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?

[redstang281]

here we get down to definition - of what is a 'christian-thing" and what isn't.

For example, you would hold that abortion is anti-christian.

In what verse in biblical text does it say "Thou shalt not have an abortion"? Now I know you will say that abortion is murder. So where does it say in the NT that abortion is murder?

The significance of the unborn is clearly spoken of in many Bible verses both Old and New Testament. Individuals destiny is appointed before birth. God looks at the unborn differently then man does.

Luke 1:15 - for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
The Bible has maintained the same Gospel message of salvation by faith throughout time. That message has remained the same because the author is God and all of the writers of the Bible have been inspired by him. I don't deny that the message is consistent...that much is obvious from reading the bible. Where we differ is as to why. You claim it is due to god's authorship. I claim it is consistent because the same message has been reinforced by each subsequent author because the results of such consistency were obvious to the authors - and they were believers themselves.

So you think that some guy thousands of years ago came up with this gospel message that one day God would pay for the sins of man kind, yet he didn't bother to write out the whole story to complete his thoughts he just hoped the message would be completed by others thousands of years later?

Genesis 3:15 - I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

That's because God made man with a spiritual hunger for him. Even those who reject him still need to fill that void with some other kind of belief.

I stated in an earlier post that this is the foundation of the Perennial Philosophy. A philosophy that has manifested in the many and varied theological, spiritual and religious quests upon which mankind has ventured.

Right, a void man kind has always had. This supports my position. You believe it's arbitrary, I believe it's God given.

Whatsmore these quests have evolved over time. From archaic animist beliefs, to the magical and thence to the mythical, of which your belief system is part.

I see this aspect differently. I believe God created the way he said in Genesis and then all other religions are man made deviations from the truth that have developed throughout history.

redstang281 wrote:
People reject God because they want to not because it's necessarily out of careful reasoning.

This is a generalization and an incorrect one. I have spoken with many who had tried for years to be 'persons of faith' only to see, via logic and reason, that their faith was not justified.

Probably because instead of giving faith a fair chance they just read only skeptic material.

redstang281 wrote:
Well if Christians are right then you are in trouble when this life is over unless you accept Christ. So I see that as you having faith that you are right and Christians are wrong.

There is no right or wrong path. What I seek, which is what we all seek, is a feeling of meaning and legitiamcy in the face of lifes uncertainties.

How do you have that when your spirituality is a "work in progress"?

I do not have 'faith' in my correctness over yours. I merely see yours as being no differnet from the myriad other beliefs that are part of human history.

You don't have proof of that. So what comfort can you get in not knowing? A lucky guess? Maybe some seemingly well articulated arguments? Sounds like faith to me.

redstang281 wrote:
If you are so decided on your path then why do you have interesting in discussing Christianity?

I also discuss Islam, Buddhism, Vedanta. I am interested in the why's and wherefore's of human existence.

Forgive me for seeming offensive, but you seem more antagonistic then genuinely curious (at least with Christianity).

redstang281 wrote:
Besides, my answer is from the Bible. The only reason you know anything about this incident at all is from the Bible. So why believe it on one respect and question it in another? That's a matter of convenience to create an error.

Effective communication requires working within the experince of the listener. That is why I used a biblical example. I do not hold these stories to be factual

I understand you are questioning from my point of view. Sense I hold these stories to be factual then I must hold your alleged error to be factual. Sense I resolved the error from the same source the error was found then my resolution should be considered fair.

redstang281 wrote:
I'm just speculating. It doesn't say exactly why they killed some and spared others. You stated what you believed was the only possible answer, I offered some others to show that it's not necessary to come to the conclusion you did.

This is an example of the hermeneutics I have described previously

Sometimes you have to speculate. Naturally you speculate for the worse and I speculate for the better which is more consistent with the rest of the Bible and/or the individual chapter. I don't think that's unjustified.

You didn't comment on the other suggestion I offered which was that the young men may not have been spared because they may have been more susceptible to seek revenge as adults.

