|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 18:28:16 GMT -5
you mean matthew, mark, luke and john, peter and james? Thanks Wally. I should have made myself clearer. 2 PETER 1 16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Could 2 PETER 1 be a metaphor? 2 PETER 1 is the Napkin religion claim. .
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 19:04:39 GMT -5
Are these true Christians experiencing the true Holy Spirit? Some would say yes, some would say no, and each may have a verse or two to back up their claim. To me it's human emotions, and not a very healthy kind of delusion. youtu.be/y2Lb--n7NP8
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 14, 2014 19:42:26 GMT -5
Ah, this is a very good example, although it took me a bit to see where you were going with this. (I can be a bit dense sometimes.) Yes, if God literally dictated the words or the thoughts to the writer then you'd think He would take care that at least the i's were dotted and t's crossed. I have similar issues with the Creation story, and other descriptions and explanations within the Bible that reflect the cultural optics and limited scientific knowledge of the writer. If God was dictating the words, you'd think he would take more care to get it exactly right. However, if we take Scripture as "inspired" by God, that is, God motivated the writer in a commonsensical way then these small differences lend more credence to the story rather than less. It is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was. I feel the same way about inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. There are notable inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus after he died. That adds to the veracity of the accounts because the writers wrote the authentic truth as they understood or saw it without trying to varnish or harmonise the accounts. And the important stuff is the same in all four accounts. Whathat, I have no difficulty in believing that the writers of much of what is written in the bible was inspired by the writers’ belief in God but that is very different to saying that they were inspired by God. You have provided nothing as regards the basis for your belief that all the books of the bible were inspired by God = nor indeed the basis for your belief that that no other religious books were inspired by God – if indeed these are your beliefs. You state that “it is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was” which is just about as meaningless a statement as you can get. Furthermore, you state that you’ll get more out of an extra hour reading the bible than reading any other sacred text which immediately raises the question of how on earth you know what you’ll get out of a book that you haven’t yet read. Perhaps it would be helpful to the debate by setting out what you believe as regards the ‘divine’ authorship of the bible and other religious texts and your basis for it. In particular I’d be interested in (a) if, (b) when, and (c) how, you came to the conclusion that all the books of the bible were inspired by God, (d) whether you started to believe in God prior to coming to the conclusion that all the books in the bible were inspired by God or afterwards and (e) why you reject the claim that the books of the bible were merely written by men who believed in God but that God Himself played no part at all. Matt10 Hi, Matt10. I don't mean to slight any other spiritual works, but my post-modern view is that you can't make sense out of a culture unless you're fully immersed in it. Yes, I've had cursory looks at other sacred texts, attended a conference or two and enjoyed conversation with people of other faiths. I just believe they're not going to provide me all that much at this point, but that's entirely a personal view. Regarding God's role in inspiring the Bible writers - if I or anyone else on the face of the planet, can have a personal relationship with God, why wouldn't the writers of the Bible be able to have one? But I don't take the view that the Bible is inerrant. It has errors of fact, no intentional deception surely, but limited by what was in the minds of the writers. I also don't accept the idea of canonicity - that is, that some books are wholly correct and indisputable and other books from Bible days must be incorrect or inferior, deemed apocrypha. If there was a big gap between the two kinds of books then we wouldn't have so many versions of the Bible with different books in each one. Regarding timing I would have believed in God before I could read, so thus, before I read the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 14, 2014 19:48:58 GMT -5
Ah, this is a very good example, although it took me a bit to see where you were going with this. (I can be a bit dense sometimes.) Yes, if God literally dictated the words or the thoughts to the writer then you'd think He would take care that at least the i's were dotted and t's crossed. I have similar issues with the Creation story, and other descriptions and explanations within the Bible that reflect the cultural optics and limited scientific knowledge of the writer. If God was dictating the words, you'd think he would take more care to get it exactly right. However, if we take Scripture as "inspired" by God, that is, God motivated the writer in a commonsensical way then these small differences lend more credence to the story rather than less. It is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was. I feel the same way about inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. There are notable inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus after he died. That adds to the veracity of the accounts because the writers wrote the authentic truth as they understood or saw it without trying to varnish or harmonise the accounts. And the important stuff is the same in all four accounts. I understand you believe that the bible is NOT infallible, and NOT inerrant, and this evidence strengthens your believe that the bible is authentic. I see it differently. For example; If I compared a stack of dollar bills and found differences these differences would be a reason to suspect I might have a counterfeit. Inerrant - no errors Infallible - there can be no errors Ram's post works well for me. If you will, we are getting the divine message reflected through human limitations in knowledge, cultural world view and individual personalities, but the source is the same. 1 john 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 7:48:27 GMT -5
