• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Having been asked about religion.............

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Although this is a political forum, the kind of controversy religion generates belongs in a free for all environment. I would appreciate it if we could refrain from personal attacks, if we could keep it on topic, it would be more informative and fun. If you MUST attack someone, I plan on making fun of you.

LMAO.gif




Ok, let me being by saying I have not “codified” my beliefs into a single statement of faith like the Baptist Faith and Message, where everything has been analyzed and checked for consistency and denominational correctness. As I consider faith a matter of a relationship between me and God (I am going to use the word “God” to represent a spiritual persona, without gender, without age.....so if you want to use Goddess, Ishtar, Hera, Jehovah, Thor, etc, go for it)....but I plan to use God as a generic deity, and I plan to use the names of the gods if I mean a specific god. I won’t use Ishtar if I mean Shiva.

Next, recognize that I will probably be inconsistent periodically, and if you see an inconsistency lets talk about it and see if there is a resolution. I do not want to get caught up in minutia, so make sure we do not begin arguing about how something is spelled or where a period goes.

I do not know everything about everyone else’s faith (hell, I don’t even know everything about what I believe) I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, but lets not hijack the thread by insisting that the Eucharist is the body of Jesus rather than a wafer that is supposed to be unleavened bread representing the body.

ALL backgrounds should be respected. That means if a Christian Pastor or a Pagan or a Heathen wants to wade in, then they have as much right to express their views as anyone else. In fact, if a Pagan or a Heathen or Wiccan wants to share their perspective or their holidays it would be fine with me.

I was raised “old” Southern Baptist, which means I was taught that what was important was the relationship you had with God/Jesus. The difficulty I ran into in the beginning of my “growth” comes from the Bible itself. The obvious contradiction between Jesus as the Prince of Peace and Jehovah as an angry God who will have no others before him jumped at me from the time I was a kid. The pastors and priests simply excused this contradiction by calling it a “mystery” and brushed it aside. And yet they continued to preach that God was the same then, now, and in the future......contradiction upon contradiction. If I had responded to a trig or science problem like that I would have failed the class.

Now remember, I had accepted Jesus into my life (I really do not want to use the word “salvation”.....we can discuss Salvation later, if you want) and was very much aware of His reality and of His presence in my life.......THAT portion of my faith was incontrovertible and unshakeable. But what about the inconsistencies?

Why did Jehovah tell King Saul to eradicate an entire people? He had Saul kill the men, the women, the children, the cattle, the sheep, and burn their stores....grains, meats, homes....everything. Well Saul was human, found some of the women good looking, the cattle and sheep fat, and some of the young men strong, he kept those alive to be slaves or concubines and added the livestock to his own herds. This “disobedience” ticked Jehovah off so much that at that point He decided to dethrone Saul and appoint David as King....of course, being all knowing, He knew it was going to happen anyway. Juxtapose this God against the Prince of Peace. Sorry brothers and sisters, to me this is not two facets of the God that is unchanging......and illogical contradictions do NOT make me happy with preaching this stuff.

After analyzing the many myriad contradictions (despite how they are excused) I came to a conclusion. The foundation is flawed. In construction, if a house is out of level, off balance, or shifting, you look at the foundation. So I looked at the foundation of modern Christianity. And that foundation is the Bible. The inerrant Word of God.

Once I looked at it as a book instead of as THE Book, once I took a look at who assembled the book (why was Paul, whose only contact with Jesus was after the crucifixion, a major contributor while James and Thomas and Mary who worked with Jesus on a daily basis for most of Jesus’s ministry excluded? ) and using a knowledge of how selfish mankind is, I realized what the problem was. The problem with Christianity is the Bible.

This brings up two questions. Why is the Bible a problem? If the Bible is the problem, what is the alternative?

If you did all that was done in the Bible, and used the Bible as the defining justification, you would discover yourself in jail in short order. For example, Lot (you remember Lot, don’t you? The guy that escaped Sodom and Gomorrah with his two daughters after the wife was turned to a pillar of salt?). Seems they hid out in the mountains after that and the girls thinking they would never be able to have kids cause there were no men in the neighborhood, seduced daddy......got him drunk, did him, and had kids.......lets practice THAT in Sunday School........
rof.gif


I recall asking a young pastor, who was seriously considering asking a deacon to leave the congregation because of an impending divorce, if he would allow an unrepentant, guilty, never convicted because he hid out, murderer to be a leader in his church. His response was “absolutely not.” I then asked him if he would allow a divorcee who abandoned his kids and wife...sent them back to her dad to support......to be a leader in his church. Again, I got the same response. I asked him (and this was a southern pastor) that if the divorcee married a woman outside his race would it be acceptable. Once again I got the same response. I asked him if the CEO of an organization knocked up his administrative assistant or a maid, would that CEO make a good deacon. Again, NO! I informed him that he had just excluded Moses AND Abraham.....two of the few men in history to talk to God, face to face and both are essential to the establishment of his faith.

So with all these contradictions and mixed signals, we have to look at the Bible as what it is. And to do that, you have to look at how it came into being.