It was a reasonable interpretation.

Wow, thanks.

redstang281 wrote:
In order to prove your view you must show that not only is one of my solutions unacceptable but all of them are.

I am not interested in 'proving my view' Such proof is impossible - and moot.

Is that why we keep saying the same thing over and over now. LOL

redstang281 wrote:
. I do have a hard time understanding how someone can not believe in God and think that the universe and the natural laws that govern it has always been here and was not designed by anyone.

Just as I have a hard time understanding the "I don't know - therefore goddidit" mentality.

Evolutionist use that too. Except it's more like "we don't know but one day we'll have a better idea". It just reveals where your faith lies in the mind of men or in the ability of God.

redstang281 wrote:
But you believe that your beliefs are correct and that others are wrong so how are you any better (from your own point of view)? You said I'm wrong about the Bible and the afterlife.

I believe thay are wrong for the sake of argument.

They are obviously right for you, just as a Muslim believes Islam is right for them.

I do not hold that any, my own included, are right. My spirituality is a work in progress.

Where we differ is that you believe that your's is the only one possible.

I believe mine is the only possibility for Heaven. You don't believe in Heaven. I don't be in relative truths I believe in one universal truth. You believe your belief is correct and that mine is wrong. So how are you different?

[bernee51]

So you think that some guy thousands of years ago came up with this gospel message that one day God would pay for the sins of man kind, yet he didn't bother to write out the whole story to complete his thoughts he just hoped the message would be completed by others thousands of years later?

Genesis 3:15 - I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

I do not understand what you biblical quote has to do with your prior comment. How does G 3:15 relate to god paying for the sins of mankind?

To answer your question...yes, the bible was a work in progress with the message reinforced over the millennia.

Right, a void man kind has always had. This supports my position. You believe it's arbitrary, I believe it's God given.

Please do not put words in my mouth. You used the term void - not I.

What I said was the mankind has a sense of the divine, has always had and this is the source of the Perennial Philosophy. The various religions, christianity included, are all derivative of this philosophy.

And where have I said I believe it to be arbitrary?

Whatsmore these quests have evolved over time. From archaic animist beliefs, to the magical and thence to the mythical, of which your belief system is part.

I see this aspect differently. I believe God created the way he said in Genesis and then all other religions are man made deviations from the truth that have developed throughout history.

So, in you opinion, the obvious evolution of spirituality, which, btw, coincides with the stages of development of consciousness in humans as well as cultural evolution, can be ignored.

What is see in this is a reflection of the anthropocentric view that man is the pinnicle of evolution (or, if you prefer, creation). i.e. your view retrospectively confirms what you believe was written millennia ago, it must be the correct and final one. Do you not see that as just a little question begging.

All the others no doubt felt exactly the same thing...why is yours different?

Probably because instead of giving faith a fair chance they just read only skeptic material.

How judgemental of you! They don't believe as you do ergo they don't match your standards of 'faith'. Such is the arrogance of the "true christian'(tm)

There is no right or wrong path. What I seek, which is what we all seek, is a feeling of meaning and legitiamcy in the face of lifes uncertainties.

How do you have that when your spirituality is a "work in progress"?

By 'that' I presume you mean 'meaning and legitimacy in the face of life's uncertainties'. As you can see I used the word 'seek' - I made no claim of having realized it.

Is not your spiritulaity, everyones's, a "work in progress".

I do not have 'faith' in my correctness over yours. I merely see yours as being no differnet from the myriad other beliefs that are part of human history.

You don't have proof of that. So what comfort can you get in not knowing? A lucky guess? Maybe some seemingly well articulated arguments? Sounds like faith to me.

No proof - but I go on the balance of probabilities. You yourself claim that all the other religions are 'wrong'. I only belive one more than you is 'wrong'.

As to it being 'faith'. Do you mean:

1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; or

2 Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, or

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters, or

4 The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

If you mean #1 I agree with you. If you mean any of the others, then no - my beliefs are not based on faith.

