The Bible- Is It the Word of God?

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:11 am

Well, what do you think? Give your opinions and beliefs about the inspiration and authority of Scripture, or lack thereof, your definitions and opinions of literalism, fundamentalism, antinomianism, critical scholarship, and all the other hot button topics that revolve around this remarkable book and what it says to us. But be nice.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:30 am

Thank you Julie. Nicely put. :-6 :-6

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:07 am

Julie Grace wrote: The Word of God is foolishness to those who do not believe what they read. God would not give his power if you did not want it. He loves us all that much.

Those who do believe, know the power of the Holy Bible because they read the word, believe it, and the spirit of God chaned their lives in a supernatural way which increased their faith.

When events take place in your life in a supernatural way, you can not take credit for them. When you ask God for help and he answers with results that you could never put together yourself, you know what the bible is there for.

A theorectical debate regarding words on paper "this scripture says this" is useless unless you understand the Holy Spirit that comes with it.

That is a very personal experience.

I fully support your views. Although I am a Hindu but I can appreciate your views about Bible and peoples' believe in It based on my personal experience about Hindu Holy Books.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:56 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: I fully support your views. Although I am a Hindu but I can appreciate your views about Bible and peoples' believe in It based on my personal experience about Hindu Holy Books.

What I believe. My God is my Higher Power. Full Stop.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:57 am

No. It is a written record of passed on oral traditions describing events in the past and how ancient peoples tried to rationalise what was happening to them. That's why the god in the old testament appears capricious. The supposed apocalyptic prophecies are more likely descriptions of past ecological catastrophes. In thgat light it makes fascinating reading and recent archeological discoveries make it even more so as they seem to tally with some of the events described.

It is also the record of only one people-the jews that have survived through to the present day. To believe it is the unchanged word of god after numerous translations and interpretations is ludicrous.

I have no problem with those who believe otherwise and respect their belief. I do have a problem with so called christians who think they have a god given right that their interpretaion is the only one that matters and with those who given half a chance would force others to their beliefs. May seem far fetched but many wars and much misery have been caused by such disputes. I wish these days were behind us. but we seem to be about to repeat the mistakes of the past.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:18 pm

I also believe that when Israel is attacked by nuclear weapons by the EU, a united arab federation in the near future. Then its kiss your arse goodbye. The End.

We are all heading this way WW111. These terrorists attacks worldwide is only the beginning,the worst is yet to come.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:25 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: I also believe that when Israel is attacked by nuclear weapons by the EU, a united arab federation in the near future. Then its kiss your arse goodbye. The End.

We are all heading this way WW111. These terrorists attacks worldwide is only the beginning,the worst is yet to come.

Cap'n Buz, I see you have been reading prophecy books! There is another way of looking at Israel in prophecy that might interest you. We were talking about it in the thread about Christianity replacing Judaism. "Israel" is the name given to God's people (those who are His by faith), wherever they are. I believe that all the prophecies concerning Israel, are not talking about the modern day nation of Israel, but are talking about God's people, the church. I believe the warfare we are engaged in is spiritual warfare, not bombs and missles. I believe that the war of Armageddon is a battle between Christ and Satan for our minds- it's a spiritual war, the outcome of which determines our salvation in the end. I agree that the worst is yet to come with terrorism, military misadventures and political strife- and practically no nation on earth will be completely immune (You there in Ireland have been struggling with this for a long time- we Yanks are Johnny-come-latelys to the terrorism experience). But what I am trying to say is, the wars and rumors of wars, and political controversy are all externals. I too search current events for what I think are fulfillments of prophecy, and it's sensational, but we need to be careful not to let it distract us from the more important spiritual issues- the things that really count with our souls.

Ephesians 6:12

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:24 pm

Just imagine for a moment you had never read the bible or heard of these prophecies

how do you think your view of the world would change?

Just because something is prophesised does not meant is meant to happen. I happen to think that belief in these prophecies is colouring the approach of some of our leaders to world events. For instance attitudes towards israel. So the bible says it is the natural home of the jews-well who wrote the bible in the first place. Some of them want it to happen because they think it means the second coming and will take steps to try and make it happen.

You can look through nostradamus and find similar startling apparent predictions-for example I have a translation from 1980 that highlights a possible attack on new york. It potentially makes sense now in light if what happened. Probably the most striking one is predicting hitler but apart from that one most of it is rubbish.

Well hey the world is running out of resources how hard is it to predict conflict? Bush just instigated it. It doesn't have to be though does it?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:57 am

gmc wrote: Just imagine for a moment you had never read the bible or heard of these prophecies

how do you think your view of the world would change?

Just because something is prophesised does not meant is meant to happen. I happen to think that belief in these prophecies is colouring the approach of some of our leaders to world events. For instance attitudes towards israel. So the bible says it is the natural *****of the jews-well who wrote the bible in the first place. Some of them want it to happen because they think it means the second coming and will take steps to try and make it happen.

You can look through nostradamus and find similar startling apparent predictions-for example I have a translation from 1980 that highlights a possible attack on new york. It potentially makes sense now in light if what happened. Probably the most striking one is predicting hitler but apart from that one most of it is rubbish.

Well hey the world is running out of resources how hard is it to predict conflict? Bush just instigated it. It doesn't have to be though does it?

Yes, I too think a lot of it is rubbish. But some of it is true and is happening right now. I've got a 1952 edition and it tells about the rise of Islam and how they will form a federation of muslim/arab fundamentalists, that will nuke the west by 2012.Also that a new Roman Empire (EU) will rise to become the new superpower, bigger than the US ever was, and that it will sack the UN & N.A.T.O and form its own.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:17 pm

Yes, I too think a lot of it is rubbish. But some of it is true and is happening right now. I've got a 1952 edition and it tells about the rise of Islam and how they will form a federation of muslim/arab fundamentalists, that will nuke the west by 2012.Also that a new Roman Empire (EU) will rise to become the new superpower, bigger than the US ever was, and that it will sack the UN & N.A.T.O and form its own.