For 300 plus years there was NO bible in the Christian community. Jesus had told his disciples that where ever two or more joined together in His name, He would be there as well. Why have a Bible with the author is in the room with you? And how do you know if the words being spoken by the participants is of Jesus and not from the self....yes, self interest was always a problem. He told us to test the spirit by comparing what was being spoken to what you knew about him.

Why did the Bible come about? Quite simple really. It began when Constantine’s mother became Christian and persuaded her son to convert. They made it the state religion which received the religious taxes. (Remember the tax protest nursery rhyme......ba ba black sheep, have you any wool? Yes sir yes sir three bags full......one for the master (the king) one for the dame (the church) and one for the little boy (the farmer).......2 thirds of your productivity went to taxes). So once taxes went to the Christians (and money became the object of the faith.......a historic tradition carried on through men like Oral Roberts and Jim Swaggart) several things occurred.

First, you can’t send lots of tax money to a group of people meeting in houses....which house would get what? Secondly, if you DID send them money, they would just give it away to the poor (it really is what Jesus would have done). Third, if you are going to send lots of money you want to SEE the results of what you send.

So the first thing Constantine did was build a bunch of churches. That way he KNEW where the meetings were, he KNEW where the money was going, and he KNEW how it was being spent. As he was accustomed to attending temples of various types, he had the new Christian churches built along the lines of the old temples.......a place at the front for a priest or preacher, and a place for people to sit (or stand) to listen. No place for Jesus to move individuals, No place for congregational participation, just come in, shut up, and listen.

Needless to say all the priests from other beliefs were now out of jobs......they were no longer living off the taxes. All but a few “faithful” of the other faiths became Christians overnight.....and became Christians with the same allegiance they had been Sun Worshipers or Pagans or whatever.........they followed the rotes and never became wholly vested in the faith.

With all types of priests delivering all types of sermons and rituals, the Christian faith became a hodgepodge of conflicting teachings. And the small home church that had sustained the faith for 300 years disappeared. So to establish consistency in teachings among the various churches Constantine ordered a librarian named Esuebius to form a council to put together writings on faith that could become the “canon” of the faith. Esuebius led the council of Nicea (with Constantine present) in searching the many books and letters that existed. They first established the “heritage” of Jehovah through the writings of the ancient Hebrews and called it the “Old Testament.” Then they looked at all the books and letters that were around from the various apostles and disciples. The determined that the Godhood of Jesus needed to be established so they selected the first books (called the Gospels) which supported the divinity of Jesus (they even used the Gospel of Luke who HAD NEVER KNOWN JESUS, PERSONALLY). Once Jesus as God was established, they turned their attention to how a “Christian” should act and believe.......and there is one underlying theme that they had to instill.....obedience to the King/authority. So the letters they selected included stuff like “slaves should be meek and obey their masters” or “women should not be placed over men” and other things that dealt with day to day actions of a person in a society of kings and peasants. Anything that was suggestive of independence or of personal responsibility was removed or downplayed. Unfortunately for the Kings, when the gospels actually quoted Jesus or told an anecdote about Jesus, the truths of his life was glaringly contradictory to BOTH the God of the Old Testament AND the “good slave” of the latter parts of the New Testament.

But this Bible, established by an Emperor to be used to keep the people in line and determine a hard line of faith to be followed (after the creation of this Bible came the persecution of Gnostic’s, the inquisition, etc.....all non-Jesus acts). And during the reformation, the Bible as conceived by Constantine, was the basis for the argument.........there was NEVER a re-visitation of the circumstances of establishing a “canon” nor was there a serious movement, except among a very few people, to re-establish the church as it was originally......that of a home based group where two or more would get together in the name of Jesus. And many of those that DID practice that were tortured and murdered BY the church that was supposed to represent the Prince of Peace.

Not all the books (actually there were NO books put in the bible....they were all letters from one person to another or from one person to a congregation......like Pauls letters to the Corinthians or Apollos' letter to the Hebrews) were included because not all books supported the status quo of the Roman Empire.

An example: During the era when the Bible was assembled (remember, it was assembled around 300 AD, it was a collection of writings and verbal history from lots of men over two thousand years), women and children were considered property. They could be sold, given away, or killed.....whatever the man of the house decided to do with them. Can you imagine the uproar had the Gospel of Mary been included in the Bible? Where Thomas is angry at Mary for telling them things that Jesus had told her and not them. He yells at her "Why would He tell you, a woman, things He would not tell us?" And Levi (Matthew) tells Thomas "You know He walked with her many times alone and that she was favored above all women.....why WOULDN'T He tell ehr things in private?" The very attitude, in that day and age, that women had rights or had worth would have set society on it's head.

And picture the response to the devine right of kings if this quote, from the Gospel of Thomas had made it into the Bible:

Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty.

and this one from the same book/letter:
Jesus said: Perhaps men think that I am come to cast peace upon the world; and they do not know that I am come to cast dissensions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there will be five who are in a house; three shall be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they shall stand as solitaries.

If this had been part of the Bible, what kind of chaos would have reigned throughout the empire?????