Forgive me for seeming offensive, but you seem more antagonistic then genuinely curious (at least with Christianity).

I take no offence.

If I am antagonistic towards annything it is fundamentalism - regardless of the philosophy it puports to promote. This site happens to have a majority of christians posting, some of whom hold quite fundamentalist views. I find fundamentalism to be divisive and not conducive to peace.

Religious identity can never improve on human identity.

Evolutionist use that too. Except it's more like "we don't know but one day we'll have a better idea". It just reveals where your faith lies in the mind of men or in the ability of God.

ActuallyI tend to say "I don't know and most probably never will. Although I do know a lot more now than my grandfather did. However, I do not see any evidence for believing that the whole shebang was kickstarted by some supernatural force, a force that also continues to have a vested interest in his creation"

I don't be in relative truths I believe in one universal truth.

And what is this one universal truth?

You believe your belief is correct and that mine is wrong. So how are you different?

We are 99.9% identical. As stated we, like all of humanity, seek to give meaning and purpose to our lives in the face of perceived uncertainty.

The difference lies in the fact that you believe yours is the only correct way to achieve this. I do not believe there is any one correct way.

BTW: What if we are both wrong and my friend Yusuf is right. We could both be in the deep end.

[melikio]

I believe any real Christian has been a Christian since they repented and will stay as such for the rest of their life. Being a Christian is accomplished through faith. Faith is given by God. God does not take back his gifts.

And this is all so "tentative" and "subjective", that I believe the ONLY things which make sense in Christianity, are faith, hope and love.

In Biblical context faith is not subjective. Faith means a specific thing. Faith is trust and belief in God. The same thing that is faith in Christ also leads us to truth in other areas as is evident from the scripture verse I posted earlier in this thread. If you still contend that faith is subjective then you're using a different version of faith other then what the Bible intends. What relevance does an unbiblical definition of faith have on Christianity?

If God doesn't show me how to interpret LIFE/DEATH, then what good is believing in Him?

I believe that he does, through the Bible.

I'm fairly certain, that "religion", "dogma" and "Christianity" (the relgious brand)...will evade my heart for the remainder of my lifetime. If I haven't been a REAL "Christian", then so be it. I can't find THE answer for the concepts and parts of reality which slip through MORTAL hands more easily than mercury ever could.

I'm not an opponent of "faith", but I accept the idea and reality that none of that faith is "harmonized" between people, except that which is touched by a miracle of the Creator Himself. We DO NOT all find and conclude the SAME THINGS, by examining or experiencing the SAME THINGS (if that were at all possible). For the reality is, that we are all UNIQUE for a reason and so are the myriad "portions" of knowledge and measure of faith we are blessed to possess.

Maybe it's possible for people to conclude different things from like evidences through the flesh but not through the spirit. Our flesh nature wants to believe whatever makes us feel good. There is a such thing as truth and truth is universal not unique to each individual. I believe God has the ability to reach someone where ever they are if they are willing. There are tenants that most Christians believe and that is because of guidance from the Holy Spirit. If you listen to the world then yes you will be lead into confusion and unfortunately I think this boils down into every Christian division. There's the truth and there's the lies. I always pray to God that if I am in error on an article of faith that he would open my eyes to the truth and not leave me guided by the flesh. There have been things he has shown me that I was in error of and there probably still are some he will show me in the future.

If I have to sychronize ALL of what I am with someone else, what kind of clone does that make me? (I'm not a "clone", I'm a human being. And even "Christians" are human.)

The Lord does intend us to be individuals in "the body of Christ" but the uniqueness is not supposed to be from belief it is to be in spiritual gifts that God has given us in order to serve him.

redstang,

you make my points for me really. Why are you so SURE of what YOU believe? And I believe it is by faith alone that you can say the things you do. It surely isn't worth arguing (not too much), IMHO; it eventually starts to sound like and argument over what tastes better (meat or vegetables?).

