Liberal Christians only believe some "fundamentalism?

[AlAyeti]

There are now political Christians wanting to "re-claim" Christianity from whatever the "Right" is, or has done to it. Claiming that their way of Christianity is more like what Jesus would want.

But many of these Liberal positions hold to funadamentalism on the poor, the needy and anti-war and violence, but oppose Biblical truth on many other issues.

Why do Liberal Christians deny the truths of the New Testament on marriage and children as defined by Jesus himself?

Liberals will teach about condom usage but decry the Biblical truth about abstaining from sex until marriage as something ignorant or intolerant?

Why are not Liberal Christians funding missionaries to go to Muslim and other countries to spread the Gospel exactly the way Jesus described and exactly the way it is presented in the Gospels?

How can Liberal Christians support a womans right to kill her unborn child and encourage a woman to go and do it, while at the same time, denying the same rights of choice on the matter be given equal recognition to the father of the child?

How and why can Liberal Christians call themselves Christians while only preaching and teaching some immutable Christian positions and not all?

[melikio]

Maybe some will just think I'm crazy, but maybe I can help some people too.

No, I do not think most people will see you as crazy. Most people understand truly good motives, even when they come from God through people.

I often point out to other Christians that I DID NOT look seriously into Christianity out of fear, or to FIX something I thought was wrong in me. I came because of the LOVE I saw and sensed period.

While I know there is more to it, I have never forgotten what "drew" me and "kept" me as a believer (even when my faith as hanging by a mere thread). Not that I would expect EVERY "Christian" to go through everything I did as a believer, but that my experiences showed ME that LOVE is indeed the most excellent way.

And redstang, I don't mind you standing "firm", for I can basically sense that you put LOVE high up on the scale of importance. It's so VERY DIFFICULT for me to imagine Jesus on The Cross, and not be overwhelmed by feelings of unconditional love. If HE being perfect could sacrifice SO MUCH for sinful mankind, why shouldn't more "Christians" strive for compassion in dealing with sinners?

You see, I must share my "Batman" analogy theory:

If Jesus was all and knew all (God in flesh), He also knew how to say anything it took is a certain way to get a response to CHOOSE Him (according to His ultimate will). Really, He could have straightened JUDAS out, in short order. But Jesus understood and honored that people could not and should not be FORCED to do "right" or even think "right"; I believe those were hallmarks of His patience, longsuffering and unfathomable compassion.

The character "Batman" (as depicted in the original stories), had an uncanny ability to go up, talk to a criminal and turn them into quivering-jelly (fear); somehow he knew what/how to say to get the desired effect. And I've known some people who can cause a similar effect with religion/Christianity (Ever notice how terrorists try VERY hard to manage the same effect?). Even so, I see a LOT of Christians trying to change people ala "Batman"; it doesn't work (properly) and that isn't anything like what I saw in Jesus where He exhibited patience and even felt what others felt (He wasn't like Batman).

I know LOVE was Jesus' POWER upon human hearts. And people who bring the "ACCEPT JESUS OR ELSE YOU'LL BE SORRY" attitude, turn off so many people. I STRUGGLED for 90% of my adult life with homosexuality, I got tired, and subsequently beaten down by Christians who really didn't understand what homosexuality was; and IF homosexuals were/are "patients" as many view us, I'd say their "bedside manner" as spiritual-physicians generally sucked. Lots of judgment, condemnation, fear and contemptuous-pity...rather than a warm heart to express and share the pain and struggle with (which runs deep in many who have dealt with homosexuality as Christians); all of that affected me greatly.

Nevertheless, I will tell you that IF you really care, and you do not drop "Christian" ultimatums like anvils upon other human beings, you will likely be received in a positive way. Not that you could or would ELIMINATE the possible STING of truth to many who are dealing with various sins, but that you would not use the POWER of God as a social/spiritual-whip on people's already-raw backs.

I cannot tell you, how many uncompassionate and self-righteous Christians I have had to simply "forgive"; it is a burden. Many of these people TALK before they ZOOM OUT a bit, and CONSIDER how they are affecting the people they speak to. So often, my internal response has been: "Oh God, he/she doesn't know." And an assumption is very distinct from an actual expression of understanding. Most homosexuals are basically busy fending off the devastating anvils, and bullets many fundamentalists are throwing at them, to CHANGE them. That's nothing but a dog-fight, which leads people to "extremes" on ALL SIDES.