It could be taken that way. I think if Bush gets elected you will see the polarisation of europe in to a power bloc. Would happen anyway but along more open lines perhaps if america doesn't go off on a tangent on it's own. One of the cable channels I get is the god channel-don't pay for it it's one of the free ones. Horribly fascinating in it's own way to see some of the preachers who clearly do believe armageddon is coming.

One thing about the bible is I think you could make a pretty good case that it is actually quite alien to european culture. We owe our type of democracy and attitudes to it more to the traditions of the vikings and the pagan tribes of old europe. Simplifying things but they had the tradition of the althing where all had an equal say, kings were elected by proclamation the idea of a hereditary king is a relatively new idea, a basic sense of justice and what is right that is very different from the legalistic type arguements that seem to prevail. Common sense rather than looking at the past for answers.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:23 pm

gmc wrote: It could be taken that way. I think if Bush gets elected you will see the polarisation of europe in to a power bloc. Would happen anyway but along more open lines perhaps if america doesn't go off on a tangent on it's own. One of the cable channels I get is the god channel-don't pay for it it's one of the free ones. Horribly fascinating in it's own way to see some of the preachers who clearly do believe armageddon is coming.

One thing about the bible is I think you could make a pretty good case that it is actually quite alien to european culture. We owe our type of democracy and attitudes to it more to the traditions of the vikings and the pagan tribes of old europe. Simplifying things but they had the tradition of the althing where all had an equal say, kings were elected by proclamation the idea of a hereditary king is a relatively new idea, a basic sense of justice and what is right that is very different from the legalistic type arguements that seem to prevail. Common sense rather than looking at the past for answers.
Oh I cannot stand these religious tv stations, nor radio for that matter. We live in Multi Channel land here too. But I just prefer BBC,ITV & Discovery ch. For Radio I Mostly listen to Classic FM or Radio 4.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:19 pm

That this question turned political is more telling than anything I could say.

I think the church, who have so altered the original Book, have done so for politics and power and lament that the intentions behind these great words have been so abused in the struggle for power. I think the gift of words is directly from God. How they get so jumbled in the translations is the affront to God.

Words can, and have, killed so many.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:57 pm

gmc wrote: Just imagine for a moment you had never read the bible or heard of these prophecies how do you think your view of the world would change?Kennedy was assassinated when I was a little boy. I whispered to one of my schoolmates, "I bet Kruschev did it!" If I had never read the Bible or studied it's prophecies, my opinions would be just as naive and uninformed as when I was a little boy. I would probably think America and Israel were the good guys, and the Arabs were the bad guys. I would probably be itching for a show-down. I would probably vote for Bush. gmc wrote: Just because something is prophesised does not meant is meant to happen. I happen to think that belief in these prophecies is colouring the approach of some of our leaders to world events. For instance attitudes towards israel. So the bible says it is the natural home of the jews-well who wrote the bible in the first place. Some of them want it to happen because they think it means the second coming and will take steps to try and make it happen.Well, that depends on who is doing the prophesying. God only knows all what will happen. Satan knows only his own plans. God allows Satan to carry out some of his plans, but not others- so Satan knows the future in part, and can prophesy in part. Worldly prophets like Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jeanne Dixon, etc, get their information from Satan. They probably have a better track record than the evangelical prophets, like Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsay, Chuck Smith, etc. At least part of the predictions of the worldly prophets will come true. But the evangelicals have a very poor track record because they have no supernatural source, but are instead guided by the motive to write best-selling books (sounds judgmental, but just ask me and I'll back this up), and the naive, nationalistic, politically-motivated view of the world that makes them prophesy things that make America and Israel look like the good guys. Here's the rub: what if they're wrong? What if we're not the good guys?

Want examples of the evangelical prophets' errors? There are books written about them. I don't own one, but here are a few examples I can think of myself. Anyone who has been following them since the 1970's know that they all agreed that the Soviet Union would attack Israel. In 1989, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, it was back to the drawing board, and don't let anyone see you eating crow. Hal Lindsay, in his book, The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted on the basis of bellicose rhetoric by Egypt against Israel, that Anwar Sadat would declare war on Israel. But rather, Sadat flew to Tel Aviv with a bouquet of flowers and made peace. Now they are looking for Solomon's temple to replace the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount in Jerusalem. That's why they are pushing the calamitous, armageddon-begging, mindlessly pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy. Gmc, you are exactly right.

All this gives Bible prophecy a bad name, not to mention it could get us all killed. gmc wrote: Well hey the world is running out of resources how hard is it to predict conflict? Bush just instigated it.
For a self-proclaimed non-Bible expert, you make some pretty good observations. Christians have a lot of prophecy misconceptions to unlearn.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:31 pm

Prophesy is a completely different topic from the Bible so I will address it later. My background on these issues is rather simple. I have been formally trained in both Greek and Hebrew translation and interpretation. I have had formal training in Biblical history and a great deal of both private and formal studies in theology and theological issues.

The Bible is a book composed of: myth, legend, folk tale, poety, short story, fiction, some philosophy and some kernels of history. Generally it is a book describing man's experience of the Divine. Someone has mentioned oral tradition. The Pentateuch was passed on for centuries as oral tradition until the remaining scholars during the Babylonian Exile decided that it should be written down. It contains elements borrowed from other local tribes as well as their own thinking.

The Bible is not nor was it ever intended to be an historica account. It was and is primarily a religious book. The way in which it was written is vitally important to discerning the profound truths that it contains. It was written as Midrash and contains a great deal of metaphors. In fact the Bible is Midrash from cover to cover with kernels of history throughout.

It was not dictated by God. However for Christians it becomes the "Word of God"because God speaks to us through the very human words in the Book. It becomes sacred not for any inherent reason but by the use to which we put this book.

Part of the issue of truth is that modern man has fallen into the trap of thinking that unless it is historical it is not true. This is simply a false attitude. When one begins to understand the idea of midrash and using metaphors the Bible becomes a much more powerful book then it it will be as history.