Whole churches have been split/formed due to the countless and quite unfathomably DIVERSE interpretations of the Bible; it's all VERY contrary to what you share above.

Intellectually, I would challenge anyone to show me where "Christians" actually (deep within their hearts) have the SAME exact faith. I KNOW they DO NOT, because I've been around them predominantly for the majority of my life. I can EASILY find two people who define "faith" and "believe" differently, yet have read and studied the Bible all of their lives. Human beings "Christian" or not, aren't the clones many are comfrotable imagining they are. And I think Jesus was more aware of that, than any religious person today realizes.

Everyday I hear one of those super-narrow definitions of well-known biblical parameters, I move a little further from them...because I do not think/believe that people know/understand God's mind as much as it may seem.

I mean really, just look at this world, and see just how diverse "Christian" views actually are. If not for the few thing I listed before (faith, hope and love) in general, I wouldn't even pay much of the "biblical" stuff people say any mind. I wasn't exaggerating before, when I said that I can no longer make meaningful sense of the various RELIGIOUS angles people thrust around, as if they are THE authority on God Himself. It became overwhelming and VERY oppressive over the many decades I heeded such things.

Once I finally stepped away (zoomed-out) from the more fundamentalist mindset I once entertained, it seems my understanding of faith, hope and love (in the practical sense) gained far more meaning to me as a human being. Not that I'm better than any other human being (or Christian), but that I sensed more freedom to be who I really was. I certainly never MEANT to wear as thick a facade as I had on, but I didn't realize I had it on. I certainly wasn't as "perfect" as I thought.

Even so, and despite everything I've just said, I can say with almost absolute certitude that "faith" IS a very subjective thing. And that is a conclusion that I didn't come to lightly, or over a less than 30 year period of time. I had a very hard time accepting it, period.

So, I don't expect anyone who's view of faith is based upon very "tight" parameters. I'm merely sharing why I see the world (to include my view of "faith") in a somewhat unique manner. And before i could say the kinds of things I now say freely here, I used to think to myself...wondering why I simply COULD NOT believe everything others said they did. Not that I was not "Christian" in my view, but that I eventually learned to "beleive" only what I really could...NOT what others said I SHOULD.

So here is the reality where it concerns myself and many other human beings: Faith (even biblically-based) can differ anywhere from very minor points, to MAJOR church-spliting issues. The ONLY THING that will bring mankind together, as I understand things (overall), are the miracles working inside of "faith" (what little anyone has), hope (that someone, somehow, somewhere is looking out for us) and LOVE (the power of which no one has ever been able to harness or describe, except in the actions which truly EXPRESS it).

Now, people can have all the ivory-tower and intellectual views of reality, society and religion all they wish, but down here in reality where the rubber meets the road, the obscurring of various definitions (though certainly not always intentional) can happen at the speed-of-light. If the three things I mentioned aren't literally built-in to people's hearts...there is little their straight and ruler-edged religious definitions will amount to. I've seen that countless times; it's impossible for me to ignore.

I'm not "right" about everything, nor do I cliam to know all...but I do try to do the best I can, with what I have been afforded. I'm human, and I'm not going to define every breath, and every movement of my life with the "Bible"... (at least not consciously). IF God's grace cannot lead me to where I need to be (in the end), then I'm absolute TOAST. Funny thing is, I have faith that God can accomplish all that He needs to (in me and in this reality.

I'm NOT going to FORCE others to see God or see things my way, but I am going to live as true to what I believe as I can. I'm not faking a thing, even the fact that I'm a sinner who needs God's grace. I am not perfect, but I'm aware that God can often shine right through the scars and darkness that are a part of my humaness. I can only try to "believe", and anyone who tells me that I haven't done so, makes it easy for me to understand that they simply don't know me (as well as God does). Yeah, I'm nobody, but God says I'm somebody; it's not really confusing or frustrating, but it is a mystery (MY faith, hope and love are all I have to deal with that).