I understand you believe that the bible is NOT infallible, and NOT inerrant, and this evidence strengthens your believe that the bible is authentic. I see it differently. For example; If I compared a stack of dollar bills and found differences these differences would be a reason to suspect I might have a counterfeit. Inerrant - no errors Infallible - there can be no errors Ram's post works well for me. If you will, we are getting the divine message reflected through human limitations in knowledge, cultural world view and individual personalities, but the source is the same. 1 john 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, What hat, just to be clear .... your basis for believing all the books of the bible have been inspired by God ..... is because people can be inspired by God today? And all the errors, descrepancies and contradictions in the bibles are as a result of man's limitations but none of those errors, contradictions or descrepancies affect what you refer to as the divine message ..... despite the fact the men who recorded the devine message were the very same men who recorded the errors, contradictions and descrepancies? This sounds very like wishful thinking to me. Can you really rule out the possibility that the books of the bible were written by men who were inspired by their belief in God rather than being inspired by God? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 15, 2014 11:16:24 GMT -5
Ram's post works well for me. If you will, we are getting the divine message reflected through human limitations in knowledge, cultural world view and individual personalities, but the source is the same. 1 john 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, What hat, just to be clear .... your basis for believing all the books of the bible have been inspired by God ..... is because people can be inspired by God today? And all the errors, descrepancies and contradictions in the bibles are as a result of man's limitations but none of those errors, contradictions or descrepancies affect what you refer to as the divine message ..... despite the fact the men who recorded the devine message were the very same men who recorded the errors, contradictions and descrepancies? This sounds very like wishful thinking to me. Can you really rule out the possibility that the books of the bible were written by men who were inspired by their belief in God rather than being inspired by God? Matt10 I see the question of "divine knowledge" versus "belief" has come up in a few posts, so I had a chance to think about that since yesterday. So, "divine knowledge" is belief. I mean, you can't empirically test for the products of divine knowledge the way you can test whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. So it is "belief". However, it's not just any "belief", but belief that drives to certain universals. Like the importance of love, but not only that. That investments or sacrifices made in compassionate activity will prove themselves worthwhile; if not in this life then in the hereafter. Also, that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, and that in the hereafter, there will be no more sorrow, tears or hate. This is what I would call "divine knowledge", not so much that Jesus is God, which after all, is a kind of knowledge not accessible to most of humanity, so is immediately disqualified as divine knowledge. Divine knowledge should be things that almost everyone can know or understand. I'm very much in the favour of democratising divine knowledge. If you say something is divine knowledge, and you believe it, then I can run with that. But please don't ask me or try to force me to accept something as divine unless I see it too. This is my chief objection to many churches and theologians today ... that they REQUIRE or try to force you to accept something you don't see. I don't even mind if someone says, we believe in eternal Hell, for example, and before worshiping with us, you should believe that too. That's fair game. However ... there is a hierarchy of divine knowledge, so-called, but it is FALSE, that is used to preserve and protect a hierarchy of power. And the centre of it is an exclusive claim that Jesus is God, originally meant to marginalise and persecute Jews, and has served well since to keep everyone buying in to a "code of loyalty". It is not divine knowledge; it is not even in the Bible. Within that hierarchy there are a LOT of good people doing good things, but ultimately they are often co-opted into fighting wars, keeping the church "pure", genocide, little things like that, because in many churches loyalty to the tribe trumps the basic instinct of people to do good. The hierarchy is supported with a pseudo-science called theology that purports to be "divine", but as I said, is meant to keep the church tribal structure intact. Out of that flow distinctions like church/ sect/ cult and doctrine/ heterodoxy/ heresy, which are nice little categories to keep everything lined up and straight. Hierarchies can also do a lot of good .. I must add that, and to get things done, we need leadership, and so on. So we can't get around hierarchies, but they can do a lot of damage to "divine knowledge" or a person's relationship with God, I'm afraid. I get a little tired of people telling me that I don't have things right, and cannot follow Jesus, because I don't accept this or that idea ... what are generally worthless or debilitating ideas that I have to reject. Too much of that going on in this world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 18:16:53 GMT -5
