jester:-6
LOL. Great idea.
Communication in spite of disagreement. No one could ask for anything better.
How have I been inconsistent? Yes I pick and choose as do you. i.e. homosexuality is evil or sinful on the basis of Leviticus but eating shellfish or pork is OK. The Bible is a culturally and era created book. It must be reinterpreted in light of modern knowledge and human experience over the years. i.e. we now know that illness is usually caused by pathogens or biological errors such as in epilepsy. It is not as a result of demon possession. We now understand better the nature of scriptural writing as well as the history of the Bible. We have the documents.
BTW There are many clergy and biblical scholars as well as theologians from whom I have been learning. I am not alone.
Your comments on Muhammad are simply wrong. A reading of Islamic history would clear that up. Islam is based on the same tenets as Judaism and Christianity as well as Hinduism and Buddhism etc.; justice and compassion. We cannot blame the extremists for what is happening today. We have them in Christianity as well; Robertson, Phelps etc. "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong is an excellent book.
You don't like my interpretation of Matt 25 but a close and unbiased reading will bear it out. It is also the interpretation of hundreds of clergy and scholarly people. Now you may not think much of scholarship but without it the Bible as we know it today would not exist.
Waiting upon the Holy Spirit will help us in interpretation and discernment. This does not rule out other great Christian writers and thinkers. They have also been guided in what they think. Discernment is fine but anyone who thinks they have it exactly and that includes myself would be living in a delusion. We do not always know that we do not know.
Concerning the last comment it is known that the Japanese do not understand the Christian story. It is foreign to their culture and their way of thinking. Does God prepare the way? I would say yes but in the sense of my or your preparation to meet the cultural situation understanding that we may have to present our case in different ways. Thus we have the "Huron Christmas Carol".
This rather fits in I think. If we follow the line that God opens the eyes of folks to see then we have a segment of society that God has blinded so that they cannot see. This hardly fits in with the unconditional love of God--agape. Predestination says either you are or you are not thus we see again the end of free will.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
Do you know any of these scholars personally? I know several and they are fine Christians in the true sense of the word. These are men who have studied and done their best to understand both the past and the present. They too have much to impart. We are clearly warned not to lean on our own understanding. If we do not learn how the Bible was written and the style in which it was written as well as the purpose of the writer and the audience we cannot hope to come close to an understanding. An example is the word faith. Many seem to think it means correct belief but the biblical meaning is expressed by our word trust. Of course scholarly people and clergy are real men and women. They have wisdom to offer.
Christ is known as the suffering servant. If he is part of the Godhead then God suffers as does the Holy Spirit. You are equating the word justice with retributive justice. The word justice in the Bible originally meant distributive justice. The idea of retributive justice arose out of the martyrs. Christians began to think that it was not just to martyr someone. If the martyred cannot have justice here he will have it in the future. Yet, we are told that God is not willing that any should perish. Jesus also told us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.
You are correct there are others who have not helped. However, it must begin somewhere. Our illustrious prime minister takes the attitude if the Chinese or the Americans can pollute so can we. Not a very bright stand. If we know better we should be leading the way. We are called to lead.
I have no problem saying we are judged corporately as well as individually. I still to not believe that God causes innocent folks to suffer in that judgment. If that is the case then God is not just.
Actually I think we are coming to understand each other. We don't always agree but that is life. Paul didn't agree with James at one time either but they managed to live with disagreements.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Do you know any of these scholars personally? I know several and they are fine Christians in the true sense of the word. These are men who have studied and done their best to understand both the past and the present. They too have much to impart. We are clearly warned not to lean on our own understanding. If we do not learn how the Bible was written and the style in which it was written as well as the purpose of the writer and the audience we cannot hope to come close to an understanding. An example is the word faith. Many seem to think it means correct belief but the biblical meaning is expressed by our word trust. Of course scholarly people and clergy are real men and women. They have wisdom to offer.
Christ is known as the suffering servant. If he is part of the Godhead then God suffers as does the Holy Spirit. You are equating the word justice with retributive justice. The word justice in the Bible originally meant distributive justice. The idea of retributive justice arose out of the martyrs. Christians began to think that it was not just to martyr someone. If the martyred cannot have justice here he will have it in the future. Yet, we are told that God is not willing that any should perish. Jesus also told us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.
You are correct there are others who have not helped. However, it must begin somewhere. Our illustrious prime minister takes the attitude if the Chinese or the Americans can pollute so can we. Not a very bright stand. If we know better we should be leading the way. We are called to lead.
I have no problem saying we are judged corporately as well as individually. I still to not believe that God causes innocent folks to suffer in that judgment. If that is the case then God is not just.
Actually I think we are coming to understand each other. We don't always agree but that is life. Paul didn't agree with James at one time either but they managed to live with disagreements.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Ted and Jester thread....
I truley do not believe we were meant to be judged by a higher power. We are ever judged by our own inner self. This is what makes us - us. Good or bad by our societal judges. Some of us have gone terribly wrong in our inner self and it is that person that becomes the person in absolute need to be separated. IT HAPPENS.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Ted and Jester thread....