And from the Gospel of James........did you ever wonder why Mary was blessed as the mother of Jesus? Here is a brief description of her birth:

And behold an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Anna, Anna, the Lord hath hearkened unto thy prayer, and thou shalt conceive and bear, and thy seed shall be spoken of in the whole world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I bring forth either male or female, I will bring it for a gift unto the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering unto him all the days of its life.

2 And behold there came two messengers saying unto her: Behold Ioacim thy husband cometh with his flocks: for an angel of the Lord came down unto him saying: Ioacim, Ioacim, the Lord God hath hearkened unto thy prayer. Get thee down hence, for behold thy wife Anna hath conceived.

3 And Ioacim sat him down and called his herdsmen saying: Bring me hither ten lambs without blemish and without spot, and they shall be for the Lord my God; and bring me twelve tender calves, and they shall be for the priests and for the assembly of the elders; and an hundred kids for the whole people.

4 And behold Ioacim came with his flocks, and Anna stood at the gate and saw Ioacim coming, and ran and hung upon his neck, saying: Now know I that the Lord God hath greatly blessed me: for behold the widow is no more a widow, and she that was childless shall conceive. And Ioacim rested the first day in his house.

V. 1 And on the morrow he offered his gifts, saying in himself: If the Lord God be reconciled unto me, the plate that is upon the forehead of the priest will make it manifest unto me. And Ioacim offered his gifts and looked earnestly upon the plate of the priest when he went up unto the altar of tile Lord, and he saw no sin in himself. And Ioacim said: Now know I that the Lord is become propitious unto me and hath forgiven all my sins. And he went down from the temple of the Lord justified, and went unto his house.

2 And her months were fulfilled, and in the ninth month Anna brought forth. And she said unto the midwife: what have I brought forth ? And she said: A female. And Anna said: My soul is magnified this day, and she laid herself down. And when the days were fulfilled, Anna purified herself and gave suck to the child and called her name Mary.

Interesting the things that were left out of the "Bible"........the "miraculous" birth and raising of Mary (guess women didn't count for much), the length James went to keep his daughter a virgin, that Jesus did not come to bring peace, but strife........

And when you see the persecution and war between the "official" church and the "unofficial" churches it is no wonder it took hundreds of years before a drunk priest named Martin Luther began the reformation.......and by that time he was arguing about the interpretation of, NOT the inerrant word of God, but a book designed to support kings and supress liberty.



I think, perhaps, a "caveat" here would be in order.

Just becasue a book is old does not make it truthful. There are literally hundreds of ancient writings that were written in the 300 years between the Council of Nicea and the Crucifixion. It was a pretty popular subject. Some are attributed to apostles when the apostles had already died. Some of it is redundent. Some of the writings are pushing an agenda. Urban legends existed then as now and they had no Snopes to verify integrity.

Eseubius was a librarian in charge of over 700,000 books. He was Bishop of Caesarea. He had access to more than what we have. He had the education and the ability and the authority to do the research necessary to assemble a Bible. The bulk of his work was excellent. I simply think he had pressure to do two things: Establish a Book that was as close as he could to being accurate. Provide church legitimacy for the Emporer. The first part I think he did a credible job. The second is where I find fault with it.

It is NOT a matter of saying the Bible is wrong and these other writings are true. There is truth and there is falsehood in all the writings.........and there is probably MORE truth in the Bible than in any other. But my point is, using ANY "Bible" or any text or any writing can NOT establish a relationship with God. Only you can establish that relationship......and a Bible is not needed.....

Ok, your turn.................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But my point is, using ANY "Bible" or any text or any writing can NOT establish a relationship with God. Only you can establish that relationship......and a Bible is not needed.....


Says alot right there....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Goodpasture:
I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, .....
ALL backgrounds should be respected

yet, you started by "disrespecting" an entire "faith"

you in your inability to understand the Bible, wish to impose your view on those of us who do...oh how liberal of you...

I could care less who you worship...or don't worship...but when you critise a faith and bible just because you can't seem to grasp it's understanding, then call conservatives "taliBaptists" you had already lost any moral ground to procalim others as intolerant...

you inability to respect others is obvious,..I for one will let you have your discussion alone....

I "pray" others leave you to your thoughts as well.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
you in your inability to understand the Bible, wish to impose your view on those of us who do...oh how liberal of you....
What makes you think I don't understand it? I understand it all too well. I am simply not a sycophant who has memorized it by rote. I aced the Bible and History of the Bible seminary classes I've taken. I am well aware of what the Bible says and I understand mos of the deeper meanings that are being taught in seminary. I've changed from "blind faith" to "thoughtful trust."

And if you are not willing to entertain the thought that the Bible is, in fact, fallible, then perhaps you should not participate in this discussion.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Steve said:
Goodpasture:
I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, .....
ALL backgrounds should be respected

yet, you started by "disrespecting" an entire "faith"

you in your inability to understand the Bible, wish to impose your view on those of us who do...oh how liberal of you...

I could care less who you worship...or don't worship...but when you critise a faith and bible just because you can't seem to grasp it's understanding, then call conservatives "taliBaptists" you had already lost any moral ground to procalim others as intolerant...

you inability to respect others is obvious,..I for one will let you have your discussion alone....