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Fundamentalism does indeed lead to totalitarianism. Proof of which can be seen in the atheist/evolutionist (as they are oneness now) movement.

Nothing is allowed in of all places, our centers of education, except, the atheist paradigm.

Totally.

No dissent, no retreats, no diversity, no tolerance allowed.

If you do not believe that something, and indeed everything, came from nothing, then ridicule and denigration and outcast, follows instantly.

Fundamentalism does indeed need to be fought most unceasingly.

Starting with the view that Darwin was absolutely right.

[Scrotum]

atheist paradigm

If you could fill my ignorant space here, but what is "atheist paradigm" ?

I never heard of it. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no Dogma to follow. People can be black, white pink or whatnot, and still be atheist. They can be Communist, Facist, Democratic or Republican.... They can believe in Santa Claus or that the meaning of life is sex.....

So... what is the paradigm of Atheism ?


Christianit is a paradigm, which is in the Bible. If you dont follow it, you will burn in hell and so forth. But Atheism is not a religion, so i dont know what you are talking about. You are starting to sound (no insult intended) like Mr Hovind.

[McCulloch]

You are going a bit over the top Al. Try to stick to facts not hyperbole.

Fundamentalism does indeed lead to totalitarianism. Proof of which can be seen in the atheist/evolutionist (as they are oneness now) movement.

Tell that to the many theistic evolutionists.

Nothing is allowed in of all places, our centers of education, except, the atheist paradigm.
Totally.

My city just set up a Christmas tree in our city hall. And they really called it a Christmas tree.

No dissent, no retreats, no diversity, no tolerance allowed.

I really don't know about how it is in your city, but my city has a street in little India where symbols of diwaldi and eid celebrations are publicly displayed. Together. I see a lot of diversity and tolerance.

Fundamentalism does indeed need to be fought most unceasingly.
Starting with the view that Darwin was absolutely right.

Maybe you need to update your science texts. Few, if any, scientists hold the view that Darwin was absolutely right. Science has progressed in the over a hundred years since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That's what science is all about.

[bernee51]

Fundamentalism does indeed lead to totalitarianism. Proof of which can be seen in the atheist/evolutionist (as they are oneness now) movement.

And it was seen in the Taliban, in Nazi German, in the christian empires of old, in the ancient monarchies that believed they had a 'divine' right to rule.

And we would go the same way if the fundamentalism you propose was ever again allowed to hold sway.

Nothing is allowed in of all places, our centers of education, except, the atheist paradigm.

This is absolutely incorrect. Time to put up or shut up. Either poo or get off the potty.

1. Define the atheist paradigm.
2. Show that it prevents diversity in all places. All places means not just your back yard. All places means the entire planet Al.

No dissent, no retreats, no diversity, no tolerance allowed.

Last weekend, I went to a diwali concert - my friend Yusuf would have come as well but he was at another function celebrating the end of Ramadan. Next weekend I am going to a buddhist monastry for a meditaton retreat. In a couple of weeks I am going to carols in the town square by the christmas tree.

Gee I guess you must be wrong. Again and still.

Fundamentalism does indeed need to be fought most unceasingly.

So why do you do the exact opposite?

Starting with the view that Darwin was absolutely right.

He wasn't. Who believes he was?

No rhetoric - names and dates would be helpful.

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
So you think that some guy thousands of years ago came up with this gospel message that one day God would pay for the sins of man kind, yet he didn't bother to write out the whole story to complete his thoughts he just hoped the message would be completed by others thousands of years later?

Genesis 3:15 - I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."


I do not understand what you biblical quote has to do with your prior comment. How does G 3:15 relate to god paying for the sins of mankind?

To answer your question...yes, the bible was a work in progress with the message reinforced over the millennia.