Jester;734238 wrote:
I do blame the extremeists for the action they take however Islam is not anything like Judiasm or Christianity.. and muhammed was a maruading filthy pig, i'd even call him a bastard, he was evil incarnate and I have no doubt was motivated by greed and hate and selfishness and to take from those what he wanted even klilling and murdering inncoent people on his climb up over the well to do and the innocent of his time. To pattern a religion after that man is to pattern a government often Adolf Hitler, and a hundred times worse, his very name personifies hate and terrible injustice and the Islamic world from him on have been nothing but takers and destroyers. Islam is a false religion and alie and a distortion of Gods name to include his charcater in the one they call allah. (lower case initial letter used on purpose).
Islam is a 'religion' (I use that term under protest) of terror and not the religion of peace as it claims.
And I realize most here wont agree with me and Im sure I'll get brought up as hate speech but I really dont give a dang, I call things as I see them and thats that.
I will work on the rest of this post when I return from my next job, sorry to side track it a bit.
I hope you were angry when you wrote this.
What you describe is nothing like either Islam or the founder of Islam from the fairly detailed knowledge I have of it. You might try actually talking to some Muslims one day, asking them about their religion and listening to the answers. They are actually a very peaceful bunch of people.
I do blame the extremeists for the action they take however Islam is not anything like Judiasm or Christianity.. and muhammed was a maruading filthy pig, i'd even call him a bastard, he was evil incarnate and I have no doubt was motivated by greed and hate and selfishness and to take from those what he wanted even klilling and murdering inncoent people on his climb up over the well to do and the innocent of his time. To pattern a religion after that man is to pattern a government often Adolf Hitler, and a hundred times worse, his very name personifies hate and terrible injustice and the Islamic world from him on have been nothing but takers and destroyers. Islam is a false religion and alie and a distortion of Gods name to include his charcater in the one they call allah. (lower case initial letter used on purpose).
Islam is a 'religion' (I use that term under protest) of terror and not the religion of peace as it claims.
And I realize most here wont agree with me and Im sure I'll get brought up as hate speech but I really dont give a dang, I call things as I see them and thats that.
I will work on the rest of this post when I return from my next job, sorry to side track it a bit.
I hope you were angry when you wrote this.
What you describe is nothing like either Islam or the founder of Islam from the fairly detailed knowledge I have of it. You might try actually talking to some Muslims one day, asking them about their religion and listening to the answers. They are actually a very peaceful bunch of people.
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
"Then why are they so wrong in their interpretation of scripture?"
That is an opinion. You think they are wrong because you disagree with them. That does not make that opinion correct or incorrect. It is simply your opinion.
With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world we have some 22 000+ different interpretations of all or parts of the scriptures. Some 22 000+ who each claim there interpretation is the absolute and correct one. I add the "+" sign because even within each denomination there will be differences of opinion and interpretation among congregants and clergy. For instance within even the Anglican Church there are some who think one way and others who think differently.
Regarding God suffering. If one is a Trinitarian and believes in the Godhead then one of them cannot suffer without all suffering. To separate Jesus out and say that he suffers but God does not does not fit the logic of Jesus being God incarnate. If, in fact, Jesus suffers than God must suffer.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Then why are they so wrong in their interpretation of scripture?"
That is an opinion. You think they are wrong because you disagree with them. That does not make that opinion correct or incorrect. It is simply your opinion.
With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world we have some 22 000+ different interpretations of all or parts of the scriptures. Some 22 000+ who each claim there interpretation is the absolute and correct one. I add the "+" sign because even within each denomination there will be differences of opinion and interpretation among congregants and clergy. For instance within even the Anglican Church there are some who think one way and others who think differently.
Regarding God suffering. If one is a Trinitarian and believes in the Godhead then one of them cannot suffer without all suffering. To separate Jesus out and say that he suffers but God does not does not fit the logic of Jesus being God incarnate. If, in fact, Jesus suffers than God must suffer.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
The whole point of dogma and doctrine is that it is something to believe in. The word faith does not mean that., The word faith means "trust". We are asked to have faith in, which means to trust. Of the 22 000+ interpretations, who is correct?
Dogma and doctrine as far as I can see are purely man made and unimportant. What is important is that we live in a developing, transforming relationship with the God as manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. Our salvation depends on a relational activity and not a correct belief. If it depends on correct belief we are in deep trouble with some 22 000+ such interpretations, dogmas and doctrines.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The whole point of dogma and doctrine is that it is something to believe in. The word faith does not mean that., The word faith means "trust". We are asked to have faith in, which means to trust. Of the 22 000+ interpretations, who is correct?
Dogma and doctrine as far as I can see are purely man made and unimportant. What is important is that we live in a developing, transforming relationship with the God as manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. Our salvation depends on a relational activity and not a correct belief. If it depends on correct belief we are in deep trouble with some 22 000+ such interpretations, dogmas and doctrines.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
Are you not then saying that you alone of 22 000+ other Christians are the only one that is correct?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Are you not then saying that you alone of 22 000+ other Christians are the only one that is correct?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
That is of course your opinion and one to which you are entitled. I guess on that one we will have to disagree. But that is ok with me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is of course your opinion and one to which you are entitled. I guess on that one we will have to disagree. But that is ok with me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
Jester;754617 wrote: Ted, I am often confused about which parts of the bible you accept as truth and which parts you reject outright because of so called 'inconsistancies' in interpretation or manuscripts. I was wondering if you could delete the books of the bible from this list below that you believe are not historically accurate, or contain myth, or fairytails?