My study and my research combined with a great deal of prayer, meditation and discussions with theologians and Bible scholars has convinced me that for me the Bible is the Word of God. I am a Christian Pluralist. That also means that I accept the vaidity and the value of all the major faiths in the world. All are man's attempts to have a transforming relationship with God.

Prophesey was not a prediction about the world years later then the prophets. It was a comment on the immedidate situation around their times. They were called the people back to God. Revelation does not contain preditions about the last days but it does make for a good movie.

"Understanding the Old Testament" by Anderson is a good book for explained the Old Testament.

Shalom

Ted :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:58 am

Koan

That this question turned political is more telling than anything I could say.

I think the church, who have so altered the original Book, have done so for politics and power and lament that the intentions behind these great words have been so abused in the struggle for power. I think the gift of words is directly from God. How they get so jumbled in the translations is the affront to God.

Words can, and have, killed so many.

Reply With Quote

The original post was the bible: is it the word of God? That it has been altered extensively over the years is without doubt.. That is one of the reasons I cannot understand people who believe it is the literal word of god unchanged by man.

I think the gift of words is directly from God. How they get so jumbled in the translations is the affront to God.

That is where we digress, it is only an affront to god if you believe it came from god in the first place. If you do you can then join the great debate about what god actually said and what he meant, when you disagree then you blame the translator, when you agree you can claim the disavower just doesn't understand the true meaning of god's word and is confused. It's all very human

I am perhaps being a little facetious I am not trying to denigrate anyone's faith.

You see the same thing amongst political parties, you see people deprarting from the party line and causing schisms, to get back in to the fold they have to make due apology and confess their sins and agree to follow the avowed leader. In extreme cases they break off and form their own party/church. sometimes they get along together other times they end up at each others throats.

religon/politics when the two get combined there is always conflict.

I happen to live in a country where the prevailing philosophy used to be that everybody had to be able to read so that they could read the bible for themselves. That was one of the main points about the protestant reformation, if you can read the bible for yourself you don't need a priest to tell you what to do. It became political because if you are equal in the sight of god why not on earth? therein lies the path to social revolution. It's also maybe why I have little sympathy with those that take the bible literally or who need a priest to tell them what to belkieve and how to vote, part of me always wants to tell them to use their common sense and make up their own minds.

religon/politics where is the join?

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsi ... /benn.html

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:31 am

How true.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:27 pm

Someone said that there are only three alternatives for understanding Christ and His claim that He is the Messiah:

1. He was lying

2. He was insane

3. He really is the Messiah as He said he was.

The fourth alternative, that he was "a good teacher, but not the Messiah," is impossible, because He claimed to be the Messiah- so if He really is not, then it leaves only the two alternatives that he was crazy (self-deceived) or lying, and crazies and liars are not good teachers.

(undoubtedly, someone will say, "the Bible says Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but Jesus probably never really said that." Which brings me to my next point)

There are likewise only four logical alternatives to understanding the Bible, and it's claim to be God's word:

1. The original authors were lying

2. The original authors were crazy

3. The book was so changed that even if it were God's word when it was written, it can't be now, or...

4. The Bible really is God's Word, as it says it is.

The alternative that "The Bible is a good holy book, but not God's word," is not a logically possible alternative. If the original authors were lying, or crazy it would be creepy to take a book for holy when one knew the authors were liars or nuts. If the book were so changed as people claim it to be, simply refer to alternative number one. Any translator or copyist who changes or adds to or subtracts from a manuscript is in effect, lying- He's saying that the manuscript says what it really does not. The resulting book would not qualify as a good, holy book, because it would be riddled with lies.

If the Bible were God's word when it was written, but isn't now, it begs the question as to how a supposedly all-powerful God found it possible to make His word available in the days of clay tablets and parchment, but not today.

If God wants us to have a relationship with Him, but did not leave so much as a scrap of paper or even a note... If you had a boyfriend/girlfriend who never called or wrote you, what kind of relationship is that? How can you say you have a relationship with someone with no evidence of any communication? People who give lip service to "relationship" but trust their own imaginations to tell them what God is saying to them have an imaginary relationship with an imaginary god.

There are modern Bible scholars who say that the Bible is inaccurate. If the Bible is inaccurate, what makes it so?- that it contains ancient mens' opinions? Excuse me for thinking, but inaccurate according to what? Modern mens' opinions? Then are modern mens' opinions better than ancient mens' opinions? Is is inaccurate because it contains events that never happened or things said that the people never really said? Again- according to whose opinion? Who was there, and in a better position to know- the modern scholars or the ancient eye-witnesses?

And here's the question that boggles my mind- why become an expert in something you don't believe in? And why take someone's "expert opinion" on a book, when the "expert" doesn't even believe the book they claim they are "expert" about?

I decided a long time ago, when I was yet an unbeliever, that I would believe the Bible when someone was able to make sense of it for me. My relationship with God began, and my life changed when I was shown the credibility and consistency of the Bible.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:45 pm

koan wrote: I think the church, who have so altered the original Book, have done so for politics and power and lament that the intentions behind these great words have been so abused in the struggle for power. I think the gift of words is directly from God. How they get so jumbled in the translations is the affront to God.

Words can, and have, killed so many.

I like what you said here, and agree wholeheartedly. Having said what I said in my last post, Koan, I needed to clarify that believe there is a vast and irreconcilable difference between what the Bible says and some of the things churches say it says.

By speaking in favor of the Bible I'm really sticking my neck out, because it can cause people to jump to wrong conclusions about what I believe, based on what many churches are doing and saying.

True believers are almost invariably better off under governments which are neutral toward religion than those that promote the majority religion. Since when has the majority been right about spiritual things?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:04 pm

The Bible mentions the Jews and so so christians. Where did the Islamics come from?

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:35 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: The Bible mentions the Jews and so so christians. Where did the Islamics come from?