Perhaps homosexual people shouldn't seek the legislation they are seeking in this nation; but then again, there are borderline insane extremists, who DESIRE the "right" to control (or treat) any homosexual person as if they are animals (not fully human). They put the Word out there in such a way, as to throw holy-water upon "vampires" (not that I have any real love for those). But that is the effect many Christians shoot for, from speaking AT homosexuals, to reaching people for Jesus. It's like they have a weapon (sword actually), and they aren't willing to HURT WITH those they presume to HURT FOR CHRIST. And that isn't some unimportant parameter, because those who would consider the message in a positive way, need to know that they are CARED FOR by the one who sent the messenger; and those messengers who THINK they are some unaffected party (like pony-express), are assuming far too much (IMHO).

Anyway redstang, I don't think you are crazy. I can actually relate to much of what you are saying. I'm typically addressing (in general) the kinds of things I've shared above in my responses, not usually the person who originally posted the thought.

Peace and grace to you,

-Mel-

[bernee51]

And if I can show evidence where the bible is clearly not historically or scientifically accurate, what does that mena for the bible?

Well, then us fundie's are wrong. But I've read a lot of skeptic material and haven't seen anything so far that wasn't just misunderstandings.

Ah - 'misunderstandings' Here we run into 'hermeneutics' - the apologists tool which can shed light on a 1000 'misunderstandings'

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

or

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

redstang281 wrote:
it's prophetic proofs, Again which prophetic proofs. And what of the 'prophecies' that did not eventuate?

I'm not aware of any. If you know a few good ones I'll research it. Pick two or three of the best alleged failures you can find.

Prophecies have been dealt with in another thread. I'll chase it down and we can continue this topic in the appropriate place.

Que? How does that testify to its 'divine origins'?

These are all works of men done within years of each other. Unlike other "Holy" books, the Bible was not written within one man's life. The entire Bible was written over a period of 1500 years yet it's one message and one continual theme. I for one do not believe that one man living a thousand years after another man would not decide to change things his way when adding his part to the text. The fact that the Bible is one message testifies that it had a single author, the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

The one message and theme - a god exists? How does that show 'divine origins'?

Ah so you have to want to believe it for it to be believable. That makes sense.

Not really, what I'm saying is if your heart is right with God he will reveal the rest to you. He will open your eyes and allow it to make sense to you.

That is exactly what I mean - to have god 'reveal' himself you have to believe.

The Bible seems to say that's for the good of society. That makes sense to me. A mass murderer only seems to drag society down. I say witness to him to give him the chance to be forgiven and then send him out of this world.

Sorry - I try wherever possible to follow a path of ahimsa. Killing, for any reason, is to be avoided.

.

Can meditation share your concerns or problems with the creator of the universe who can then use his will to help you in the best way possible?

Yes.

So what results can you share with me?

Since meditatng regularly and following other physical practices I have seen it's "...ability to transform someone. Not that I'm perfect by any means, but he has changed my whole attitude."

I have never been or felt more spiritually centred in my life.

I guess the studies you are reference to with meditation are typically the ones that show it's benefit for relaxation and other medical related issues?

Not just physical - emotional, relational and spiritual.

. I've seen God answer my prayers before, though I have nothing concrete to offer you for proof.

Then we are both using heresay are we not?

So tell me about your god, what you know about him, and how you know it's true.

What you call 'god' and what has been labelled as such since recorde history and before is that sense of the 'divine' that is intrinsic to all sentient beings. (For a full discussion of man's long history in this i can suggest Huxley's Perennial Philosophy'

That sense of the 'divine' is in fact, man's pure consciousness. I know this through following a path of study af advaita, meditation and self enquiry'

Seeking the answer to the question "Who am I?" is the path I would recommend.

The 'kingdom of god' is within.

Well I capitalize people's names, even my pets names. I figure God deserves a capital letter too being he holds the universe in his hand.

Whether 'god' holds the universe in his hand is moot.