I "pray" others leave you to your thoughts as well.

:agree: Best idea I've heard in a long time!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
Steve said:
Goodpasture:
I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, .....
ALL backgrounds should be respected

yet, you started by "disrespecting" an entire "faith"

you in your inability to understand the Bible, wish to impose your view on those of us who do...oh how liberal of you...

I could care less who you worship...or don't worship...but when you critise a faith and bible just because you can't seem to grasp it's understanding, then call conservatives "taliBaptists" you had already lost any moral ground to procalim others as intolerant...

you inability to respect others is obvious,..I for one will let you have your discussion alone....

I "pray" others leave you to your thoughts as well.

:agree: Best idea I've heard in a long time!

:agree: Count me in for I see only moral degeneration in his posts anyway.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Goodpasture-- I always thought it interesting, the books or letters, that were left out of Constantine's Bible by the scholars that he hired... As you say some of those writings would have definitely upset the social structure of the day, if they had been included....So altho they were being talked about and taught by the Christians of the day- were left out of Constantines version of what is now accepted as the Bible....

The Book of Mary intriques me the most-- as it was known to have existed before the Bible was condensed by the clerics, --but disappeared until just the turn of the 20th century- and wasn't fully published until the 1980's, I believe....It raised many questions to the Biblical Scholars and theologians....Definitely would have changed the role of how women should be accepted and treated if it had been included....

And then as time and politics changed-- the interpretation of the Bible by the Pope followed the politics of the day-- and each interpretation changed the way believers were supposed to follow it-- like the rule that all priests had to take a vow of chastity--when up til then they had all been married...

Which brought about the Protestant revolution-- which ended up with several different denominations as time went on, many because of Bible interpretation...

But as I have seen-- you can take most passages from the Bible and almost every minister, preacher, priest, theologian will give you a different interpretation of it-- so its always been my belief that the interpretation that counts is the one thats in my own heart....
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But as I have seen-- you can take most passages from the Bible and almost every minister, preacher, priest, theologian will give you a different interpretation of it-- so its always been my belief that the interpretation that counts is the one thats in my own heart....
That is so very the way Jesus taught. Did he say "Seek the wisdom of the elders" or did he say "Consider the lillies of the field?"
Like Thomas said in his gospel:
"Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty. "

We are people....we parse words. We demand to know what "is" is and isn't. "Come to me as a little child" That wasn't hyperbole. That wasn't platitudes. It wasn't an illustration. He meant it literally. And how does a child approach Jesus? With joy. With anticipation. Ever watch a kid play in mud? No hesitation, no concern about the ramifications of getting his jeans muddy, no concern over his shoes.....just jump in and gleefully fling mud. THAT is the kind of coming to Jesus He was asking us to do. Not "prayerfully, with heads bent in reverence" (like a healthy kid is going to do that :roll: ). Not in quiet solemnity while the eucharist is being passed. Not while public prayer drones on and on and on. If a kid can't sit still in church, then it is the church that is messed up. Jesus said for us to do it like a kid does it. No kid I know of wants to sit quietly and get preached to. I don't much like it now, and I am almost 60. So if kids don't want to do it, change the way the service is done. Get rid of the PAGAN church and go back to the way Jesus did it. For gathering together, find a big open room somewhere with lots of food and laughter and kids and chaos and fellowship with each other.....pick a guitar, sing a song, play twister.....act like a family having a good time. If you want to talk to God, do it the way Abraham and Moses did it. Get out into the middle of the desert on up on a mountain......hang out in the chapel GOD made.....the sky for a roof, a rock for a chair, livestock hanging around.......where did Abraham go to sacrifice his son? Up on a mountain. Not Salem. where did Moses see the burning bush? Not in Cairo or Mecca. Out in the desert. Where did Moses get the ten commandments? wasn't in any temple. Jesus fasted and sought the Father, but not in the tabernacle. John the Baptist lived in the wilderness and baptised in the rivers and streams, not city. When Lot escaped with his daughters, where did he escape from? Soddom and Gamorrah--cities. Where did he escape to? The wilderness. So based on the history of Godly men, where do they go to fellowship and be with God? Using their example, where should WE go? So don't tell me that to be a "Christian" we are supposed to put on a tie, wear a jacket, sit on a pew and listen to a guy preach to us.....in a place where you are told when to stand, when to sit, when to bend your head, when to say "amen," when to sing, when to dig into your pockets, and when to go home.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Goodpasture,my hubby's belief is alot like yours,he feels closer to God on the back of a horse on our river pasture then in a church filled with hypocrites{his words}I on the other hand love the weekly message and fellowship the church brings but in no way does the bible or church rule my beliefs, my heart does.The bible is a great self help book,all the answers can be found in it if one cares too,but faith is way stronger then a book or a building.

I was at a funeral a number of years ago of a wonderful elderly lady,that didn't frequent church,the minister made it clear she didn't come to church :? At the lunch her DIL said to me,"the minister was wrong her faith was very strong....no-one but God truly knows whats in ones heart"
That statement said volumes to me :!:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Oh Man...GP...you cussed in the same thread that mentions religion!!!!
I do not know everything about everyone else’s faith (hell, I don’t even know everything about what I believe)

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: You are on the short train to HELL-Yonder fer sure!!!!!