Read Genesis 16:1-16 and 21:1-20. It tells how Abraham and Sarah were childless, so Sarah gave Abraham her Egyptian handmaid, Hagar to Abraham as a concubine. In the tradition of that time, any child Hagar had would be viewed as Sarah's child, but it didn't work out the way Sarah planned. Abraham's having sex with Hagar was not only unlawful, but showed a lack of faith in God, because God had promised Abraham he would have a son, and in effect Abraham was either not belieing God would really do it (Sarah was past child-bearing years) or thinking he had to "help God out." This was one of the dumb things our spiritual forefathers did that got us into trouble. After Hagar bore Abraham a son, named Ishmael, then God enabled Sarah to get pregnant, and Abraham's true promised son, Isaac was born. Isaac was the father of the Jews, and Ishmael was the father of Islam. To this day the descendents of these boys are at each other's throats in a conflict that is endangering the whole world. See how much trouble a little act of distrust and disobedience can get us into?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:25 am

telapaquacky

Someone said that there are only three alternatives for understanding Christ and His claim that He is the Messiah:

1. He was lying

2. He was insane

3. He really is the Messiah as He said he was.

The fourth alternative, that he was "a good teacher, but not the Messiah," is impossible, because He claimed to be the Messiah- so if He really is not, then it leaves only the two alternatives that he was crazy (self-deceived) or lying, and crazies and liars are not good teachers.

I am no bible scholar but is it not the case that jc's own brothers did not believe he was the messiah and objected to paul's teachings it was the origin of one of the first schisms in the christian church. as much a power struggle between the early founders as the one about whether you had to become a jew before becoming a christian.

How about the fourth option that he was a good teacher the messiah bit was spin on the part of early christians, in particular paul to justify their belief. Then again he claimed to be the messiah but who was writing the bible at the time? What they write isn't necessaily what happened but what they wanted to believe. The only people who know for sure what was said were those who were there. Given that so mich of the bible was simply dropped when it was being translated it does rather beg the question that what you have is a very carefully edited version. It is in it's own way as absurd as believing that the romans did the bidding of the jewish priests.

1. The original authors were lying

2. The original authors were crazy

3. The book was so changed that even if it were God's word when it was written, it can't be now, or...

4. The Bible really is God's Word, as it says it is.

The alternative that "The Bible is a good holy book, but not God's word," is not a logically possible alternative. If the original authors were lying, or crazy it would be creepy to take a book for holy when one knew the authors were liars or nuts. If the book were so changed as people claim it to be, simply refer to alternative number one. Any translator or copyist who changes or adds to or subtracts from a manuscript is in effect, lying- He's saying that the manuscript says what it really does not. The resulting book would not qualify as a good, holy book, because it would be riddled with lies.

I would leave logic out of it, you either believe it or you don't. believing the bible is the unchanged wors of god is not a logical decision. If it were that simple no one would believe it. Same as belief in JC you either believe he is the son of god or you don't.

In any case it is not the early authors that are at issue but what happened in between then and now.

True believers are almost invariably better off under governments which are neutral toward religion than those that promote the majority religion. Since when has the majority been right about spiritual things?

So is everybody else as well. The most repressive societies are those with a religious theocracy in charge.

There are modern Bible scholars who say that the Bible is inaccurate. If the Bible is inaccurate, what makes it so?- that it contains ancient mens' opinions? Excuse me for thinking, but inaccurate according to what? Modern mens' opinions? Then are modern mens' opinions better than ancient mens' opinions? Is is inaccurate because it contains events that never happened or things said that the people never really said? Again- according to whose opinion? Who was there, and in a better position to know- the modern scholars or the ancient eye-witnesses?

Actually modern archeology is beginning to show that some of the events in the bible do have a historical basis in fact. I have always tended to the idea that the bible is a written version of oral histories handed down through the generations. It is the bit about it being the unchanged word of god that get me. I find it a ludicrous belief.

capn buzzard

The Bible mentions the Jews and so so christians. Where did the Islamics come from?

Not to mention everybody else on the planet that isn't jewish, christian, islamic

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:08 am

gmc wrote: I would leave logic out of it, you either believe it or you don't. believing the bible is the unchanged word of god is not a logical decision. If it were that simple no one would believe it. Same as belief in JC you either believe he is the son of god or you don't.You would be surprised how much logic there really is in it. I mentioned in another post how mis-handled prophecy is by Christians nowadays. When it is seen in it's proper light, there is a lot more to it than you think. The catch is that you have to be willing to slog through a lot of Bible reading and History, and read with a believing attitude toward God, and dispense completely with nationalism and all the self-serving prejudices we have (speaking of believers). And you need a more contemporary prophet to put together what has happened in the past 2000 years. And most of all, you need the Holy Spirit. But when Bible prophecy opens up, it's very deep, very intricately and logically interrelated, and calls for an enormous personal paradigm shift for each individual- it did this to me. The "pop escatology" you find in bookstores today and that most Christians subscribe to has no authority, relies on shallow sensationalism and plays to people's wishful thinking.gmc wrote: In any case it is not the early authors that are at issue but what happened in between then and now.Yes! because the apostles themselves predicted that the church would be attacked from within and transformed by power struggles and politics (not to be too unspiritual- these are not merely the mischief of men but also of the evil one) into what Revelation described as the "Whore Mystery Babylon." (someone's going to geet me for saying this but) Most of what you look at when you look at the Christian church today is actually the Whore Mystery Babylon. Revelation also describes a pure woman with twelve stars on her head, who gives birth to the Messiah, but then is chased by a dragon into the wilderness for 1,260 years. This is what is called the "remnant," because they are fewer in number and less visible. When the disciples asked Jesus about when He would come again and what signs would preceed his coming, the first words from His lips were, "See that no one deceives you." He warned of deceptions that would deceive most believers "even the very elect, if that were possible." My point is that things are not all what they would seem in the Christian world. There are some good bits, but the general direction has become too nationalistic and politicized, and has fallen into the hands of a few leaders whose motives are not with Christ. Even all that was predicted- but it had to be predicted in such a heavily encoded way that it would make it possible for Christianity to be hijacked. That's why end-times prophecies are so hard to decipher. If Jesus just spelled out who the Antichrist was, and what he would do, then nobody would be deceived and it would never happen. Prophecy was written in a tricky way so it could predict the future course of the church without interfering with it. gmc wrote: So is everybody else as well. The most repressive societies are those with a religious theocracy in charge.Well, fasten your seat belts, everyone. From here on out, it's going to be one hell of a ride. The future consists of an updated version of the Middle Ages, but with a surprise ending.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 am

telepaquacky

Even all that was predicted- but it had to be predicted in such a heavily encoded way that it would make it possible for Christianity to be hijacked. That's why end-times prophecies are so hard to decipher. If Jesus just spelled out who the Antichrist was, and what he would do, then nobody would be deceived and it would never happen. Prophecy was written in a tricky way so it could predict the future course of the church without interfering with it.