My dog is called Rover, but it is still a dog.
The Greek god was called Zeus, the Norse - Odin, the god of Judaism - YHWH and so on - they are all gods. God is not a proper name, it is a descriptor of a mythical being.

...where does the Bible encourage rape or kidnapping? What contradictions are you talking about. I'll do my best to clear them up.

Does the name Midianites ring a bell.

How do you know?

The same reasons as above.

And I am not in need of salvation.

Why not? You have done nothing wrong? I sure have even though I'm praying and trying to change all my faults.

I am far from 'perfect' but what has that to do with 'salvation'?

I disagree. It is right for everyone to have food, water, shelter, and other essentials of life. Everyone needs those things and everyone wants them. In addition to those base level needs there are also other needs that are built into human nature such as companionship, love, fun, acceptance, etc.. that everyone yearns for as being a member of the human race. Then problem is there is a lot of confusion out in the world as to the best way to meet those needs.The Bible gives us a lot of insights into how Christians promote those out of love. We feel those are the best guides we have available and if we didn't promote our best guides to people then we wouldn't be loving.

All you say is true - but it is not the only truth and not the only way. Jeus may have claimed to be the way the truth and the light - but his way (or the way it has been distilled by fundamentalism) is not the only way.

There is only one destination, but many paths.

[redstang281]

If Jesus was all and knew all (God in flesh), He also knew how to say anything it took is a certain way to get a response to CHOOSE Him (according to His ultimate will). Really, He could have straightened JUDAS out, in short order. But Jesus understood and honored that people could not and should not be FORCED to do "right" or even think "right"; I believe those were hallmarks of His patience, longsuffering and unfathomable compassion.

You're definitely right about Jesus having unconditional forgiveness. Unfortunately I think a lot of Christians fall for the same stumbling stone that tripped the Jews, that is salvation from works.

Romans 9:32 - Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."

One area where you and I do agree is that Jesus wants us just as we are. In fact God loved us before we loved him!

Romans 5:7-8 - Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man--though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

I believe if our acceptance of him is/was true then he will work on our hearts to change us throughout our life.

Philippians 1:6 - And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

I think one really important thing to understand about God's law is that the most important reason it was given was to convict us. The law shows us we are not perfect and that we need a savior.

Romans 5:20 - Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

I guess what you and I would differ at is what to do with sin. I feel there are a lot of reasons to avoid sin. Our sin hurts God, if affects the quality of our life, and it can also affect others involved. It may not affect our salvation, but I can see why Jesus tells us not to sin.

John 5:14 - Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you."

[AlAyeti]

redstang,

Keep your pearls in your pocket.

But let us continue on the path of truth!

From those open-minded proponenets of diversity . . . infidels.org.

It must be of constant irritation to a "freethinking" mind that the Bible is right even once. Let alone more than once.


http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... front.html

Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
Farrell Till
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

It ends on this thoroughly typical dribble.

Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

[McCulloch]

It must be of constant irritation to a "freethinking" mind that the Bible is right even once. Let alone more than once.

I am sorry to ruin your stereotype of non-theists and freethinkers. The bible contains quite a bit of truth. If it did not, it would not have served society as long or as well as it did. There are some great insights into human psychology and sociology and a certain degree of historical validity.

[melikio]

I am sorry to ruin your stereotype of non-theists and freethinkers. The bible contains quite a bit of truth. If it did not, it would not have served society as long or as well as it did. There are some great insights into human psychology and sociology and a certain degree of historical validity.

Mc, you NAILED IT again.

The problem of most people relating to "truth", is those who are EXTREME about any given position they take.

It is one thing for a true believer to believe and follow with ALL that they are, but completely another for them to become the equivalent of an A-hole about what they DO or DO NOT believe in.

I've gone round-and-round with atheists and Christians who don't seem to understand that NO ONE else but they themselves, must believe in and ADHERE to the collection/s of conscious and unconscious thoughts they might possess.

IF I'd lived the majority of my life, and not witnessed such "controversy" surrounding historical experts and biblical scholars, then I'd "believe" that what anyone and everyone gets from the Bible was "absolute". But that clearly isn't the case.