What hat, just to be clear .... your basis for believing all the books of the bible have been inspired by God ..... is because people can be inspired by God today? And all the errors, descrepancies and contradictions in the bibles are as a result of man's limitations but none of those errors, contradictions or descrepancies affect what you refer to as the divine message ..... despite the fact the men who recorded the devine message were the very same men who recorded the errors, contradictions and descrepancies? This sounds very like wishful thinking to me. Can you really rule out the possibility that the books of the bible were written by men who were inspired by their belief in God rather than being inspired by God? Matt10 I see the question of "divine knowledge" versus "belief" has come up in a few posts, so I had a chance to think about that since yesterday. So, "divine knowledge" is belief. I mean, you can't empirically test for the products of divine knowledge the way you can test whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. So it is "belief". However, it's not just any "belief", but belief that drives to certain universals. Like the importance of love, but not only that. That investments or sacrifices made in compassionate activity will prove themselves worthwhile; if not in this life then in the hereafter. Also, that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, and that in the hereafter, there will be no more sorrow, tears or hate. This is what I would call "divine knowledge", not so much that Jesus is God, which after all, is a kind of knowledge not accessible to most of humanity, so is immediately disqualified as divine knowledge. Divine knowledge should be things that almost everyone can know or understand. I'm very much in the favour of democratising divine knowledge. If you say something is divine knowledge, and you believe it, then I can run with that. But please don't ask me or try to force me to accept something as divine unless I see it too. This is my chief objection to many churches and theologians today ... that they REQUIRE or try to force you to accept something you don't see. I don't even mind if someone says, we believe in eternal Hell, for example, and before worshiping with us, you should believe that too. That's fair game. However ... there is a hierarchy of divine knowledge, so-called, but it is FALSE, that is used to preserve and protect a hierarchy of power. And the centre of it is an exclusive claim that Jesus is God, originally meant to marginalise and persecute Jews, and has served well since to keep everyone buying in to a "code of loyalty". It is not divine knowledge; it is not even in the Bible. Within that hierarchy there are a LOT of good people doing good things, but ultimately they are often co-opted into fighting wars, keeping the church "pure", genocide, little things like that, because in many churches loyalty to the tribe trumps the basic instinct of people to do good. The hierarchy is supported with a pseudo-science called theology that purports to be "divine", but as I said, is meant to keep the church tribal structure intact. Out of that flow distinctions like church/ sect/ cult and doctrine/ heterodoxy/ heresy, which are nice little categories to keep everything lined up and straight. Hierarchies can also do a lot of good .. I must add that, and to get things done, we need leadership, and so on. So we can't get around hierarchies, but they can do a lot of damage to "divine knowledge" or a person's relationship with God, I'm afraid. I get a little tired of people telling me that I don't have things right, and cannot follow Jesus, because I don't accept this or that idea ... what are generally worthless or debilitating ideas that I have to reject. Too much of that going on in this world. Whathat, I barely understood any of this. I certainly don't recognise any of this as being a response to any of what I deem to be the rather simple questions/points I put to you in my previous post. As to your attempts at explaining what the term 'devine knowledge' means I think it might be best described as confused. Do you think it might be possible to explain what you mean by 'Devine knowledge' in plain, simple language inside a couple of paragraphs and also explain the difference between the term 'Devine knowledge' which you refer to here and the term 'Devine message' which you referred to previously? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 15, 2014 22:02:12 GMT -5
I see the question of "divine knowledge" versus "belief" has come up in a few posts, so I had a chance to think about that since yesterday. So, "divine knowledge" is belief. I mean, you can't empirically test for the products of divine knowledge the way you can test whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. So it is "belief". However, it's not just any "belief", but belief that drives to certain universals. Like the importance of love, but not only that. That investments or sacrifices made in compassionate activity will prove themselves worthwhile; if not in this life then in the hereafter. Also, that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, and that in the hereafter, there will be no more sorrow, tears or hate. This is what I would call "divine knowledge", not so much that Jesus is God, which after all, is a kind of knowledge not accessible to most of humanity, so is immediately disqualified as divine knowledge. Divine knowledge should be things that almost everyone can know or understand. I'm very much in the favour of democratising divine knowledge. If you say something is divine knowledge, and you believe it, then I can run with that. But please don't ask me or try to force me to accept something as divine unless I see it too. This is my chief objection to many churches and theologians today ... that they REQUIRE or try to force you to accept something you don't see. I don't even mind if someone says, we believe in eternal Hell, for example, and before worshiping with us, you should believe that too. That's fair game. However ... there is a hierarchy of divine knowledge, so-called, but it is FALSE, that is used to preserve and protect a hierarchy of power. And the centre of it is an exclusive claim that Jesus is God, originally meant to marginalise and persecute Jews, and has served well since to keep everyone buying in to a "code of loyalty". It is not divine knowledge; it is not even in the Bible. Within that hierarchy there are a LOT of good people doing good things, but ultimately they are often co-opted into fighting wars, keeping the church "pure", genocide, little things like that, because in many churches loyalty to the tribe trumps the basic instinct of people to do good. The hierarchy is supported with a pseudo-science called theology that purports to be "divine", but as I said, is meant to keep the church tribal structure intact. Out of