See RR...he'll have your tickets ready for you and Steve will push you in front of the train!!

Mrs. Greg...I'm with your Greg on the hypocrite part!!!!

and hoppy sees moral " issues" with GP's statements.....talk about a hypocrite!!!!!


GP...I think you've scared them :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Goodpasture,my hubby's belief is alot like yours,he feels closer to God on the back of a horse on our river pasture then in a church filled with hypocrites{his words}I on the other hand love the weekly message and fellowship the church brings but in no way does the bible or church rule my beliefs, my heart does.The bible is a great self help book,all the answers can be found in it if one cares too,but faith is way stronger then a book or a building.

I was at a funeral a number of years ago of a wonderful elderly lady,that didn't frequent church,the minister made it clear she didn't come to church :? At the lunch her DIL said to me,"the minister was wrong her faith was very strong....no-one but God truly knows whats in ones heart"
That statement said volumes to me :!:


This preacher should've been slapped for being an A-Hole. What purpose did that serve other than he made himself feel big for pointing that out? FOOL!
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Steve said:
Goodpasture:
I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, .....
ALL backgrounds should be respected

yet, you started by "disrespecting" an entire "faith"

you in your inability to understand the Bible, wish to impose your view on those of us who do...oh how liberal of you...

I could care less who you worship...or don't worship...but when you critise a faith and bible just because you can't seem to grasp it's understanding, then call conservatives "taliBaptists" you had already lost any moral ground to procalim others as intolerant...


you inability to respect others is obvious,..I for one will let you have your discussion alone....

I "pray" others leave you to your thoughts as well.

I have often wondered why there are so many DIFFERENT Baptist churches. Maybe you could tell me.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Steve said:
Goodpasture:
I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, .....
ALL backgrounds should be respected

yet, you started by "disrespecting" an entire "faith"

you in your inability to understand the Bible, wish to impose your view on those of us who do...oh how liberal of you...

I could care less who you worship...or don't worship...but when you critise a faith and bible just because you can't seem to grasp it's understanding, then call conservatives "taliBaptists" you had already lost any moral ground to procalim others as intolerant...


you inability to respect others is obvious,..I for one will let you have your discussion alone....

I "pray" others leave you to your thoughts as well.

I have often wondered why there are so many DIFFERENT Baptist churches. Maybe you could tell me.

They have been infiltrated by the Taliban :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Oh Man...GP...you cussed in the same thread that mentions religion!!!!
I do not know everything about everyone else’s faith (hell, I don’t even know everything about what I believe)

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: You are on the short train to HELL-Yonder fer sure!!!!!

See RR...he'll have your tickets ready for you and Steve will push you in front of the train!!

Mrs. Greg...I'm with your Greg on the hypocrite part!!!!

and hoppy sees moral " issues" with GP's statements.....talk about a hypocrite!!!!!

GP...I think you've scared them :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Sticks and stones Kolouraven, But who expected anything other than name calling? That is one of your traits, that or putting your head in the sand!!
 

nonothing

Well-known member
As strong as your faith or desire to prove yourself right feels inside you, it will always be an impossible road to navigate when it comes to others beliefs or faith.Your way is not their way and neither your faith or their faith should be judged right or wrong,debated sure,but not judged..I am a slow learner but I now understand that point very well.

Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer but faith almost always implies certitude,even where there is no evidence or proof,,an example being"an unshakable faith in God".No one but the person themselves can decide their own faith,therefore trying to change anothers faith is impossible for what they chose to put faith in,will always be their own choice..

Preach the bible from back to front and you will always have different opinions of its text.Who is right?Well no one really knows for sure even though's with the strongest of faith.My guess is that is the way God wants it.As easy as it is to be loved in the eyes of the lord,it is impossible to live ones life to the standard he set without questioning the reasons..Maybe that is the key to it all,that the same questions are inside all of us,it is just that the answer are our own.....
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Although this is a political forum, the kind of controversy religion generates belongs in a free for all environment. I would appreciate it if we could refrain from personal attacks, if we could keep it on topic, it would be more informative and fun. If you MUST attack someone, I plan on making fun of you.

LMAO.gif




Ok, let me being by saying I have not “codified” my beliefs into a single statement of faith like the Baptist Faith and Message, where everything has been analyzed and checked for consistency and denominational correctness. As I consider faith a matter of a relationship between me and God (I am going to use the word “God” to represent a spiritual persona, without gender, without age.....so if you want to use Goddess, Ishtar, Hera, Jehovah, Thor, etc, go for it)....but I plan to use God as a generic deity, and I plan to use the names of the gods if I mean a specific god. I won’t use Ishtar if I mean Shiva.

Next, recognize that I will probably be inconsistent periodically, and if you see an inconsistency lets talk about it and see if there is a resolution. I do not want to get caught up in minutia, so make sure we do not begin arguing about how something is spelled or where a period goes.

I do not know everything about everyone else’s faith (hell, I don’t even know everything about what I believe) I might very well make a generalization that is wrong about your specific situation or belief. I apologize in advance, but lets not hijack the thread by insisting that the Eucharist is the body of Jesus rather than a wafer that is supposed to be unleavened bread representing the body.