The term I have heard used most often is progressive revelation. Some things that God planned on revealing to man later were first hinted at in the beginning. Then as time passed he would reveal more and more until the whole plan was unfolded. Salvation has always been by faith but the means of how God would justify us by faith was revealed slowly. The verse I showed from Genesis is a hint at the conflict between Jesus Christ and Satan. You believe that the next writer to the Bible would just add things as he saw fit. So if all these hints in earlier texts later get revealed how could the original author count on anyone making sense of his prophecies? Or was he willing to risk looking like a fool?

redstang281 wrote:
Right, a void man kind has always had. This supports my position. You believe it's arbitrary, I believe it's God given.

Please do not put words in my mouth. You used the term void - not I.

I'm just saying that the word I used fit.

What I said was the mankind has a sense of the divine, has always had and this is the source of the Perennial Philosophy. The various religions, christianity included, are all derivative of this philosophy.

And where have I said I believe it to be arbitrary?

I assumed you believed it's from a natural cause instead of divine.

Whatsmore these quests have evolved over time. From archaic animist beliefs, to the magical and thence to the mythical, of which your belief system is part.

I see this aspect differently. I believe God created the way he said in Genesis and then all other religions are man made deviations from the truth that have developed throughout history.

So, in you opinion, the obvious evolution of spirituality, which, btw, coincides with the stages of development of consciousness in humans as well as cultural evolution, can be ignored.

Sure, they are all theories of man that are 90% speculation. They are made to fit a naturalistic box view. Not to go down a rabbit trail, but the theory of molecules to man evolution was not developed out of real evidence it was developed out of necessity to justify atheistic philosophies.

What is see in this is a reflection of the anthropocentric view that man is the pinnicle of evolution (or, if you prefer, creation). i.e. your view retrospectively confirms what you believe was written millennia ago, it must be the correct and final one. Do you not see that as just a little question begging.

All the others no doubt felt exactly the same thing...why is yours different?

Aside from my own personal revelation which confirms it, it makes sense where others don't. But this is the same question I already answered earlier.

redstang281 wrote:
Probably because instead of giving faith a fair chance they just read only skeptic material.

How judgemental of you! They don't believe as you do ergo they don't match your standards of 'faith'. Such is the arrogance of the "true christian'(tm)

It's not my "standards of faith", it's the Bibles. It's not something I invented it's what I read in the Bible.

Quote:
There is no right or wrong path. What I seek, which is what we all seek, is a feeling of meaning and legitiamcy in the face of lifes uncertainties.

How do you have that when your spirituality is a "work in progress"?

By 'that' I presume you mean 'meaning and legitimacy in the face of life's uncertainties'. As you can see I used the word 'seek' - I made no claim of having realized it.

Then how do you know my beliefs are wrong?

Is not your spiritulaity, everyones's, a "work in progress".

In some ways yes and others no. My core foundational belief is secure, which I'm not sure if you would make the same statement. What may change are smaller aspects of that and my ability to conform to God's destiny for me.

I do not have 'faith' in my correctness over yours. I merely see yours as being no differnet from the myriad other beliefs that are part of human history.

You don't have proof of that. So what comfort can you get in not knowing? A lucky guess? Maybe some seemingly well articulated arguments? Sounds like faith to me.

No proof - but I go on the balance of probabilities. You yourself claim that all the other religions are 'wrong'. I only belive one more than you is 'wrong'.

As to it being 'faith'. Do you mean:

1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; or

2 Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, or

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters, or

4 The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

If you mean #1 I agree with you. If you mean any of the others, then no - my beliefs are not based on faith.

I mean number two. You believe there is divine creator and no afterlife and therefore no risk in what you believe during this life. I believe that is faith on your part sense that can not be proven.

redstang281 wrote:
Forgive me for seeming offensive, but you seem more antagonistic then genuinely curious (at least with Christianity).

I take no offence.

If I am antagonistic towards annything it is fundamentalism - regardless of the philosophy it puports to promote. This site happens to have a majority of christians posting, some of whom hold quite fundamentalist views. I find fundamentalism to be divisive and not conducive to peace.

Religious identity can never improve on human identity.