that flow distinctions like church/ sect/ cult and doctrine/ heterodoxy/ heresy, which are nice little categories to keep everything lined up and straight. Hierarchies can also do a lot of good .. I must add that, and to get things done, we need leadership, and so on. So we can't get around hierarchies, but they can do a lot of damage to "divine knowledge" or a person's relationship with God, I'm afraid. I get a little tired of people telling me that I don't have things right, and cannot follow Jesus, because I don't accept this or that idea ... what are generally worthless or debilitating ideas that I have to reject. Too much of that going on in this world. Whathat, I barely understood any of this. I certainly don't recognise any of this as being a response to any of what I deem to be the rather simple questions/points I put to you in my previous post. As to your attempts at explaining what the term 'devine knowledge' means I think it might be best described as confused. Do you think it might be possible to explain what you mean by 'Devine knowledge' in plain, simple language inside a couple of paragraphs and also explain the difference between the term 'Devine knowledge' which you refer to here and the term 'Devine message' which you referred to previously? Matt10 Yes, it's the kind of thing that you can't understand unless you've read in the areas I've read and already have a head start on what I'm trying to say. I could clean up and unpack my post to make it more readable, but I don't have time at the moment. For now, may I suggest a primer on Michel Foucault. If I do actually answer someone's question in my posts, it's generally regarded as a lucky coincidence. I do enjoy your questions and find them very thought provoking. Unfortunately they don't provoke thoughts that in any way would resemble what one might call an "answer".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 2:32:03 GMT -5
Whathat, I barely understood any of this. I certainly don't recognise any of this as being a response to any of what I deem to be the rather simple questions/points I put to you in my previous post. As to your attempts at explaining what the term 'devine knowledge' means I think it might be best described as confused. Do you think it might be possible to explain what you mean by 'Devine knowledge' in plain, simple language inside a couple of paragraphs and also explain the difference between the term 'Devine knowledge' which you refer to here and the term 'Devine message' which you referred to previously? Matt10 Yes, it's the kind of thing that you can't understand unless you've read in the areas I've read and already have a head start on what I'm trying to say. I could clean up and unpack my post to make it more readable, but I don't have time at the moment. For now, may I suggest a primer on Michel Foucault. If I do actually answer someone's question in my posts, it's generally regarded as a lucky coincidence. I do enjoy your questions and find them very thought provoking. Unfortunately they don't provoke thoughts that in any way would resemble what one might call an "answer". What hat, these questions are not difficult. It is surely not a question of not having the time nor should it be necessary for me to have read what you have read in order for me to understand your answers to straightforward questions. I really am not intellectually deficient to any great extent. I do wonder what is the purpose of you commencing this thread. It can't be to engage in debate if as you acknowledge you don't actually answer questions. Nor can it be to inform and educate the membership of the board if it is a prerequisite for understanding what you write for the reader to have already read what you have read. I'm reluctant to play the man rather than the ball but as one who has been highly and consistently critical of the academic work of others on this board, it is remarkable how un-academic your contributions to this thread are. Whether you agree with Dr Grey's conclusion or not, at least his work sets out the basis for his conclusion thereby leaving it open to challenge. Commencing a debate on the authorship of the bible by the Holy Spirit without being able to say anything at all in relation to why you believe the bible was authored by the Holy Spirit (in a manner which anyone else can understand) strikes me as very odd. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 16, 2014 9:58:34 GMT -5
Yes, it's the kind of thing that you can't understand unless you've read in the areas I've read and already have a head start on what I'm trying to say. I could clean up and unpack my post to make it more readable, but I don't have time at the moment. For now, may I suggest a primer on Michel Foucault. If I do actually answer someone's question in my posts, it's generally regarded as a lucky coincidence. I do enjoy your questions and find them very thought provoking. Unfortunately they don't provoke thoughts that in any way would resemble what one might call an "answer". What hat, these questions are not difficult. It is surely not a question of not having the time nor should it be necessary for me to have read what you have read in order for me to understand your answers to straightforward questions. I really am not intellectually deficient to any great extent. I do wonder what is the purpose of you commencing this thread. It can't be to engage in debate if as you acknowledge you don't actually answer questions. Nor can it be to inform and educate the membership of the board if it is a prerequisite for understanding what you write for the reader to have already read what you have read. I'm reluctant to play the man rather than the ball but as one who has been highly and consistently critical of the academic work of others on this board, it is remarkable how un-academic your contributions to this thread are. Whether you agree with Dr Grey's conclusion or not, at least his work sets out the basis for his conclusion thereby leaving it open to challenge. Commencing a debate on the authorship of the bible by the Holy Spirit without being able to say anything at all in relation to why you believe the bible was authored by the Holy Spirit (in a manner which anyone else can understand) strikes me as very odd. Matt10 We're not talking here about my thread, but your questions and your agenda. I'm free to deal with whatever parts of your question that offer me some measure of enjoyment. The same goes with any topic or question that I pose; they should be received in the spirit of amity and interest. If you don't like the thread or the question then find something you do like, you're wasting significant minutes of your life and mine just carping here on my doorstep. With regard to the question of divine knowledge, which was your question, not mine, the question you've asked is very deep and doesn't close around simple answers. If you want pat answers then go to Irvine Grey's church; you won't get them from me. As I've already said, read Michel Foucault, then we can talk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:33:05 GMT -5