Thanks!
By setting the question at such a coarse level you admit to only one possible answer so that come under the category of a trick question.
Every book of the Bible contains truth and parable - so to answer the question in the way it is framed is to ignore the truth that you both acknowledge the Bible to contain.
Why not reverse the question and ask Ted which books he accepts contain truth?
Thanks!
By setting the question at such a coarse level you admit to only one possible answer so that come under the category of a trick question.
Every book of the Bible contains truth and parable - so to answer the question in the way it is framed is to ignore the truth that you both acknowledge the Bible to contain.
Why not reverse the question and ask Ted which books he accepts contain truth?
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
No problem. Damned power interruption. I had almost completed a lengthy post when the lights flickered.
There is no book in the Bible that I reject. Truth can be presented in many ways; historical accuracy, myth, legend, poetry etc. The problem with using the term myth today results from the enlightenment. Folks came to believe that if it was not historical it was not true. If one couldn't prove it physically and rationally it was simply a lie. This approach, however, ignores a large part of human experience and the attendant feelings. These are every bit a real as a stone or water. However, they cannot be tested.
What I resent, and I suspect you do as well, is people trying to tell me what I've experienced. How do they know? Only I know what I experienced. The same holds true for yours.
Myth as understood by theologians, philosophers and Bible scholars is a story created to present a truth. So if we look at the creation stories the truths presented are; God created all that is. How? We don't know since no one was there. He also created man in his image. Does this mean God has arms and legs as we do? Since God is spirit does it mean that we were created as spiritual beings?
The Bible was written in an ancient Hebrew style called midrash. It has a narrower meaning today. In ancient times it was both a style of interpretation and writing. A newer experience or feeling was defined in terms of a past experience or feeling. For example Joshua walked across the Jordan on dry land reflects the most important myth in Hebrew history, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land. This is an indication of how important that story is to them.
The story of the Exodus is seen as a myth because there is not one shred of evidence that it happened as written. It may have come out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. So than one must ask, "What is it saying to us and what did it say to the Hebrews. A lot of analysis could go into this but I will point out a few. It is written to prove that God saves His people. What does He save them from?--enemies, slavery or bondage found in the personal lives of each of us,(one might call it a sin or the human condition, depression and so on. In other words it is every persons story. At some time or another we are subjected to persecution, whether religious or otherwise, slavery to our own thought processes or our behaviours etc. One could find dozens of other truths presented therein.
It is this that makes it a universal story. It makes it everyone's story not just the story of a local tribe.
One could say that the Bible present the more than history. It has a much broader presentation of truth that was thought after the reformation. There are some historical points made but very few. However, the Bible presents more than profound truths "that shall be to all people."
Our experiences of divine reality are not in any way analyzable with rationalism. In fact rationalism becomes a tyranny. Thus I never engage in a discussion on the existence of God. For me that is beyond question. My experiences, as yours, have proven to me the reality of divinity.
All of the Bible presents truth. We simply need the Guidance of the Holy Spirit with some effort on our part to see what the human race is being told. It is not the inerrant word of God but because God does speak to each of us through the Bible it becomes the word of God. This is what makes the Christian faith a living, developing faith.
I hope this answers your questions. If not ask further.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No problem. Damned power interruption. I had almost completed a lengthy post when the lights flickered.
There is no book in the Bible that I reject. Truth can be presented in many ways; historical accuracy, myth, legend, poetry etc. The problem with using the term myth today results from the enlightenment. Folks came to believe that if it was not historical it was not true. If one couldn't prove it physically and rationally it was simply a lie. This approach, however, ignores a large part of human experience and the attendant feelings. These are every bit a real as a stone or water. However, they cannot be tested.
What I resent, and I suspect you do as well, is people trying to tell me what I've experienced. How do they know? Only I know what I experienced. The same holds true for yours.
Myth as understood by theologians, philosophers and Bible scholars is a story created to present a truth. So if we look at the creation stories the truths presented are; God created all that is. How? We don't know since no one was there. He also created man in his image. Does this mean God has arms and legs as we do? Since God is spirit does it mean that we were created as spiritual beings?
The Bible was written in an ancient Hebrew style called midrash. It has a narrower meaning today. In ancient times it was both a style of interpretation and writing. A newer experience or feeling was defined in terms of a past experience or feeling. For example Joshua walked across the Jordan on dry land reflects the most important myth in Hebrew history, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land. This is an indication of how important that story is to them.
The story of the Exodus is seen as a myth because there is not one shred of evidence that it happened as written. It may have come out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. So than one must ask, "What is it saying to us and what did it say to the Hebrews. A lot of analysis could go into this but I will point out a few. It is written to prove that God saves His people. What does He save them from?--enemies, slavery or bondage found in the personal lives of each of us,(one might call it a sin or the human condition, depression and so on. In other words it is every persons story. At some time or another we are subjected to persecution, whether religious or otherwise, slavery to our own thought processes or our behaviours etc. One could find dozens of other truths presented therein.