So you're closed minded to the possibility that Christianity could be true, yet you come here and insist Christians justify their beliefs to you?

redstang281 wrote:
Evolutionist use that too. Except it's more like "we don't know but one day we'll have a better idea". It just reveals where your faith lies in the mind of men or in the ability of God.

Actually I tend to say "I don't know and most probably never will. Although I do know a lot more now than my grandfather did. However, I do not see any evidence for believing that the whole shebang was kickstarted by some supernatural force,

Creationist do a great job of pointing out the fallacies with evolution theory yet some people still object to creationism because they just can't accept it. They say "you can't win by default". What if we took a detective's approach to the issue? Sherlock Holmes said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." There's two possibilities on how our universe became, either it was created by an outside force or it came about naturally. Sense man can't prove it came naturally then they should be willing to accept the only logical explanation.

a force that also continues to have a vested interest in his creation"

What makes you think God doesn't continue to have interest in his creation? His gospel message has been continued since Christ's death and his chosen nation the Jews have even been preserved throughout history. I think this shows his continued hand where he places it.

redstang281 wrote:
I don't be in relative truths I believe in one universal truth.

And what is this one universal truth?

The word of God, the Bible.

redstang281 wrote:
You believe your belief is correct and that mine is wrong. So how are you different?

We are 99.9% identical. As stated we, like all of humanity, seek to give meaning and purpose to our lives in the face of perceived uncertainty.

The difference lies in the fact that you believe yours is the only correct way to achieve this. I do not believe there is any one correct way.

BTW: What if we are both wrong and my friend Yusuf is right. We could both be in the deep end.

If he makes a claim, consider his justification for it. If it makes sense go with it. The only position I have been exposed to that makes sense is Christianity.

[redstang281]

redstang,

you make my points for me really. Why are you so SURE of what YOU believe? And I believe it is by faith alone that you can say the things you do. It surely isn't worth arguing (not too much), IMHO; it eventually starts to sound like and argument over what tastes better (meat or vegetables?).

Whole churches have been split/formed due to the countless and quite unfathomably DIVERSE interpretations of the Bible; it's all VERY contrary to what you share above.

Intellectually, I would challenge anyone to show me where "Christians" actually (deep within their hearts) have the SAME exact faith.

I don't hold the position that every self proclaimed Christian is a Christian in the sense as defined by the Bible.

I KNOW they DO NOT, because I've been around them predominantly for the majority of my life. I can EASILY find two people who define "faith" and "believe" differently, yet have read and studied the Bible all of their lives.

I guess the thing I'm having difficulty understanding from your point of view is, why does someone else's view on faith matter compared to what the Bible plainly says? A person is a Christian because they have faith as faith is defined by the Bible. You're not a Christian if your faith is defined by some other source. If that's the case then you have a new "religion".

Human beings "Christian" or not, aren't the clones many are comfortable imagining they are. And I think Jesus was more aware of that, than any religious person today realizes.

Because Jesus is aware of something doesn't imply his approval.

Everyday I hear one of those super-narrow definitions of well-known biblical parameters, I move a little further from them...because I do not think/believe that people know/understand God's mind as much as it may seem.

What Christian's know of God is from the Bible. Is your God the God of the Bible? From reading your messages I wonder if you just imagine God the way you feel comfortable. God is not about making us feel comfortable. He is about saving us and then changing us the way he wants.

I mean really, just look at this world, and see just how diverse "Christian" views actually are.

Yes and some views are right and some views are wrong. That's why God gave us the Bible so we can determine. The real truth behind each issue is not impossible to figure out. It's not a hopeless effort.

If not for the few thing I listed before (faith, hope and love) in general, I wouldn't even pay much of the "biblical" stuff people say any mind. I wasn't exaggerating before, when I said that I can no longer make meaningful sense of the various RELIGIOUS angles people thrust around, as if they are THE authority on God Himself. It became overwhelming and VERY oppressive over the many decades I heeded such things.