Right, so the prophecies are written in such a way so that you predict the future course but in such a a way that they are indecipherable so that the prophecy itself does not affect the future course of events. If you could predict what the antichrist was going to do then it would stop it happening. Why bother with predictions just have a nice big surprise.

I'm sorry but I just can't agree with you. If JC came to give us a new testament then constantly harking back to the old rather negates whatever it was he came to do. You are either a christian or you are not. If you are believing an eye for an eye then you ignore christs message. Looking to the old testament to justify prejudice and hatred ignores christs message. If you follow the teachings of christ then why are you harking back to a gospel and teachings that was redundant the day he was born.

Do bear in mind I am not a christian if anything put me down as an agnostic.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:17 pm

lennonmommy

I don't doubt that Jesus was a man and I'm sure people believed that he was profound in his "miracles", however back in those days no one knew about the atom, no one knew about the possibility of the Big Bang Theory, no one knew any different than what they were told. We are the most intelligent species on this beautiful earth and yet we take for granted something that is so plainly a lie. Why aren't more people questioning this thing we call religion? I am obviously very passionate in my beliefs, but I have many friends who still believe in god and I don't hold that against them, but I do try to understand where they are coming from and so far the only arguement they can bring to the table is "faith". Faith is a powerful thing to many people, it seems to be the opiate for the masses, yet it is not empirical, just as the bible is not empirical. I want someone to prove that god exists...but no one can prove something so far fetched without saying the word "faith". I don't doubt that back in the day religion was needed to aide war efforts and political efforts -- it has been beneficial in starting over 95% of the wars that have been fought in all of this world's history.

If you could prove god exists you wouldn't need faith would you? You can no more prove he exists than you can prove he doesn't. The problem is while most of those who are secularist in their attitudes are tolerant of religious beliefs there is a very strong compulsion amongst religious people to force their beliefs on others for their own good or force them to comply with their codes of behaviour. It has always been the case that those with a strong enough belief can carry through and obtain their goals riding roughshod over those of a more easy going disposition. Eventually they get chucked out but life is hell while they hold sway. Wars are also caused for economic reasons and religuious fervour is used to get people to fight in wars that are of very little benefit to them. When the two combine life gets nasty. Nowadays there is no excuse for religious war so if we get dragged in to one, ah well make up your own answer.

It's like the war against terror being portrayed as good against evil, christian against muslim and mixed in with it cold blooded realpolitik and ecomomic warfare by proxy.

But it's all prophesised in the bible, except it's not clear because we have free will so we could prevent it if it was clear so it's kept inclear so that we can't prevent it all happening. but if you prevent it are you circumventing god's will or carrying out his obscure purpose? Confused? god tv has the answer it's all in the bible you just have to know how to read it. That's why you have you have faith.

Faith is a powerful thing to many people, it seems to be the opiate for the masses,

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful:

The Lord God made them all.

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

He made them high or lowly,

And ordered their estate

The second verse tends to be omitted now, no longer pc as most people now would choke on the words but once upon the time only the "godless" questioned the natural order of things.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:24 pm

Lennonmommy wrote: I was raised by catholics and forced into their beliefs. Of course in their eyes their beliefs were right and no one could tell them that they were wrong, sounds a lot like every other sect of christianity. Being raised with these beliefs forced upon me, it was devastating to my family when I told them that I do not believe one single word of the bible.

Oh, dear, another 'Recovering Catholic'. :yh_sigh

How wonderfully brave of you that you could confront them like that. Our families can be the worst of all tyrants. It is sad that having religion forced down the throat can isolate you from all religious thought or feelings. Hopefully this is not the case. Broadening the concept of religion to spirituality may be helpful.

Science cannot explain a lot of things on this Earth. Like emotions.

Asking people to defend their beliefs is rather like asking someone what they want...if you could have anything! The mind can suddenly go blank. I agree that you cannot prove God's existence because the tools we have to prove it are all of an Earthly nature. Prove that space goes on forever. Prove that space does not go on forever.

What you seek is experience, not explanation. You have to experience God to believe it.

I've experienced God and I am not a Christian.

It's the name "God" that will cause you grief for a while. Find another name for it and maybe you will find some other path to spiritual happiness.

Maybe science is your path...everything leads to the same thing. One Thing.

:yh_hugs

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:47 pm

gmc wrote: ...so the prophecies are written in such a way so that you predict the future course but in such a a way that they are indecipherable so that the prophecy itself does not affect the future course of events. ... Why bother with predictions just have a nice big surprise.The point isn't that they are indecipherable. The point is that most people's nationalistic and churchistic prejudices make them unable to decipher them.

I'll give you a bald example. Most people aren't aware that the "666" is only one of three bugaboos in Revelation. The other two are the dragon and the false prophet. The false prophet is the one who forms an image to the 666, and enforces the mark of the 666 beast on the world. I am an American. I happen to believe that America is the false prophet. Everything I've seen, including the results of this election bear this out, and it's unfolding like clockwork. Try telling this to some American Christians. They might burn a cross on your lawn. Will they see what I see- Supreme Court decisions, new laws, the new zeitgeist for church and state cooperation as the fulfillment of prophecy? No. They are looking at the Arab world as the bad guys. In their eyes, we're the righteous, holy good guys. We can do no wrong. Get the point? American nationalism and self-serving prejudice makes American Christians unable to see where their decisions are heading- toward the enforcement of a form of worship- the mark of the beast.