ALL backgrounds should be respected. That means if a Christian Pastor or a Pagan or a Heathen wants to wade in, then they have as much right to express their views as anyone else. In fact, if a Pagan or a Heathen or Wiccan wants to share their perspective or their holidays it would be fine with me.

I was raised “old” Southern Baptist, which means I was taught that what was important was the relationship you had with God/Jesus. The difficulty I ran into in the beginning of my “growth” comes from the Bible itself. The obvious contradiction between Jesus as the Prince of Peace and Jehovah as an angry God who will have no others before him jumped at me from the time I was a kid. The pastors and priests simply excused this contradiction by calling it a “mystery” and brushed it aside. And yet they continued to preach that God was the same then, now, and in the future......contradiction upon contradiction. If I had responded to a trig or science problem like that I would have failed the class.

Now remember, I had accepted Jesus into my life (I really do not want to use the word “salvation”.....we can discuss Salvation later, if you want) and was very much aware of His reality and of His presence in my life.......THAT portion of my faith was incontrovertible and unshakeable. But what about the inconsistencies?

Why did Jehovah tell King Saul to eradicate an entire people? He had Saul kill the men, the women, the children, the cattle, the sheep, and burn their stores....grains, meats, homes....everything. Well Saul was human, found some of the women good looking, the cattle and sheep fat, and some of the young men strong, he kept those alive to be slaves or concubines and added the livestock to his own herds. This “disobedience” ticked Jehovah off so much that at that point He decided to dethrone Saul and appoint David as King....of course, being all knowing, He knew it was going to happen anyway. Juxtapose this God against the Prince of Peace. Sorry brothers and sisters, to me this is not two facets of the God that is unchanging......and illogical contradictions do NOT make me happy with preaching this stuff.

After analyzing the many myriad contradictions (despite how they are excused) I came to a conclusion. The foundation is flawed. In construction, if a house is out of level, off balance, or shifting, you look at the foundation. So I looked at the foundation of modern Christianity. And that foundation is the Bible. The inerrant Word of God.

Once I looked at it as a book instead of as THE Book, once I took a look at who assembled the book (why was Paul, whose only contact with Jesus was after the crucifixion, a major contributor while James and Thomas and Mary who worked with Jesus on a daily basis for most of Jesus’s ministry excluded? ) and using a knowledge of how selfish mankind is, I realized what the problem was. The problem with Christianity is the Bible.

This brings up two questions. Why is the Bible a problem? If the Bible is the problem, what is the alternative?

If you did all that was done in the Bible, and used the Bible as the defining justification, you would discover yourself in jail in short order. For example, Lot (you remember Lot, don’t you? The guy that escaped Sodom and Gomorrah with his two daughters after the wife was turned to a pillar of salt?). Seems they hid out in the mountains after that and the girls thinking they would never be able to have kids cause there were no men in the neighborhood, seduced daddy......got him drunk, did him, and had kids.......lets practice THAT in Sunday School........
rof.gif


I recall asking a young pastor, who was seriously considering asking a deacon to leave the congregation because of an impending divorce, if he would allow an unrepentant, guilty, never convicted because he hid out, murderer to be a leader in his church. His response was “absolutely not.” I then asked him if he would allow a divorcee who abandoned his kids and wife...sent them back to her dad to support......to be a leader in his church. Again, I got the same response. I asked him (and this was a southern pastor) that if the divorcee married a woman outside his race would it be acceptable. Once again I got the same response. I asked him if the CEO of an organization knocked up his administrative assistant or a maid, would that CEO make a good deacon. Again, NO! I informed him that he had just excluded Moses AND Abraham.....two of the few men in history to talk to God, face to face and both are essential to the establishment of his faith.

So with all these contradictions and mixed signals, we have to look at the Bible as what it is. And to do that, you have to look at how it came into being.

For 300 plus years there was NO bible in the Christian community. Jesus had told his disciples that where ever two or more joined together in His name, He would be there as well. Why have a Bible with the author is in the room with you? And how do you know if the words being spoken by the participants is of Jesus and not from the self....yes, self interest was always a problem. He told us to test the spirit by comparing what was being spoken to what you knew about him.

Why did the Bible come about? Quite simple really. It began when Constantine’s mother became Christian and persuaded her son to convert. They made it the state religion which received the religious taxes. (Remember the tax protest nursery rhyme......ba ba black sheep, have you any wool? Yes sir yes sir three bags full......one for the master (the king) one for the dame (the church) and one for the little boy (the farmer).......2 thirds of your productivity went to taxes). So once taxes went to the Christians (and money became the object of the faith.......a historic tradition carried on through men like Oral Roberts and Jim Swaggart) several things occurred.

First, you can’t send lots of tax money to a group of people meeting in houses....which house would get what? Secondly, if you DID send them money, they would just give it away to the poor (it really is what Jesus would have done). Third, if you are going to send lots of money you want to SEE the results of what you send.