What hat, these questions are not difficult. It is surely not a question of not having the time nor should it be necessary for me to have read what you have read in order for me to understand your answers to straightforward questions. I really am not intellectually deficient to any great extent. I do wonder what is the purpose of you commencing this thread. It can't be to engage in debate if as you acknowledge you don't actually answer questions. Nor can it be to inform and educate the membership of the board if it is a prerequisite for understanding what you write for the reader to have already read what you have read. I'm reluctant to play the man rather than the ball but as one who has been highly and consistently critical of the academic work of others on this board, it is remarkable how un-academic your contributions to this thread are. Whether you agree with Dr Grey's conclusion or not, at least his work sets out the basis for his conclusion thereby leaving it open to challenge. Commencing a debate on the authorship of the bible by the Holy Spirit without being able to say anything at all in relation to why you believe the bible was authored by the Holy Spirit (in a manner which anyone else can understand) strikes me as very odd. Matt10 We're not talking here about my thread, but your questions and your agenda. I'm free to deal with whatever parts of your question that offer me some measure of enjoyment. The same goes with any topic or question that I pose; they should be received in the spirit of amity and interest. If you don't like the thread or the question then find something you do like, you're wasting significant minutes of your life and mine just carping here on my doorstep. With regard to the question of divine knowledge, which was your question, not mine, the question you've asked is very deep and doesn't close around simple answers. If you want pat answers then go to Irvine Grey's church; you won't get them from me. As I've already said, read Michel Foucault, then we can talk. WhatHat, I don’t see my time as wasted here. I think it’s important to challenge religious beliefs which are promoted here to ensure what is being claimed stands up to scrutiny. I’m very conscious that there are susceptible people reading here, ex 2x2s and current 2x2s, many of whom have been hopelessly fooled by the 2x2 belief system. I think it is important that they aren't fooled again easily. Jumping unknowingly from one flawed belief system to another is hardly a recipe for a contented long term life plan. This board is like a market place for religious belief systems sometimes. I find that questioning is an effective way of exposing flaws in religious belief systems. I wish there had been scope for questioning the 2x2 belief system while I was growing up. But there wasn’t. Questions weren’t welcome where I was. Information was buried. Children were taught to believe and not question. I spent 20 years believing that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it wasn’t. And when people make claims that it was, I like to ask them questions about their basis for believing so. Readers can then make up their own minds as to the responses given. It’s nothing personal. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 16, 2014 20:16:41 GMT -5
We're not talking here about my thread, but your questions and your agenda. I'm free to deal with whatever parts of your question that offer me some measure of enjoyment. The same goes with any topic or question that I pose; they should be received in the spirit of amity and interest. If you don't like the thread or the question then find something you do like, you're wasting significant minutes of your life and mine just carping here on my doorstep. With regard to the question of divine knowledge, which was your question, not mine, the question you've asked is very deep and doesn't close around simple answers. If you want pat answers then go to Irvine Grey's church; you won't get them from me. As I've already said, read Michel Foucault, then we can talk. WhatHat, I don’t see my time as wasted here. I think it’s important to challenge religious beliefs which are promoted here to ensure what is being claimed stands up to scrutiny. I’m very conscious that there are susceptible people reading here, ex 2x2s and current 2x2s, many of whom have been hopelessly fooled by the 2x2 belief system. I think it is important that they aren't fooled again easily. Jumping unknowingly from one flawed belief system to another is hardly a recipe for a contented long term life plan. This board is like a market place for religious belief systems sometimes. I find that questioning is an effective way of exposing flaws in religious belief systems. I wish there had been scope for questioning the 2x2 belief system while I was growing up. But there wasn’t. Questions weren’t welcome where I was. Information was buried. Children were taught to believe and not question. I spent 20 years believing that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it wasn’t. And when people make claims that it was, I like to ask them questions about their basis for believing so. Readers can then make up their own minds as to the responses given. It’s nothing personal. Matt10 Hmm. Where did I use the words, "the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit"?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 16, 2014 23:54:19 GMT -5
I think in your first post on this, you implied that it was not , what hat. Fair enough. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 1:33:30 GMT -5