Is God cruel or unfair to entrap them that way? No, HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s being entirely fair. You yourself know and said, in so many words, that religious intolerance and church-state tyranny is against ChristÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s message- itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s antichrist. You know this simple fact, and you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even claim to believe the Bible. If American Christians claim to know the Bible, they ought to know better. But they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t because their hearts are in the wrong place. So the mark of the beast is a heart test, which is what salvation is about anyway.

If I told you what it was youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d say I was totally insane. When it happens youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Omigod, Telaquapacky was right!Ã¢â‚¬Âgmc wrote: But it's all prophesised in the bible, except it's not clear because we have free will so we could prevent it if it was clear so it's kept inclear so that we can't prevent it all happening. but if you prevent it are you circumventing god's will or carrying out his obscure purpose? Confused? god tv has the answer it's all in the bible you just have to know how to read it. That's why you have you have faith.IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m glad youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re confused. So am I. We can merrily walk down the garden path of the eternally confused together like we had no sense. I knew Bush would be re-elected, and that it was GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s will so that the terrible end times things could happen so we can get all that over with and Jesus can come again. I voted for Kerry, because I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t stomach voting for own persecutors (also because I am a pinko). God said Ã¢â‚¬Å“Good vote, Telaquapacky, but I have other plans.Ã¢â‚¬Â I said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Sure! Whatever You say!Ã¢â‚¬Â (I always say that

)

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:17 pm

telaquapacky wrote: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Omigod, Telaquapacky was right!Ã¢â‚¬Â

I'm already saying this :wah:

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m glad youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re confused. So am I. We can merrily walk down the garden path of the eternally confused together like we had no sense. I knew Bush would be re-elected, and that it was GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s will so that the terrible end times things could happen so we can get all that over with and Jesus can come again. I voted for Kerry, because I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t stomach voting for own persecutors (also because I am a pinko). God said Ã¢â‚¬Å“Good vote, Telaquapacky, but I have other plans.Ã¢â‚¬Â I said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Sure! Whatever You say!Ã¢â‚¬Â (I always say that

)

I don't know much about prophecy but I have a very strong feeling that Bush and his war against the Eastern World will result in much enlightenment as to the corruption of the American political system. I think it is meant to happen to bring about the fall of our current way of living. "Life as we know it".

I have terrible feelings about where the world is heading and how many lives will be lost...but, if it is part of the plan, there is no stopping it. Ending life "as we know it" is probably a great thing. It just won't feel that great getting to the new place.

Change is always difficult, yes? It has to involve the death of something to make way for the birth of something.

If Christ came again do you think anyone would believe it was him? He'd probably end up in a loony bin somewhere, no? :yh_giggle

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:29 pm

Lennonmommy wrote:

Actually Science has a very simple way of explaining emotions, they're called endorphins! Endorphins are these crazy things called neuropeptides which are composed of many different amino acids. They are elaborated by the pituitary gland along with other areas of the brain and they act on the central and peripheral nervous systems, this helps reduce pain caused by stress responses. Remember pain is not necessarily "painful" it is a feeling that is describing an emotion that can only be controlled by the release of these endorphins. Basically endorphins act as a drug to stimulate an emotional response. I guarantee that Science can explain almost anything you throw my way, explaining emotions was easy, got anything a little more difficult?

Perhaps I was a little too general? Why does the pituatary gland choose that, particular emotion? Are you implying that the gland does the thinking? I haven't found emotions to be logical. Why does one person laugh when another cries at the same thing? Does science explain this? I consider pain to be a sensation, not an emotion. I think science explains the body's reaction to emotions but not why the emotion takes place. Or is this a chicken or the egg scenario?

I do believe that there is some driving force in life. God is not it! I don't necessarily believe in the supernatural, but I would have a much better time grasping that concept next to the concept of a man in the sky! Spiritualism is such a "locked in" term. People who have the tendency to believe in the man in the sky also tend to believe that something actually happens to our body or our vessel when we die. The sad truth is that nothing happens, the energy that once made you, leaves your body forever and you are buried or burned and become one with earth again. It is the classic cycle of life and it does sound grim and it is very difficult to imagine that it's actually over when you die, sadly though it is and I just wish more people could accept that and work on living their one life to the fullest. I have found something that explains everything and it's energy, that is the driving force behind every living thing in life! If I had to choose a religion I would probably lean more towards a SE Asian philosophy. They don't spend their time promoting a "god" or rather another human being, instead they focus more on the force of nature and centering the energy created in your body. These religions are actually beautiful to me, and although I don't believe everything they say, I would have a much better time grasping their concepts as opposed to the concept of some dude living in the sky. Thank you for the discussion, please keep it coming, I'm not totally stubborn, I just come off that way right at first, but I do stick by my beliefs!

Again, the word "God" is the problem here. I most certainly find the 'man in the sky' thing outrageously funny :wah: and subscribe more to eastern philosophy myself...but I have no problem describing any spiritual entity as God since there is nothing wrong with the word, it has just been made to mean something oppressive to so many people. To me God embodies a concept that has many names. I also believe God is plural...that is how the divine "we" was generated, to my understanding, God is both masculine and feminine embodied in one thing. They just dropped the "she" part.

Absolutely the body dies. But, are we just our bodies? Obviously, you've never left yours before. If you had that transcendental experience, there would be no way of convincing you there was NOT something beyond our earthly self. Although, I think the personality we identify as "ourselves" would not care to continue its limited self.

I love science, by the way. Let's see...

Space. How does science prove that space goes on forever? It is similar to trying to prove that God exists, no? But it sure is fun trying.

:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:22 am

[QUOTE=Lennonmommy]First of all I just want to apologize for how bitchy I was in the last post, I'm experiencing some strong emotions about this whole election -- obviously not good ones! Anyhow sorry for that and I will work on being more objective and less emotional!