So the first thing Constantine did was build a bunch of churches. That way he KNEW where the meetings were, he KNEW where the money was going, and he KNEW how it was being spent. As he was accustomed to attending temples of various types, he had the new Christian churches built along the lines of the old temples.......a place at the front for a priest or preacher, and a place for people to sit (or stand) to listen. No place for Jesus to move individuals, No place for congregational participation, just come in, shut up, and listen.

Needless to say all the priests from other beliefs were now out of jobs......they were no longer living off the taxes. All but a few “faithful” of the other faiths became Christians overnight.....and became Christians with the same allegiance they had been Sun Worshipers or Pagans or whatever.........they followed the rotes and never became wholly vested in the faith.

With all types of priests delivering all types of sermons and rituals, the Christian faith became a hodgepodge of conflicting teachings. And the small home church that had sustained the faith for 300 years disappeared. So to establish consistency in teachings among the various churches Constantine ordered a librarian named Esuebius to form a council to put together writings on faith that could become the “canon” of the faith. Esuebius led the council of Nicea (with Constantine present) in searching the many books and letters that existed. They first established the “heritage” of Jehovah through the writings of the ancient Hebrews and called it the “Old Testament.” Then they looked at all the books and letters that were around from the various apostles and disciples. The determined that the Godhood of Jesus needed to be established so they selected the first books (called the Gospels) which supported the divinity of Jesus (they even used the Gospel of Luke who HAD NEVER KNOWN JESUS, PERSONALLY). Once Jesus as God was established, they turned their attention to how a “Christian” should act and believe.......and there is one underlying theme that they had to instill.....obedience to the King/authority. So the letters they selected included stuff like “slaves should be meek and obey their masters” or “women should not be placed over men” and other things that dealt with day to day actions of a person in a society of kings and peasants. Anything that was suggestive of independence or of personal responsibility was removed or downplayed. Unfortunately for the Kings, when the gospels actually quoted Jesus or told an anecdote about Jesus, the truths of his life was glaringly contradictory to BOTH the God of the Old Testament AND the “good slave” of the latter parts of the New Testament.

But this Bible, established by an Emperor to be used to keep the people in line and determine a hard line of faith to be followed (after the creation of this Bible came the persecution of Gnostic’s, the inquisition, etc.....all non-Jesus acts). And during the reformation, the Bible as conceived by Constantine, was the basis for the argument.........there was NEVER a re-visitation of the circumstances of establishing a “canon” nor was there a serious movement, except among a very few people, to re-establish the church as it was originally......that of a home based group where two or more would get together in the name of Jesus. And many of those that DID practice that were tortured and murdered BY the church that was supposed to represent the Prince of Peace.

Not all the books (actually there were NO books put in the bible....they were all letters from one person to another or from one person to a congregation......like Pauls letters to the Corinthians or Apollos' letter to the Hebrews) were included because not all books supported the status quo of the Roman Empire.

An example: During the era when the Bible was assembled (remember, it was assembled around 300 AD, it was a collection of writings and verbal history from lots of men over two thousand years), women and children were considered property. They could be sold, given away, or killed.....whatever the man of the house decided to do with them. Can you imagine the uproar had the Gospel of Mary been included in the Bible? Where Thomas is angry at Mary for telling them things that Jesus had told her and not them. He yells at her "Why would He tell you, a woman, things He would not tell us?" And Levi (Matthew) tells Thomas "You know He walked with her many times alone and that she was favored above all women.....why WOULDN'T He tell ehr things in private?" The very attitude, in that day and age, that women had rights or had worth would have set society on it's head.

And picture the response to the devine right of kings if this quote, from the Gospel of Thomas had made it into the Bible:

Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty.

and this one from the same book/letter:
Jesus said: Perhaps men think that I am come to cast peace upon the world; and they do not know that I am come to cast dissensions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there will be five who are in a house; three shall be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they shall stand as solitaries.

If this had been part of the Bible, what kind of chaos would have reigned throughout the empire?????

And from the Gospel of James........did you ever wonder why Mary was blessed as the mother of Jesus? Here is a brief description of her birth:

And behold an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Anna, Anna, the Lord hath hearkened unto thy prayer, and thou shalt conceive and bear, and thy seed shall be spoken of in the whole world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I bring forth either male or female, I will bring it for a gift unto the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering unto him all the days of its life.

2 And behold there came two messengers saying unto her: Behold Ioacim thy husband cometh with his flocks: for an angel of the Lord came down unto him saying: Ioacim, Ioacim, the Lord God hath hearkened unto thy prayer. Get thee down hence, for behold thy wife Anna hath conceived.

3 And Ioacim sat him down and called his herdsmen saying: Bring me hither ten lambs without blemish and without spot, and they shall be for the Lord my God; and bring me twelve tender calves, and they shall be for the priests and for the assembly of the elders; and an hundred kids for the whole people.

4 And behold Ioacim came with his flocks, and Anna stood at the gate and saw Ioacim coming, and ran and hung upon his neck, saying: Now know I that the Lord God hath greatly blessed me: for behold the widow is no more a widow, and she that was childless shall conceive. And Ioacim rested the first day in his house.