WhatHat, I don’t see my time as wasted here. I think it’s important to challenge religious beliefs which are promoted here to ensure what is being claimed stands up to scrutiny. I’m very conscious that there are susceptible people reading here, ex 2x2s and current 2x2s, many of whom have been hopelessly fooled by the 2x2 belief system. I think it is important that they aren't fooled again easily. Jumping unknowingly from one flawed belief system to another is hardly a recipe for a contented long term life plan. This board is like a market place for religious belief systems sometimes. I find that questioning is an effective way of exposing flaws in religious belief systems. I wish there had been scope for questioning the 2x2 belief system while I was growing up. But there wasn’t. Questions weren’t welcome where I was. Information was buried. Children were taught to believe and not question. I spent 20 years believing that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it wasn’t. And when people make claims that it was, I like to ask them questions about their basis for believing so. Readers can then make up their own minds as to the responses given. It’s nothing personal. Matt10 Hmm. Where did I use the words, "the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit"? What hat, I invited you to clarify what you are saying regarding the bible being inspired by God but you didn't. If I have misrepresented you then this may be a good opportunity for you to clarify what you are inferring is the link between the authorship of the bible and the Holy Spirit/God ... or to reject any link. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 17, 2014 13:39:26 GMT -5
Hmm. Where did I use the words, "the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit"? What hat, I invited you to clarify what you are saying regarding the bible being inspired by God but you didn't. If I have misrepresented you then this may be a good opportunity for you to clarify what you are inferring is the link between the authorship of the bible and the Holy Spirit/God ... or to reject any link. Matt10 Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. I think that is fair to say, although people certainly have different ideas about the nature of that conversation. The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him. I do not believe that the nature of the conversation is in any way different from the kind of conversations people have with God today. Thus I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, anymore than I might believe any Christian's ideas to be inerrant. However, I do believe that there are variations in the "quality" of the content of the conversation. The Bible writers are writers of ancient days who wrote down the events of their lives, the oral history of their people, and also participated and were led by a conversation with God. The things they wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value. I know that answer may not satisfy you. Your tendency, I think, is not to accept any explanation that does not involve a "connect the dots" physical explanation of how God's thoughts migrate to our thoughts. I don't have an answer along that line. I do believe that we're all born with an innate quality to suss out God's direction; some people listen to this and some do not. I also believe that people will think certain messages come from God and they are misled. I believe that much of church teaching and theology is along this line. This is where I probably lose people and start talking about Michel Foucault and the relationship between knowledge and power, especially within a religious system. But maybe I can give another kick at the can this way. If someone can convince you that they have a "special" pipeline to God, to understand his will or know what He is thinking, then they have power over you, and that is very intoxicating and inviting to a lot of people. When you look at a church or religious system, there's usually a hierarchical system of power according to who knows the most about God and who knows the least. The knowledge flowing from the more knowledgeable to the less knowledgeable (as perceived) tends to depart from the conversation that individuals might have with God on their own, directly. So knowledge coming out of religious hierarchies, either academic or ministerial, should be mistrusted. It shouldn't necessarily be rejected, but such knowledge is compromised toward serving those in power, more than actually helping people in providing moral guidance and wisdom, or anything in the way of hope and encouragement.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 17, 2014 22:29:23 GMT -5
What hat, I invited you to clarify what you are saying regarding the bible being inspired by God but you didn't. If I have misrepresented you then this may be a good opportunity for you to clarify what you are inferring is the link between the authorship of the bible and the Holy Spirit/God ... or to reject any link. Matt10 Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. I think that is fair to say, although people certainly have different ideas about the nature of that conversation. The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him. I do not believe that the nature of the conversation is in any way different from the kind of conversations people have with God today. Thus I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, anymore than I might believe any Christian's ideas to be inerrant. However, I do believe that there are variations in the "quality" of the content of the conversation. The Bible writers are writers of ancient days who wrote down the events of their lives, the oral history of their people, and also participated and w ere led by a conversation with God. The things they wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote What Hat, may I join the conversation about the subject of people having a "conversation with God?"
You say that, "Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. Also that, "The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him."
My question is do you also believe that, lets just use the example of the followers of Hinduism, are also involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God?
Or is this God you speak of only the OT/Christian God?