Kind of funny, since we were just talking about emotions :yh_giggle

No apology necessary! I am glad that you don't really feel that negative but passion is always good.

You may not consider it 'real' science, but there are a number of studies on out of body experiences where they test astral travellers by having them go to a locked room from a distance and report what is inside of the room, the box...etc. They found a group who can do this regularly at will. These people will tell you that they are still connected to their bodies (the silver cord thing) but they can travel instantly anywhere in the world in an astral self and the tests have concluded that this is true.

It is supposed to be that the death of the body would cause this 'silver cord' to break and then it would a) not be able to return to the body or b) not continue it's existence. Does your scientific knowledge explain this? But this is straying from the original topic.

Maybe another thread called "Science vs Spirit" ?

About God speaking to us again....The zealousness of many bible thumpers can drive people further from spirituality instead of closer as a result of them thinking they know what God wants and thinking that the Bible is some sort of Godly command direct from the source.

I only still use the name 'God' because....its a perfectly good word. Same thing with any other word that has taken on negative connotations over time...the word isn't the problem, it is the way people have used it. Switching words only gives them another word to f*** up. I am not cruel enough to send another word to its death. :wah:

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:20 am

To all the people who like to say "Jesus said...and that means..."

Jesus was an Essene. You have to understand the Essene religion to really know what Jesus may have meant *including* things like him being the only path to God. If, in fact, those were really the words he used.

Words, words, words...Did you all know that the original meaning of some words aren't even in the dictionary anymore because the meaning has changed due to popular usage?

The Essenes were an elect group. The uninitiated were considered "dead" and could be raised from the "dead" by conversion. What else had other meaning? Unless you were initiated...and there were different degrees of initiation...you could have no idea what the higher meaning of the words actually meant. He spoke on many levels and only a few, chosen initiates actually were granted the knowledge of all the implications.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:50 am

Before I can apply 'real' science to this question, I need you to elaborate further on the astral travellers. What do you mean 'they go into a locked room from a distance'? Can you really trust what these people are saying? Where is the empirical evidence? Anyone can make up a story, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily true or that everyone should buy into it!

This is why I love science! "Where is the imperical evidence?" :wah:

That is what the test groups are doing, gathering imperical evidence. The traveller lies down in a room and projects their astral self out of their physical body then goes to a room as given instruction and upon waking tells the scientist what was in the box. They are controlled tests to guarantee there was no other way for the traveller to know the answer.

If you found one thing that was true but unexplainable by science would it change your perspective in general?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:50 pm

Since we are kind of off topic, let me just say: thousands of people have OBEs (out of body experiences) so I consider it a fact that they happen (I am one of the thousands). Go to www.inspiredofspirit.com/astral_travel.htm to find out the EEG results. Go to www.monroeinstitute.org for empirical data on altered states. (Monroe is the leading authority on astral travel) Go to www.astral-projection.org if you want to have an OBE with 100% money back guarantee :wah:

This topic is more suited to magic&mystery now.

Cheers.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:09 pm

Lennonmommy wrote: Yeah thanks I checked it out, but I wasn't impressed! This is all SUBJECTIVE information, you should really look up the word "empirical" in the dictionary and then cross reference that info with the definition of "subjective". I would highly reccomend this to you, since you seem to be very confused on the differences between the two!

Okay, I'm doing that right now.

Empirical adj. 1) derived from experience or experiment. 2) depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine. 3) verifiable by experience or experiment.

OOOoooops. I think you used the wrong word. I offered you a website to gain experience and I don't think you'll try it.

Subjective adj. 1) existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. 2) pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal 3) placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes or opinions ...goes on

hmmmmmm. Sounds like you and the way you want other people to provide your proof before you'll waste your time trying something. Where would we be if scientist didn't prove things themselves...by trying them. Oh, but first you must believe it may be possible. Even scientists must make a leap of faith!

Hey, I didn't even look the words up first. Just kinda worked out. Guess I made a leap of faith.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:17 am

[QUOTE=Lennonmommy]Empirical adj. 2) depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.

This is so interesting that you don't understand a defintion that you took the time to type out! I find that to be really funny :yh_rotfl Back at you and you typed it twice!!!

An experience or experiment must be smelled, heard, tasted, touched or seen -- hence the use of SCIENCE! The scientific method begins with a hypothesis and ends with a thesis. This process is long and drawn out only for things that are very difficult to explain without it. Something that is empirical does not need this long process, because something that is empirical is so simple we are able to use our five senses to explain it!

It's pretty darn simple when you have heard and seen the other side. I have my empirical proof. What percentage of the population does it require to convince you this happens. This is getting ridiculous. There is no way of convincing you and we are both stubborn.

I don't need anyone like you to provide me proof to anything since I can tell your IQ sits behind mine by at least 40 points, that puts you at a measly 90 - you need at least a score of 100 to be considered average. Better luck in the future!

From the numbers you give, you are almost 20 points BEHIND me. Better luck to you next time! I chose not to go to the enrichment schools because I couldn't stand the elitist attitude of most the students at the school. Genius intelligence, and focusing on it, increases the chance of devoping mental illness. Many of my genius friends are manic depressive or, at the very least, social morons. You are not your IQ. Feeding the ego takes you further from enlightenment.

Science: 1) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. 2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It goes on...............

Hate to bring it up but they used to think the world was flat, remember? Try convincing them, at the time, that the world was a globe. Just because they couldn't see it from space, the empirical data of the time created false scientific conclusions. This is not the only example.