I had to see my very own faith crumble, to find what was REAL for me. The sophisticated houses made of cards that is, simply BELIEVING because I was told to, is not where can stand any longer. I can't pretend I believe in something, I must know in my heart that something is truly worth believing.

So all of the faith I now exhibit, is solid and deep within me, the kind a person can/does die with (no matter the situation). And yes, it IS unobtrusive, undemanding and unconditional...because it IS based upon the love described in 1Cor13; something I've tested ALL OF MY LIFE and found to be most true period. I understand that human beings who experience REAL LOVE, are drawn TO IT and seek depth in understanding and expressing it. It COVERS for a lot of CRAP that is inherent in all human beings. I've seen it help everyone from a little child, to hardened intransigent atheists and arrogant relgious extremists...I can BELIEVE it is the MOST EXCELLENT WAY, as the Bible states.

And what drives me crazy in the mostly social sense, is that so many who claim to be Christians, do NOT recognize love (charity) as being likely the most pivotally important aspect of their faith/withness to a suffering world. My heart got sick of that, and at times it can seem that I'm almost anti-Christian. I'm not after the religion or the people; I go after the attitudes which err on the side of control and oppression. Example: I don't give a DAMN about what certain TERRORISTS are trying to say with their bombs, emtpy threats and violence, what inpresses me is the person who can say..."Come...let's discuss this."

Today, I see SO MANY "Christians" who have taken on the politically-motivated, nuke and pave approach of right-wing extremists. And to have that thinking (which is typically oppressive) superimposed upon the Bible and Christianity, is a horrid mistake. A basic student of history understand where I'm coming from with this.

People who presume that no one else is right but themselves, are at least partially blinded by their own egos (and not necessarily guided by the divine or superior revelations they so often claim). I have and still can learn a lot from the Bible, but that doesn't mean I MUST BE ALL or BELIEVE ALL that others do. I respect both Christian people and the essence of Christianity itself, but my relationship with Jesus (by faith), doesn't necessarily match the expectations, demands and custom "Christian" templates others may abide. And I'm certainly not going to FORCE what I believe.

If love won't do it for Jesus, then it probably wasn't meant to be done (IMHO).

-Mel-

[redstang281]

And if I can show evidence where the bible is clearly not historically or scientifically accurate, what does that mena for the bible?

Well, then us fundie's are wrong. But I've read a lot of skeptic material and haven't seen anything so far that wasn't just misunderstandings.

Ah - 'misunderstandings' Here we run into 'hermeneutics' - the apologists tool which can shed light on a 1000 'misunderstandings'

I've found that skeptics, who are desperately seeking justification, often overlook things in order to get the "interpretation" they want.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the
biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

If the Moabite stone discrepancy was not dealing with something they had a reason to misrepresent then it would be more of a concern.

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-2. Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

From what I have read there are other possible sites for the city of Ai. The site you mention hasn't been proven to be the city recorded in the Bible as Ai.

These are all works of men done within years of each other. Unlike other "Holy" books, the Bible was not written within one man's life. The entire Bible was written over a period of 1500 years yet it's one message and one continual theme. I for one do not believe that one man living a thousand years after another man would not decide to change things his way when adding his part to the text. The fact that the Bible is one message testifies that it had a single author, the Holy Spirit.

The one message and theme - a god exists? How does that show 'divine origins'?

More then that, not only does God exsit but he is all knowing, never changing, all loving. Salvation is by faith alone and provided by him only. That's the same message throughout the Bible.

Ah so you have to want to believe it for it to be believable. That makes sense.

Not really, what I'm saying is if your heart is right with God he will reveal the rest to you. He will open your eyes and allow it to make sense to you.

That is exactly what I mean - to have god 'reveal' himself you have to believe.

You have to accept Jesus as Lord and savior, then as you live your life if you have beliefs or values in your life that are not true he will address them and change them as time goes on. If you belong to him you are his work in progress.

The Bible seems to say that's for the good of society. That makes sense to me. A mass murderer only seems to drag society down. I say witness to him to give him the chance to be forgiven and then send him out of this world.

Sorry - I try wherever possible to follow a path of ahimsa. Killing, for any reason, is to be avoided.

I agree, it's to be avoided.

Can meditation share your concerns or problems with the creator of the universe who can then use his will to help you in the best way possible?

