide which is true & false in scripture. It stunts growth, brings God down to OUR level rather than raisin