To me, all you are saying is "The Earth is flat! The Earth is flat!" So who is not using their intelligence? Practice nonlinear thinking. (Being reduced to picking apart my grammar indicates to me that you are losing this debate)

To return to "the word of God" concept. These scientific rules are your version of the "word of God" and I don't see any difference in the reasons for belief.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:41 am

Just found this. For the rest go to www.blavatsky.net/arts/NegatorsofScience.htm

With the true, genuine man of science, with the earnest, impartial unprejudiced and truth-loving scholar--of the minority, alas!--we can have no quarrel, and he has all our respect. But to him who, being only a specialist in physical sciences--however eminent, matters not--still tries to throw into the scales of public thought his own materialistic views upon metaphysical and psychological questions (a dead letter to him) we have a good deal to say. Nor are we bound by any laws we know of, divine or human, to respect opinions which are held erroneous in our school, only because they are those of so-called authorities in materialistic or agnostic circles. Between truth and fact (as we understand them) and the working hypotheses of the greatest living physiologists--though they answer to the names of Messrs. Huxley, Claude Bernard, Du Bois Reymond, etc., etc.--we hope never to hesitate for one instant. If, as Mr. Huxley once declared, soul, immortality and all spiritual things "lie outside of [his] philosophical inquiry" (Physical Basis of Life), then, as he has never inquired into these questions, he has no right to offer an opinion. They certainly lie outside the grasp of materialistic physical science, and, what is more important, to use Dr. Paul Gibier's felicitous expression, outside the luminous zone of most of our materialistic scientists. These are at liberty to believe in the "automatic action of nervous centres" as primal creators of thought; that the phenomena of will are only a complicated form of reflex actions, and what not--but we are as much at liberty to deny their statements. They are specialists--no more. As the author of Spiritisme et Fakirisme admirably depicts it, in his latest work:--

A number of persons, extremely enlightened on some special, point of science, take upon themselves the right of pronouncing arbitrarily their judgment on all things; are ready to reject every thing new which shocks their ideas, often for the sole reason that if it were true they could not remain ignorant of it! For my part I have often met this kind of self-sufficiency in men whom their knowledge and scientific studies ought to have preserved from such a sad moral infirmity, had they not been specialists, holding to their specialty. It is a sign of relative inferiority to believe oneself superior. In truth, the number of intellects afflicted with such gaps (lacunes) is larger than is commonly believed. As there are individuals completely refractory to the study of music, of mathematics, etc., so there are others to whom certain areas of thought are closed. Such of these who might have distinguished themselves in . . . medicine or literature, would probably have signally failed in any occupation outside of what I will call their lucid zone, by comparison with the action of those reflectors, which, during night, throw their light into a zone of luminous rays, outside of which all is gloomy shadow and uncertainty. Every human being has his own lucid zone, the extension, range and degree of luminosity of which, varies with each individual.

There are things which lie outside the concept of certain intellects; they are outside their lucid zone.1

We do not ask you to believe as we do, since your zone limits you to your specialty; but then do not encroach on the zones of other people. And, if you will do so nevertheless, if, after laughing in your moments of honest frankness at your own ignorance; after stating repeatedly, orally and in print, that you, physicists and materialists, know nothing whatever of the ultimate potentialities of matter, nor have you made one step towards solving the mysteries of life and consciousness--you still persist in teaching that all the manifestations of life and intelligence, and the phenomena of the highest mentality, are merely properties of that matter of which you confess yourselves quite ignorant,2 then--you can hardly escape the charge of humbugging the world.3 The word "humbug" is used here advisedly, in its strictest etymological Websterian meaning, that is, "imposition under fair pretenses"--in this case, of science. Surely it is not expecting too much of such learned and scholarly gentlemen that they should not abuse their ascendency and prestige over people's minds to teach them something they themselves know nothing about; that they should abstain from preaching the limitations of nature, when its most important problems have been, are, and ever will be, insoluble riddles to the materialist! This is no more than asking simple honesty from such teachers.

Sorry to all for the length of this, but the insult to my intelligence kinda made me mad

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:37 pm

My IQ is 147. Obviously you didn't add correctly because you were so busy jumping to conclusions. I am finished with the stupidity here too. Your conclusion about my age is incorrect as well. Guess you didn't gather enough data.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:05 pm

Oh, my. Someone needs a happy pill.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:02 pm

I do hope that this discussion does not start relating to ones IQ. For the truth is we are not really sure what that is. IQ is what IQ tests measure. That was the definition from a testing specialist.

ShalomTed :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:14 pm

I'm going back at bit to #18 by telaquapaky.

He is responding to comments concerning the Bible and its authority as well as author.

"If we can't believe in the Bible how can we believe in Jesus". Was one of the comments. This is where the literalist falls into error. The Bible becomes for Christians the "Word of God" because God speaks to us through it not because it was dictated and edited by God.

It is the problem of the reformation and the Renaissance that taught us that if it is not historical it is not true. This is simply false. Things can be very true without being historical. An example is "Myth" which in reality is a story created to tell a truth as in the myth of creation. The truth is God did it and the remainder is the human additon to give the story a body. Midrash which is the style in which the Bible was written was never intened to be read as literal history but a religious truth. The ancients knew the Bible was Midrashic and so did Jesus, himself a Jew. He can speak of the Bible as he did because he and his followers understood the nature of midrash.

Another even better difinition of myth is " A story that never occurred but is alway happening."

THe first Nations put it this was "I don't know if the story happened this way but I do know that it is true."

Fundamentalist/literalism is the heresy of both the reformation and the renaissance. Before that time scripture was understood for what it really was.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:22 pm

I don't expect the fundamentalist/literalist to believe or accept this. For them it may be far to big a paradigm shift. However, I do believe, as a Christian of emerging paradigm frame of reference that it is time they concidered the fact that there are other Christians in this world who do take a different view from there's and that it is not based on wishful thinking or a desire to have ones cake and eat it too but based on a great deal of honest scholarship part of which gave us the Bible in the first place.

Sometime it might be interesting the broach the topic of the Bible and Archaeology but it is not for those Christians not yet ready to broaden their perspectives. To put it simply the archaeological record supports some parts of the Bible and has found completely contrary evidence to the rest of it.

Having said these things, I am a Christian Pluralist who does believe in the Bible as the "Word of God" but I also believe in the validity of the other great faiths of the worlld.

Shalom

Ted :-6