If You do not think that the followers of Hindu conversation is with a valid God, -where do you think that their beliefs come from?
You say that, "The things they (OT/Christian Bible writers) wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value.
Would you also say that the The things they (Hindu Veda writers) wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value?
You say you "believe that people will think certain messages come from God and they are misled. "
How can you determine which messages come from God and which do not? And who makes that decision that the messages are from God and who can't?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 17, 2014 22:36:24 GMT -5
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. Is he also having a legitimate conversation with God?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 17, 2014 22:47:54 GMT -5
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. Is he also having a legitimate conversation with God? I thought this interesting about Neale Donald Walsch's work.Parallels in other belief systems
"In the dialogue many philosophical ideas are presented that had already been advanced earlier by major Eastern and Western thinkers, but Walsch presents the information in language for modern readers and does not specifically cite any of these philosophers. In fact, Walsch claims that he had never known most of these ideas before his revelatory experiences." wiki
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 17, 2014 23:29:54 GMT -5
Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. I think that is fair to say, although people certainly have different ideas about the nature of that conversation. The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him. I do not believe that the nature of the conversation is in any way different from the kind of conversations people have with God today. Thus I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, anymore than I might believe any Christian's ideas to be inerrant. However, I do believe that there are variations in the "quality" of the content of the conversation. The Bible writers are writers of ancient days who wrote down the events of their lives, the oral history of their people, and also participated and w ere led by a conversation with God. The things they wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote What Hat, may I join the conversation about the subject of people having a "conversation with God?"
You say that, "Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. Also that, "The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him."
My question is do you also believe that, lets just use the example of the followers of Hinduism, are also involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God?
Or is this God you speak of only the OT/Christian God?
If You do not think that the followers of Hindu conversation is with a valid God, -where do you think that their beliefs come from?
You say that, "The things they (OT/Christian Bible writers) wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value.
Would you also say that the The things they (Hindu Veda writers) wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value?
You say you "believe that people will think certain messages come from God and they are misled. "
How can you determine which messages come from God and which do not? And who makes that decision that the messages are from God and who can't?
My wife and I attended an all day conference a few years ago with the subject "Who is God"? The presenters included a Sikh, a Hindu, Muslim, native spiritualist, Christian, Buddhist and humanist. As best I could tell all except the Buddhist and humanist were involved in a conversation with God. My favourite speaker was the native spiritualist, that is, the one to whom I could best relate. My least favourite was the Christian. I believe that we can make a determination about other messages in relation to where we sit at that moment. For example, 30 years ago I was on a journey with God but less mature than I was today. I'd evaluate differently today than I would have 30 years ago. But what would have helped me back then is not what would help me today. The story of God speaking through a donkey is very valid. The meaning of a message from God has a lot to do with the condition of the hearer, and what I hear and what works for me might not work for you. What I'm trying to get at is that it is difficult to evaluate a message from God in any objective way. But I think there is some growth along life's journey, so you can say .. hmm, that one thing I used to believe or thought I knew wasn't actually valid. For me, the process has been to narrow my beliefs to a few very simple Biblically-based principles by which I judge other beliefs or statements. It has taken a lifetime to get there. Within Hindu-ism I couldn't make that kind of evaluation because I haven't lived Hindu-ism. Within the Hindu sphere I don't know what is wise and what is sophistry.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 18, 2014 1:57:02 GMT -5
What Hat, may I join the conversation about the subject of people having a "conversation with God?"
You say that, "Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. Also that, "The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him."
My question is do you also believe that, lets just use the example of the followers of Hinduism, are also involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God?
Or is this God you speak of only the OT/Christian God?
If You do not think that the followers of Hindu conversation is with a valid God, -where do you think that their beliefs come from?
You say that, "The things they (OT/Christian Bible writers) wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value.
Would you also say that the The things they (Hindu Veda writers) wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value?
You say you "believe that people will think certain messages come from God and they are misled. "
How can you determine which messages come from God and which do not? And who makes that decision that the messages are from God and who can't?