So why do you feel that the Bible is correct when it talks about Jesus Christ's offer of salvation but wrong for everything else?

Once I finally stepped away (zoomed-out) from the more fundamentalist mindset I once entertained, it seems my understanding of faith, hope and love (in the practical sense) gained far more meaning to me as a human being. Not that I'm better than any other human being (or Christian), but that I sensed more freedom to be who I really was. I certainly never MEANT to wear as thick a facade as I had on, but I didn't realize I had it on. I certainly wasn't as "perfect" as I thought.

I don't think I'm perfect and I generally don't get that impression from other fundamentalist. Fundamentalist just take that same certainty you have in regard to the gospel and hold it for the Bible as a whole.

Even so, and despite everything I've just said, I can say with almost absolute certitude that "faith" IS a very subjective thing. And that is a conclusion that I didn't come to lightly, or over a less than 30 year period of time. I had a very hard time accepting it, period.

Faith is subjective as far as what it means to each person, I'll give you that. But true saving faith is not subjective. Jesus Christ taught it to mean a certain thing and that is the Gospel.

So, I don't expect anyone who's view of faith is based upon very "tight" parameters. I'm merely sharing why I see the world (to include my view of "faith") in a somewhat unique manner. And before i could say the kinds of things I now say freely here, I used to think to myself...wondering why I simply COULD NOT believe everything others said they did. Not that I was not "Christian" in my view, but that I eventually learned to "beleive" only what I really could...NOT what others said I SHOULD.

So here is the reality where it concerns myself and many other human beings: Faith (even biblically-based) can differ anywhere from very minor points, to MAJOR church-spliting issues. The ONLY THING that will bring mankind together, as I understand things (overall), are the miracles working inside of "faith" (what little anyone has), hope (that someone, somehow, somewhere is looking out for us) and LOVE (the power of which no one has ever been able to harness or describe, except in the actions which truly EXPRESS it).

Now, people can have all the ivory-tower and intellectual views of reality, society and religion all they wish, but down here in reality where the rubber meets the road, the obscurring of various definitions (though certainly not always intentional) can happen at the speed-of-light. If the three things I mentioned aren't literally built-in to people's hearts...there is little their straight and ruler-edged religious definitions will amount to. I've seen that countless times; it's impossible for me to ignore.

I think the thing that you are not realizing is that it's impossible for you to look inside someone's heart and see their faith. They may do some good things that would lead you to believe that they have true saving faith but they might be just going along with the flow in order to fit in with the rest of the church. The Bible says we should expect certain things to accompany genuine true Biblical faith. So if you don't see the things the Bible says you should see then I would question the persons faith not the Bible.

I'm not "right" about everything, nor do I cliam to know all...but I do try to do the best I can, with what I have been afforded. I'm human, and I'm not going to define every breath, and every movement of my life with the "Bible"... (at least not consciously). IF God's grace cannot lead me to where I need to be (in the end), then I'm absolute TOAST. Funny thing is, I have faith that God can accomplish all that He needs to (in me and in this reality.

I'm NOT going to FORCE others to see God or see things my way, but I am going to live as true to what I believe as I can. I'm not faking a thing, even the fact that I'm a sinner who needs God's grace. I am not perfect, but I'm aware that God can often shine right through the scars and darkness that are a part of my humaness. I can only try to "believe", and anyone who tells me that I haven't done so, makes it easy for me to understand that they simply don't know me (as well as God does). Yeah, I'm nobody, but God says I'm somebody; it's not really confusing or frustrating, but it is a mystery (MY faith, hope and love are all I have to deal with that).

So do you think that Jesus wants Christians to stop telling others what's right and what's wrong? Do you think he wants us to stop preaching his word and just sit idling by while people sin and not try to help? What about when things like lying, stealing, affairs, murder all wreck havoc across societies, families, and individuals? Shouldn't we try to use God's word to bring light and healing to people? I think that would be the real loving thing to do as opposed to leaving people in their sin.