V. 1 And on the morrow he offered his gifts, saying in himself: If the Lord God be reconciled unto me, the plate that is upon the forehead of the priest will make it manifest unto me. And Ioacim offered his gifts and looked earnestly upon the plate of the priest when he went up unto the altar of tile Lord, and he saw no sin in himself. And Ioacim said: Now know I that the Lord is become propitious unto me and hath forgiven all my sins. And he went down from the temple of the Lord justified, and went unto his house.

2 And her months were fulfilled, and in the ninth month Anna brought forth. And she said unto the midwife: what have I brought forth ? And she said: A female. And Anna said: My soul is magnified this day, and she laid herself down. And when the days were fulfilled, Anna purified herself and gave suck to the child and called her name Mary.

Interesting the things that were left out of the "Bible"........the "miraculous" birth and raising of Mary (guess women didn't count for much), the length James went to keep his daughter a virgin, that Jesus did not come to bring peace, but strife........

And when you see the persecution and war between the "official" church and the "unofficial" churches it is no wonder it took hundreds of years before a drunk priest named Martin Luther began the reformation.......and by that time he was arguing about the interpretation of, NOT the inerrant word of God, but a book designed to support kings and supress liberty.



I think, perhaps, a "caveat" here would be in order.

Just becasue a book is old does not make it truthful. There are literally hundreds of ancient writings that were written in the 300 years between the Council of Nicea and the Crucifixion. It was a pretty popular subject. Some are attributed to apostles when the apostles had already died. Some of it is redundent. Some of the writings are pushing an agenda. Urban legends existed then as now and they had no Snopes to verify integrity.

Eseubius was a librarian in charge of over 700,000 books. He was Bishop of Caesarea. He had access to more than what we have. He had the education and the ability and the authority to do the research necessary to assemble a Bible. The bulk of his work was excellent. I simply think he had pressure to do two things: Establish a Book that was as close as he could to being accurate. Provide church legitimacy for the Emporer. The first part I think he did a credible job. The second is where I find fault with it.

It is NOT a matter of saying the Bible is wrong and these other writings are true. There is truth and there is falsehood in all the writings.........and there is probably MORE truth in the Bible than in any other. But my point is, using ANY "Bible" or any text or any writing can NOT establish a relationship with God. Only you can establish that relationship......and a Bible is not needed.....

Ok, your turn.................
It's obviousl to me Goodpasture that you really don't know much about the Bible. I'm too busy to visit much about it but if you don't know that your point of view is correct, why argue the point with others. What I mean is if you admit you could be wrong , why argue your point?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
It's obviousl to me Goodpasture that you really don't know much about the Bible.
Excellent Point!!!!! I never thought about that. Obviously I should have contacted you prior to my 50 year study of both the Bible, the history of the Bible, the cultures from which the Bible was developed, and the context under which it was canonized.

Red Robin said:
I'm too busy to visit much about it but if you don't know that your point of view is correct, why argue the point with others. What I mean is if you admit you could be wrong , why argue your point?
Because while I may not be right, I KNOW the view that the typical fundy has of the Bible is wrong.

Of course, not being able to admit you are wrong about what you think really would put you in the same catagory as the Taliban, wouldn't it? After all, you have FAITH!.....lets not confuse the issue with facts...........
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
It's obviousl to me Goodpasture that you really don't know much about the Bible.
Excellent Point!!!!! I never thought about that. Obviously I should have contacted you prior to my 50 year study of both the Bible, the history of the Bible, the cultures from which the Bible was developed, and the context under which it was canonized.

Red Robin said:
I'm too busy to visit much about it but if you don't know that your point of view is correct, why argue the point with others. What I mean is if you admit you could be wrong , why argue your point?
Because while I may not be right, I KNOW the view that the typical fundy has of the Bible is wrong.

Of course, not being able to admit you could be wrong about what you think really would put you in the same catagory as the Taliban, wouldn't it? After all, you have FAITH!.....lets not confuse the issue with facts...........
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I'll keep this simple. How do you KNOW the fundamental viewpoint of the Bible is wrong? If our conclusions are based on what we know (which is skewed by our upbringing , circumstances, education, etc. then how does anyone know anything for sure? I'll be brief. I am absolutely sure you don't know everything but for the sake of argument I'll say you're a brilliant man and know half of all there is to know. Even considering you might know half of everything , there is half of everything you don't know so therefore it's possible that the accuracy of the fundamental viewpoint is in the half that you don't know. Speaking on the issue of facts, you've presented none.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I'll keep this simple. How do you KNOW the fundamental viewpoint of the Bible is wrong?
:lol:
Jesus told me it was.


Red Robin said:
Speaking on the issue of facts, you've presented none.
I described the conditions and named the people involved in the development of the bible. I stated dates. I paraphrased Biblical passages. Show me one instance anywhere in my monologue where I misrepresented facts. And in the face of the facts I presented, all you can do is make vague allegations, assumptions and innuendos?

When you say
Red Robin said:
It's obviousl to me Goodpasture that you really don't know much about the Bible.
You show that YOU have no knwledge of the Bible....and without knowledge there is NO understanding......just the regurgitation of unsupportable platitudes.
 
Top