It is this that makes it a universal story. It makes it everyone's story not just the story of a local tribe.
One could say that the Bible present the more than history. It has a much broader presentation of truth that was thought after the reformation. There are some historical points made but very few. However, the Bible presents more than profound truths "that shall be to all people."
Our experiences of divine reality are not in any way analyzable with rationalism. In fact rationalism becomes a tyranny. Thus I never engage in a discussion on the existence of God. For me that is beyond question. My experiences, as yours, have proven to me the reality of divinity.
All of the Bible presents truth. We simply need the Guidance of the Holy Spirit with some effort on our part to see what the human race is being told. It is not the inerrant word of God but because God does speak to each of us through the Bible it becomes the word of God. This is what makes the Christian faith a living, developing faith.
I hope this answers your questions. If not ask further.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
I'll have to get to the other threads later. Our condo discussion group is meeting in a very few minutes. There are a few atheists there but we do enjoy our discussions. There are also some Christians there. Got to keep the brain working to ward off dementia and Alzheimer's. So far so good.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
rjwould:-6
That would be nice but I doubt it will happen. But then things do happen. ??????
Shalom
Ted:-6
That would be nice but I doubt it will happen. But then things do happen. ??????
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
Thanks for the response. No offense meant and none taken.
I do not see myth in the say way your grandfather told you stories. Myth does not present lies it presents truth.
I firmly believe that the Bible does make a difference in folks lives. I do not question that. Nor do I question your right to believe as you do. In fact millions for the past 400-500 years have followed the same line. It is not one I can accept but if others can I see no harm in it on a personal level.
As you know I have some other reservations but in this context they are not important.
If, as I contend, we cannot with our language and our conceptualization ability, in any way describe or define God than when we read the Bible there is truth far beyond what we can read or understand--"The more than.'
If you wish to move along in topic that is fine with me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks for the response. No offense meant and none taken.
I do not see myth in the say way your grandfather told you stories. Myth does not present lies it presents truth.
I firmly believe that the Bible does make a difference in folks lives. I do not question that. Nor do I question your right to believe as you do. In fact millions for the past 400-500 years have followed the same line. It is not one I can accept but if others can I see no harm in it on a personal level.
As you know I have some other reservations but in this context they are not important.
If, as I contend, we cannot with our language and our conceptualization ability, in any way describe or define God than when we read the Bible there is truth far beyond what we can read or understand--"The more than.'
If you wish to move along in topic that is fine with me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
A good question which I shall answer shortly. I have other chores to do at the moment.
Shalom
Ted:-6
A good question which I shall answer shortly. I have other chores to do at the moment.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
I generally refrain from denominational comments so I will not mention the church I was raised in except to say that it was extremely fundamentalist.
As I grew older and began to think and reason I realized that what was being preached was not being followed by a large number of people. Now I know this happens in every church so that is not the only reason.
I listened almost every Sunday to how the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians etc. were all going to hell because . . . One should look after the plank in one's own eye.
I listened every Sunday to a repent and be saved sermon. Essentially it was always the same message and I believed there was far more to Christianity then that.
I began to think about the things that were talked about and found them simply impossible to believe. I read a wide variety of fundamentalist literature and began to find it simply ludicrous. i.e. the sun does not stand still for a day. That would mean the earth itself would have to stop revolving. I began to read and see that the creation stories were simply stories. Far too many things were beyond belief. I came to believe that God does not work in such a way. He has no need to. We do not see these spectacular things today. If God doesn't change then why has this stopped. Actually these things did not happen. Evolution is another point.
At that point I decided to go to the Presbyterian church. The fundy minister cornered me one day in his car and asked how I could possibly . . ,. His comments in my mind, heart and soul were far from what I read in the Bible. As a Presbyterian I became a student minister in the Pres. church. I went to university and studied theological topics including translation and interpretation. At this point I realized that my fundy minister simply did not know what he was talking about.
To add in here an incident that I only recently found out from my father before he passed away only confirmed my earlier thoughts. This preacher, at the funeral of a child some 4 weeks old, publicly said that the child died because its parents had some unconfessed sin. This child was my sister. My mother took the hurt and pain of that horrible comment to her grave. This was not in any shape or form Christian. Where was this church when my parents needed it. Off in never never land. I have since forgiven this preacher and hope that God will have mercy on him.
Now in all of this I was in much prayer. I was looking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I received that guidance and have been thoroughly convinced that I am on the right track. I decided to become and Anglican and have subsequently realized that the practices in the Anglican communion are very close to the ancient church created by the Apostles.
My studies, which I continue to engage in both formally at the Vancouver School of Theology and informally at my own desk and my constant prayers have more than convinced me that I am indeed following in the footsteps of my Lord. This is my calling and my vocation and my church is well aware of my thoughts and they find nothing to be concerned about. In fact I am called upon not only to preach but lead discussion groups.
A somewhat long story but there it is in brief.
I would like to add that yesterday on the radio I listened to an oncologist Dr. Rob Buckman who spoke of an American lady who came to see him in Canada. She was very upset and convinced that she was dying. When questioned she said that her fundamentalist minister told her that she was suffering from breast cancer because God was punishing her and that she would die. The Dr. confirmed that yes she had breast cancer but that she was not dying. When I heard this I was furious. It was a good example of another fundy preacher who had no idea as to what he was saying.