Yes.

So what results can you share with me?

Since meditatng regularly and following other physical practices I have seen it's "...ability to transform someone. Not that I'm perfect by any means, but he has changed my whole attitude."

I have never been or felt more spiritually centred in my life.

I believe meditation is a good exercise to improve physical health and also that physical health can often help your overall mental happiness, but I don't believe it can give you true spiritual healing. I have meditated before when I used to be involved with martial arts. However I believe Jesus Christ's power to transform a person is incomparable to mediation. Jesus can take someone with no hope or desire to live and turn their life around. Jesus can show someone love who has never known it. Most importantly Jesus can save someone from damnation which meditation has no affect on.

I've seen God answer my prayers before, though I have nothing concrete to offer you for proof.

Then we are both using heresay are we not?

A heresy is something that is unbiblical. Prayer and it's affects are Biblical. Whether or not I can prove the effects of prayer in my own personal life doesn't have anything to do with whether prayer is or is not a Biblical principal.

So tell me about your god, what you know about him, and how you know it's true.

What you call 'god' and what has been labelled as such since recorde history and before is that sense of the 'divine' that is

intrinsic to all sentient beings. (For a full discussion of man's long history in this i can suggest Huxley's Perennial Philosophy'

That sense of the 'divine' is in fact, man's pure consciousness. I know this through following a path of study af advaita, meditation and self enquiry'

Seeking the answer to the question "Who am I?" is the path I would recommend.

The 'kingdom of god' is within.

So if you rely on the feelings or sensations then how do you know your intuitions are not being molded incorrectly by an outside force for ulterior motives?

Well I capitalize people's names, even my pets names. I figure God deserves a capital letter too being he holds the universe in his hand.

Whether 'god' holds the universe in his hand is moot.

My dog is called Rover, but it is still a dog. The Greek god was called Zeus, the Norse - Odin, the god of Judaism - YHWH and so on - they are all gods. God is not a proper name, it is a descriptor of a mythical being.

God is the proper name of the god of the Bible. So if you capitalize Zeus you should also capitalize God.

...where does the Bible encourage rape or kidnapping? What contradictions are you talking about. I'll do my best to clear them up.

Does the name Midianites ring a bell.

The midianites were being judge by God for their corruption of Israel. It's not actually kidnapping that's going on, it's more along the lines of taking into their nation. The kidnap victims as you would believe are actually being saved because the ones who were not taken were killed. So who would be left to care for them? This example does not teach that all kinds of kidnapping should be universally accepted.

And I am not in need of salvation.

Why not? You have done nothing wrong? I sure have even though I'm praying and trying to change all my faults.

I am far from 'perfect' but what has that to do with 'salvation'?

Because the world we live in today is a horrible place because of people's faults. The only way to achieve utopia is if sin has been dealt with. I believe heaven is a utopia.

I disagree. It is right for everyone to have food, water, shelter, and other essentials of life. Everyone needs those things and everyone wants them. In addition to those base level needs there are also other needs that are built into human nature such as companionship, love, fun, acceptance, etc.. that everyone yearns for as being a member of the human race. Then problem is there is a lot of confusion out in the world as to the best way to meet those needs.The Bible gives us a lot of insights into how Christians promote those out of love. We feel those are the best guides we have available and if we didn't promote our best guides to people then we wouldn't be loving.

All you say is true - but it is not the only truth and not the only way. Jesus may have claimed to be the way the truth and the light - but his way (or the way it has been distilled by fundamentalism) is not the only way.

There is only one destination, but many paths.

There are more then one destinies, and more then one path, the wide and the narrow. You have to believe Jesus either is the way or he isn't. Saying Jesus is one of the ways destroys his whole validity. The Christian faith requires exclusiveness in order to be valid. The world was created by God and so was everything in it. Just like the needs I listed above we all were created with a spiritual void and need to be redeemed that only Jesus Christ can meet.

[melikio]

More then that, not only does God exsit but he is all knowing, never changing, all loving. Salvation is by faith alone and provided by him only. That's the same message throughout the Bible.

redstang,

I understand your point well. But from now and until the end, what you say is a statement of "faith". Not that I contend with your faith, because I do not know precisely why you have the faith you do.