None of this is rare. I have visited other churches and spoken to folks from others. This is a common practice in many churches including one on this island.
A closing comment. If I had not been convinced of the veracity of the Christian faith and the validity of the Bible my experiences in the fundamentalist church would have sent me to either Buddhism or atheism. However, I Knew better.
As a Christian pluralist I am at peace with God and my fellow man.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I generally refrain from denominational comments so I will not mention the church I was raised in except to say that it was extremely fundamentalist.
As I grew older and began to think and reason I realized that what was being preached was not being followed by a large number of people. Now I know this happens in every church so that is not the only reason.
I listened almost every Sunday to how the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians etc. were all going to hell because . . . One should look after the plank in one's own eye.
I listened every Sunday to a repent and be saved sermon. Essentially it was always the same message and I believed there was far more to Christianity then that.
I began to think about the things that were talked about and found them simply impossible to believe. I read a wide variety of fundamentalist literature and began to find it simply ludicrous. i.e. the sun does not stand still for a day. That would mean the earth itself would have to stop revolving. I began to read and see that the creation stories were simply stories. Far too many things were beyond belief. I came to believe that God does not work in such a way. He has no need to. We do not see these spectacular things today. If God doesn't change then why has this stopped. Actually these things did not happen. Evolution is another point.
At that point I decided to go to the Presbyterian church. The fundy minister cornered me one day in his car and asked how I could possibly . . ,. His comments in my mind, heart and soul were far from what I read in the Bible. As a Presbyterian I became a student minister in the Pres. church. I went to university and studied theological topics including translation and interpretation. At this point I realized that my fundy minister simply did not know what he was talking about.
To add in here an incident that I only recently found out from my father before he passed away only confirmed my earlier thoughts. This preacher, at the funeral of a child some 4 weeks old, publicly said that the child died because its parents had some unconfessed sin. This child was my sister. My mother took the hurt and pain of that horrible comment to her grave. This was not in any shape or form Christian. Where was this church when my parents needed it. Off in never never land. I have since forgiven this preacher and hope that God will have mercy on him.
Now in all of this I was in much prayer. I was looking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I received that guidance and have been thoroughly convinced that I am on the right track. I decided to become and Anglican and have subsequently realized that the practices in the Anglican communion are very close to the ancient church created by the Apostles.
My studies, which I continue to engage in both formally at the Vancouver School of Theology and informally at my own desk and my constant prayers have more than convinced me that I am indeed following in the footsteps of my Lord. This is my calling and my vocation and my church is well aware of my thoughts and they find nothing to be concerned about. In fact I am called upon not only to preach but lead discussion groups.
A somewhat long story but there it is in brief.
I would like to add that yesterday on the radio I listened to an oncologist Dr. Rob Buckman who spoke of an American lady who came to see him in Canada. She was very upset and convinced that she was dying. When questioned she said that her fundamentalist minister told her that she was suffering from breast cancer because God was punishing her and that she would die. The Dr. confirmed that yes she had breast cancer but that she was not dying. When I heard this I was furious. It was a good example of another fundy preacher who had no idea as to what he was saying.
None of this is rare. I have visited other churches and spoken to folks from others. This is a common practice in many churches including one on this island.
A closing comment. If I had not been convinced of the veracity of the Christian faith and the validity of the Bible my experiences in the fundamentalist church would have sent me to either Buddhism or atheism. However, I Knew better.
As a Christian pluralist I am at peace with God and my fellow man.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
I should add that in my view an inerrant Bible and the subsequent literal interpretation are not supported by history, science, or the archaeological evidence. It is my firm belief that God has led man to this point. He has given humans the intelligence to seek and to find. I think it would be wrong not to use the intelligence that God has given to man in our search for historical truth.
Religious or spiritual truth is not subject to rational thought. Science can only deal with the physical.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I should add that in my view an inerrant Bible and the subsequent literal interpretation are not supported by history, science, or the archaeological evidence. It is my firm belief that God has led man to this point. He has given humans the intelligence to seek and to find. I think it would be wrong not to use the intelligence that God has given to man in our search for historical truth.
Religious or spiritual truth is not subject to rational thought. Science can only deal with the physical.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
You are not going to believe this. LOL. I actually agree with you on the statement that it comes down to an individuals relationship with God.
Now don't let that go to your head. LOL We don't want to ruin our reputations. LOL.
Now you say that many churches have the wrong interpretation. With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world I rather doubt that anyone has a completely correct interpretation. This says absolutely nothing about the thousands that try to interpret the scriptures without benefit of the church. There are probably millions of interpretations.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are not going to believe this. LOL. I actually agree with you on the statement that it comes down to an individuals relationship with God.
Now don't let that go to your head. LOL We don't want to ruin our reputations. LOL.
Now you say that many churches have the wrong interpretation. With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world I rather doubt that anyone has a completely correct interpretation. This says absolutely nothing about the thousands that try to interpret the scriptures without benefit of the church. There are probably millions of interpretations.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
JAB:-6
I think that jester and I do understand each other quite well. From my point of view regarding the literal interpretation, I've been there and done that and find it totally unacceptable.
My faith or better translated trust is in God not in every day events or past events such as the story of the Exodus. It is God I trust and the Bible is a human work that attests to God.
When one person says to me that they have the correct interpretation, good for them. I simply don't believe it. There are millions of interpretations and as such I will trust in God not a book. Though I do believe God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible that does not mean I accept it as the inerrant word of God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think that jester and I do understand each other quite well. From my point of view regarding the literal interpretation, I've been there and done that and find it totally unacceptable.
My faith or better translated trust is in God not in every day events or past events such as the story of the Exodus. It is God I trust and the Bible is a human work that attests to God.
When one person says to me that they have the correct interpretation, good for them. I simply don't believe it. There are millions of interpretations and as such I will trust in God not a book. Though I do believe God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible that does not mean I accept it as the inerrant word of God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
I think and believe there can be more than one correct interpretation. There is the surface interpretation and the much deeper interpretation(s) that come to many. If this is not the case then in John Jesus was wrong when he said that the Holy Spirit would come and reveal all truth when we were ready to receive it. This is what makes it a living faith.
When you say "if we take the wrong view", than you are becoming legalistic and that is one of the things Jesus himself was opposed to. He broke all kinds of rules, regulations and laws. In his short ministry he put the law in its proper place and concentrated on justice and kindness. I do not see in Jesus any hint of this great bust up at the end of time. I see a man who preached and lived justice and love.
The Bible does speak to me and God through it. So also has the Holy Spirit led me to where I am today. Am I to deny my calling? Absolutely not. I live in a developing, transforming relationship with that God as revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I am at total peace with my trust. I do not live in fear that I might make a mistake. All humans make mistakes at time. The grace of God and agape is where I look.
I do not need laws or rules or supposedly correct interpretation. What I need and have is that relationship with God. I don't need dogma or doctrine I simply need trust. Faith does not mean right belief but trust.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think and believe there can be more than one correct interpretation. There is the surface interpretation and the much deeper interpretation(s) that come to many. If this is not the case then in John Jesus was wrong when he said that the Holy Spirit would come and reveal all truth when we were ready to receive it. This is what makes it a living faith.
When you say "if we take the wrong view", than you are becoming legalistic and that is one of the things Jesus himself was opposed to. He broke all kinds of rules, regulations and laws. In his short ministry he put the law in its proper place and concentrated on justice and kindness. I do not see in Jesus any hint of this great bust up at the end of time. I see a man who preached and lived justice and love.
The Bible does speak to me and God through it. So also has the Holy Spirit led me to where I am today. Am I to deny my calling? Absolutely not. I live in a developing, transforming relationship with that God as revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I am at total peace with my trust. I do not live in fear that I might make a mistake. All humans make mistakes at time. The grace of God and agape is where I look.
I do not need laws or rules or supposedly correct interpretation. What I need and have is that relationship with God. I don't need dogma or doctrine I simply need trust. Faith does not mean right belief but trust.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Ted and Jester thread....
JAB;735086 wrote: Ted and Jester are both forceful individuals who believe their interpretation is correct. Each has inspired others with the passion of their beliefs and how they live their life as a result.
Amen! lol They have both influenced me! Both challenge me to think about everything i think and know. Both wise in there own ways and both with different interpretations. It's good. :wah:
Amen! lol They have both influenced me! Both challenge me to think about everything i think and know. Both wise in there own ways and both with different interpretations. It's good. :wah:
Smoke signals ftw!
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
I most certainly do believe that evil exists. Its source is to be found in the human condition. We are born as a clean slate and can choose how to live and behave. Many factors influence this: environment, education, upbringing, cultural conditions, etc.
The devil, Lucifer or Satan is an invention of the human mind to try to explain the source of evil. There is a very good PBS film on this particular topic. Unfortunately I'm not sure how you could get a hold of it; perhaps the library. It shows that the concept of such an entity is borrowed from the Mesopotamians. It is metaphorical language.
I can now turn to the issue of Hell and punishment. The word hell comes from the Greek word Gehenna which is from the Hebrew word Gehinnom which was a reference to a valley outside of Jerusalem used from child sacrifices and as a garbage dump. The sacrifices as well as the garbage were burned.
Hell as we understand it today is a metaphor for that which we create for ourselves. We can and do create our own hell by our behaviour and our thoughts. We can be oppressed by our constant worrying about any thing. We can be in bondage to drugs. "The Hell Jesus Never Intended", Keith Wright 1-896836-65-8. Or the "New Dictionary of Theology", 0-8308-1400-0.
The idea of punishment arose out of the martyrdom of saints. The folks had to believe that at sometimes there would be some justice for the martyrs. This is of course a misunderstanding of the use of the word justice in the Bible. In reality it means distributive justice and not retributive justice. This was part of a lecture by J. D. Crossan given at VST. To add to this we now enter the realm of theology where we simply cannot know about punishment because we are now speaking of the divine for which we have no language but metaphor.
If there is a punishment it will in all likelihood be a separation from God's presence.
"New Dictionary of Theology", p 229.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I most certainly do believe that evil exists. Its source is to be found in the human condition. We are born as a clean slate and can choose how to live and behave. Many factors influence this: environment, education, upbringing, cultural conditions, etc.