What I contend with most of all, is that many people (in general, not merely Christians), are typically very forceful about what they believe (what they have faith in). The problem is that the kind of faith that leads to salvation in Jesus isn't something that can be "baked-up" by the will of man. I've known many people to seek the kind of faith it takes to "believe", and they do not always find it. I've met formerly devout "Christians", who have ultimately become skeptics and unbelievers.

I view the faith you have as a personal gift from God, not something that is necessarily maintained by you or any other individual.

All the intellectual stuff I've garnered over the near 50 years of life, are as nothing compared to the simple and childlike faith, hope and love I've known as a human being. In fact, the more I eventually "knew", the less I "believed". I cannot explain that, and I'm not saying that is going to happen to everyone else, but it does to some.

I can say that after have my faith re-shaped over time and experiences, what I DO retain, is as solid as ANY faith I based upon my purely logical human intellect. There is an argument for anything intellectual, but what you believe you know, you know in your heart.

I haven't seen anyone PROVE the existence of God, and I haven't seen anyone DISPROVE Him. Admittedly, my heart and mind just kind of floats above the DUST stirred by such arguments, whether they come from the Bible or elsewhere. I identify with Jesus Christ (for some reason), but maybe that's just a gift (or the way I am). One thing is for sure, I certainly don't understand it one iota; for me, it's purely about faith.

-Mel-

[McCulloch]

I've seen God answer my prayers before, though I have nothing concrete to offer you for proof.
Then we are both using heresay are we not?

A heresy is something that is unbiblical. Prayer and it's affects are Biblical. Whether or not I can prove the effects of prayer in my own personal life doesn't have anything to do with whether prayer is or is not a Biblical principal.

Bernee wrote heresay and probably meant hearsay, evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what he/she has personally experienced. Redstang read heresy, any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.

[redstang281]

redstang,

I understand your point well. But from now and until the end, what you say is a statement of "faith". Not that I contend with your faith, because I do not know precisely why you have the faith you do.

What I contend with most of all, is that many people (in general, not merely Christians), are typically very forceful about what they believe (what they have faith in). The problem is that the kind of faith that leads to salvation in Jesus isn't something that can be "baked-up" by the will of man. I've known many people to seek the kind of faith it takes to "believe", and they do not always find it.

You're right, and it says that in the Bible too.

Matthew 13:16-17 - But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

I've met formerly devout "Christians", who have ultimately become skeptics and unbelievers.

But how do you know they were real Christians? Maybe they were the type that believe you are saved by just going to church or by being "religious". I believe only God knows someone's heart.

I view the faith you have as a personal gift from God, ...

Me too.

..not something that is necessarily maintained by you or any other individual.

Right, but it can be increased or lessen by your walk with the Lord. Things like reading the Bible increase your faith.

All the intellectual stuff I've garnered over the near 50 years of life, are as nothing compared to the simple and childlike faith, hope and love I've known as a human being. In fact, the more I eventually "knew", the less I "believed". I cannot explain that, and I'm not saying that is going to happen to everyone else, but it does to some.

I can say that after have my faith re-shaped over time and experiences, what I DO retain, is as solid as ANY faith I based upon my purely logical human intellect. There is an argument for anything intellectual, but what you believe you know, you know in your heart.

I haven't seen anyone PROVE the existence of God, and I haven't seen anyone DISPROVE Him. Admittedly, my heart and mind just kind of floats above the DUST stirred by such arguments, whether they come from the Bible or elsewhere. I identify with Jesus Christ (for some reason), but maybe that's just a gift (or the way I am). One thing is for sure, I certainly don't understand it one iota; for me, it's purely about faith.

I guess your point is that I'm wasting my time or that I should give up trying to share my view. I'm not really sure why someone would try to discourage me when this is a forum for debating Christianity.

I do believe God convinces us in our heart but I also believe the tool he uses is people many times. When I came to faith it was from a seed someone planted in me. It may be that somewhere someone would be helped by something I say. Maybe not the people participating here but maybe an onlooker. So if you are sincere in your faith in the Lord then please don't try to discourage me from serving him. He said his word will not return empty.


Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.