The devil, Lucifer or Satan is an invention of the human mind to try to explain the source of evil. There is a very good PBS film on this particular topic. Unfortunately I'm not sure how you could get a hold of it; perhaps the library. It shows that the concept of such an entity is borrowed from the Mesopotamians. It is metaphorical language.
I can now turn to the issue of Hell and punishment. The word hell comes from the Greek word Gehenna which is from the Hebrew word Gehinnom which was a reference to a valley outside of Jerusalem used from child sacrifices and as a garbage dump. The sacrifices as well as the garbage were burned.
Hell as we understand it today is a metaphor for that which we create for ourselves. We can and do create our own hell by our behaviour and our thoughts. We can be oppressed by our constant worrying about any thing. We can be in bondage to drugs. "The Hell Jesus Never Intended", Keith Wright 1-896836-65-8. Or the "New Dictionary of Theology", 0-8308-1400-0.
The idea of punishment arose out of the martyrdom of saints. The folks had to believe that at sometimes there would be some justice for the martyrs. This is of course a misunderstanding of the use of the word justice in the Bible. In reality it means distributive justice and not retributive justice. This was part of a lecture by J. D. Crossan given at VST. To add to this we now enter the realm of theology where we simply cannot know about punishment because we are now speaking of the divine for which we have no language but metaphor.
If there is a punishment it will in all likelihood be a separation from God's presence.
"New Dictionary of Theology", p 229.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
They are myth. A story designed to teach a truth and to explain what was at that time inexplicable.
Obviously the writers put them in the Bible in an effort to explain the inexplicable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
They are myth. A story designed to teach a truth and to explain what was at that time inexplicable.
Obviously the writers put them in the Bible in an effort to explain the inexplicable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
They invented the idea of hell for a couple of reasons. One was to control people by fear. Another was a misunderstanding of God's justice which they replaced with a very human understanding of justice. They were hoping that those who committed evil would suffer the same fate as those sacrificing children in the valley of Gehenna. They were also hoping that the folks who martyred others would ultimately suffer some form of punishment.
They wanted us to accept the fact that evil exists and were trying to explain why bad things happen to good people as well as why some people behave in an evil way.. They also wanted to point out that the human condition can at times lead to making poor choices.
None of this is any different than their misunderstanding of what the Messiah was about. They thought the Messiah would lead the Jewish people in a successful revolt against the Roman empire. Of course this was not the intent of God in the first place.
Of course in Matt. 5 we find out that the God manifest in Jesus had some totally different ideas.
Shalom
Ted:-6
They invented the idea of hell for a couple of reasons. One was to control people by fear. Another was a misunderstanding of God's justice which they replaced with a very human understanding of justice. They were hoping that those who committed evil would suffer the same fate as those sacrificing children in the valley of Gehenna. They were also hoping that the folks who martyred others would ultimately suffer some form of punishment.
They wanted us to accept the fact that evil exists and were trying to explain why bad things happen to good people as well as why some people behave in an evil way.. They also wanted to point out that the human condition can at times lead to making poor choices.
None of this is any different than their misunderstanding of what the Messiah was about. They thought the Messiah would lead the Jewish people in a successful revolt against the Roman empire. Of course this was not the intent of God in the first place.
Of course in Matt. 5 we find out that the God manifest in Jesus had some totally different ideas.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
The serpent is the symbolic representation of evil.
The idea of hell, as I explained before comes from the Greek word Gehenna which comes from the Hebrew word Gehinnom which was the valley outside of Jerusalem where children were sacrificed and burned. It was also a location for the burning of garbage. Why fire? I can't think of anything more painful. That would seem, in man's sense of justice, to be appropriate.
How does evil manifest itself in the world? Murder, injustice such as not feeding the hungry, ignoring the homeless etc., terrorism; anything designed to cause man pain either physically or psychologically or that designed to take a human life.
Did Jesus use words like judgment, hell etc.? If he did it was part of the culture and belief system of the day and he would naturally use them as they would be understood at that time. It is quite clear that if someone does something considered wrong in his society he is usually punished for it. If someone behaves foolishly and suffers so accident as a result of his foolishness he is punished.
Did Jesus believe in a literal hell? I don't believe he did as I've explained in an earlier post. If, however, he did than he was mistaken.
The phrase "kingdom of heaven" was used by the writer because they did not like to use the word "God" which they usually replace with "Adonai". Of course if one does not follow in the footsteps of Jesus one cannot enter the kingdom of God because such behaviour is not part of that kingdom.
"Shall be in danger of judgment." is not a statement of certitude. Of course if one killed another back in those days it is likely that others would take revenge. It certainly was a valid warning since one does create their own hell. The use of hell fire did not in all likelihood come from the lips of Jesus but once again was a creation of the early church. Once again, if Jesus actually believed in a literal hell than he was mistaken. However, if he spoke of hell it is as I have said elsewhere. We create our own hell.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The serpent is the symbolic representation of evil.
The idea of hell, as I explained before comes from the Greek word Gehenna which comes from the Hebrew word Gehinnom which was the valley outside of Jerusalem where children were sacrificed and burned. It was also a location for the burning of garbage. Why fire? I can't think of anything more painful. That would seem, in man's sense of justice, to be appropriate.
How does evil manifest itself in the world? Murder, injustice such as not feeding the hungry, ignoring the homeless etc., terrorism; anything designed to cause man pain either physically or psychologically or that designed to take a human life.
Did Jesus use words like judgment, hell etc.? If he did it was part of the culture and belief system of the day and he would naturally use them as they would be understood at that time. It is quite clear that if someone does something considered wrong in his society he is usually punished for it. If someone behaves foolishly and suffers so accident as a result of his foolishness he is punished.
Did Jesus believe in a literal hell? I don't believe he did as I've explained in an earlier post. If, however, he did than he was mistaken.
The phrase "kingdom of heaven" was used by the writer because they did not like to use the word "God" which they usually replace with "Adonai". Of course if one does not follow in the footsteps of Jesus one cannot enter the kingdom of God because such behaviour is not part of that kingdom.
"Shall be in danger of judgment." is not a statement of certitude. Of course if one killed another back in those days it is likely that others would take revenge. It certainly was a valid warning since one does create their own hell. The use of hell fire did not in all likelihood come from the lips of Jesus but once again was a creation of the early church. Once again, if Jesus actually believed in a literal hell than he was mistaken. However, if he spoke of hell it is as I have said elsewhere. We create our own hell.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
As for hell and judgment once again that is something best left up to God since that enters the realm of the divine and is beyond our ability to conceptualize. Leave it up to God. It is called "trust" in God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As for hell and judgment once again that is something best left up to God since that enters the realm of the divine and is beyond our ability to conceptualize. Leave it up to God. It is called "trust" in God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted and Jester thread....
jester:-6
"While the Beatitudes convey genuine religious ideas of Jesus, the literary form is not of his own making." p 317 "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ", Geza Vermes, 0-713-99567-X.
"The parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus 9Luke 16:19-31): [editorial-Parisee teaching of Jewish-Christians." What is being said here is that Jesus did not say this parable. It is an editorial addition. The truth involved is to show how serious such a situation is viewed by those who trust in God. Ibid. 427. There is nothing to reconcile here.
Righteousness comes through faith "trust" in the divine (Rom. 9:30; Heb. 11:7). Of course Acts 10 also tells us that whomever does what is right are acceptable to God.
That you do not accept that we cannot know the essence of God but only His activities in the world, I cannot help. It has been part of the Christian faith since the beginning. On the net you can look up Father Thomas Keating or the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault or you can check the writing of Meister Eckhart. You will get the same opinion from them as well as many others.
As far as accepting some of the scriptures and not others you do exactly the same thing and try to justify it. You deny that eating shell fish is wrong but you think homosexuality is wrong. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. The only difference is that I openly admit that some parts are not reflective of God.
The history of the Bible, not biblical history, is quite an eye opener. The editorialists, redactors, copyists and the early church have all changed parts of the Bible from their original. The Gospels are not written by eye witnesses but by evangelists working from history remembered and history metaphorized. The evangelists often put words in Jesus mouth to make a religious point. As I have repeatedly said the Bible is not in and of itself the word of God but becomes the word of God because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible and as with all literature there can be many equally valid interpretations. This can be witnessed through the fact of some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world.
Judgment is the purview of the divine and we are not able to deal with it in any meaningful way because we cannot grasp the very essence of God.
If you don't want to follow my path I have no problem with that. That is your choice. Your path is not mine in one sense. On the other hand Jesus is Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"While the Beatitudes convey genuine religious ideas of Jesus, the literary form is not of his own making." p 317 "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ", Geza Vermes, 0-713-99567-X.
"The parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus 9Luke 16:19-31): [editorial-Parisee teaching of Jewish-Christians." What is being said here is that Jesus did not say this parable. It is an editorial addition. The truth involved is to show how serious such a situation is viewed by those who trust in God. Ibid. 427. There is nothing to reconcile here.
Righteousness comes through faith "trust" in the divine (Rom. 9:30; Heb. 11:7). Of course Acts 10 also tells us that whomever does what is right are acceptable to God.
That you do not accept that we cannot know the essence of God but only His activities in the world, I cannot help. It has been part of the Christian faith since the beginning. On the net you can look up Father Thomas Keating or the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault or you can check the writing of Meister Eckhart. You will get the same opinion from them as well as many others.
As far as accepting some of the scriptures and not others you do exactly the same thing and try to justify it. You deny that eating shell fish is wrong but you think homosexuality is wrong. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. The only difference is that I openly admit that some parts are not reflective of God.
The history of the Bible, not biblical history, is quite an eye opener. The editorialists, redactors, copyists and the early church have all changed parts of the Bible from their original. The Gospels are not written by eye witnesses but by evangelists working from history remembered and history metaphorized. The evangelists often put words in Jesus mouth to make a religious point. As I have repeatedly said the Bible is not in and of itself the word of God but becomes the word of God because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible and as with all literature there can be many equally valid interpretations. This can be witnessed through the fact of some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world.
Judgment is the purview of the divine and we are not able to deal with it in any meaningful way because we cannot grasp the very essence of God.
If you don't want to follow my path I have no problem with that. That is your choice. Your path is not mine in one sense. On the other hand Jesus is Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6