My wife and I attended an all day conference a few years ago with the subject "Who is God"? The presenters included a Sikh, a Hindu, Muslim, native spiritualist, Christian, Buddhist and humanist. As best I could tell all except the Buddhist and humanist were involved in a conversation with God. My favourite speaker was the native spiritualist, that is, the one to whom I could best relate. My least favourite was the Christian. I believe that we can make a determination about other messages in relation to where we sit at that moment. For example, 30 years ago I was on a journey with God but less mature than I was today. I'd evaluate differently today than I would have 30 years ago. But what would have helped me back then is not what would help me today. The story of God speaking through a donkey is very valid. The meaning of a message from God has a lot to do with the condition of the hearer, and what I hear and what works for me might not work for you. What I'm trying to get at is that it is difficult to evaluate a message from God in any objective way. But I think there is some growth along life's journey, so you can say .. hmm, that one thing I used to believe or thought I knew wasn't actually valid. For me, the process has been to narrow my beliefs to a few very simple Biblically-based principles by which I judge other beliefs or statements. It has taken a lifetime to get there. Within Hindu-ism I couldn't make that kind of evaluation because I haven't lived Hindu-ism. Within the Hindu sphere I don't know what is wise and what is sophistry. Y ou had me interested until you stated this: "The story of God speaking through a donkey is very valid."
Such a statement is hardly "simple Biblically-based principle"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 18, 2014 8:46:47 GMT -5
My wife and I attended an all day conference a few years ago with the subject "Who is God"? The presenters included a Sikh, a Hindu, Muslim, native spiritualist, Christian, Buddhist and humanist. As best I could tell all except the Buddhist and humanist were involved in a conversation with God. My favourite speaker was the native spiritualist, that is, the one to whom I could best relate. My least favourite was the Christian. I believe that we can make a determination about other messages in relation to where we sit at that moment. For example, 30 years ago I was on a journey with God but less mature than I was today. I'd evaluate differently today than I would have 30 years ago. But what would have helped me back then is not what would help me today. The story of God speaking through a donkey is very valid. The meaning of a message from God has a lot to do with the condition of the hearer, and what I hear and what works for me might not work for you. What I'm trying to get at is that it is difficult to evaluate a message from God in any objective way. But I think there is some growth along life's journey, so you can say .. hmm, that one thing I used to believe or thought I knew wasn't actually valid. For me, the process has been to narrow my beliefs to a few very simple Biblically-based principles by which I judge other beliefs or statements. It has taken a lifetime to get there. Within Hindu-ism I couldn't make that kind of evaluation because I haven't lived Hindu-ism. Within the Hindu sphere I don't know what is wise and what is sophistry. Y ou had me interested until you stated this: "The story of God speaking through a donkey is very valid."
Such a statement is hardly "simple Biblically-based principle"
I don't believe the donkey physically spoke, although it likely was the perception of the hearer that it did. But the point is that the "medium" by which we God speaks to us can be anything. It isn't necessarily the man or lady wearing insignia that say "I speak for God". In fact, it's probably not them at all.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 18, 2014 8:48:42 GMT -5
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. Is he also having a legitimate conversation with God? I had a quick look and think I won't be impressed but I could look again. I think the most valuable writing "outside Christianity" often comes from those who have bridged cultures or think outside the box about Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 18, 2014 17:03:49 GMT -5
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. Is he also having a legitimate conversation with God? I had a quick look and think I won't be impressed but I could look again. I think the most valuable writing "outside Christianity" often comes from those who have bridged cultures or think outside the box about Christianity. It's not your typical conversation with God, but it seems to have resonated with a lot of people because his books are selling quite well. I read them a few years ago when I was in my researching stage. I wasn't too impressed with the original 3 books, but his New Revelations wasn't too bad. He was a Catholic before he wrote these. He supposedly hit rock bottom and asked God why and in his words, God answered. Quite a few books worth actually ... He writes in a way that anyone can understand and he does seem to use a lot of the Eastern Philosophy but in his own words. As DMG says, he doesn't quote these philosophers and says he never knew about them before the conversations started. He never expected to publish his writings, so he says, but wrote them down as he was getting them then he did publish them some years later. I met him once at a conference when I was attending those things and I was not impressed with him actually. He came across as pretty egotistical but that is probably just his personality type. I think he's pretty sincere, that was my take of him, and writes with his own personality. His books are easy to read. They do challenge traditional religious beliefs but there are a lot of people that were ready for that at the time, so he has quite a community. The reason why I mentioned him is because of the conversation about having a personal relationship with God and conversations with God. That reminded me of him and his books and his claim to have had a conversation with God.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 19, 2014 12:14:55 GMT -5
I had a quick look and think I won't be impressed but I could look again. I think the most valuable writing "outside Christianity" often comes from those who have bridged cultures or think outside the box about Christianity. It's not your typical conversation with God, but it seems to have resonated with a lot of people because his books are selling quite well. I read them a few years ago when I was in my researching stage. I wasn't too impressed with the original 3 books, but his New Revelations wasn't too bad. He was a Catholic before he wrote these. He supposedly hit rock bottom and asked God why and in his words, God answered. Quite a few books worth actually ... He writes in a way that anyone can understand and he does seem to use a lot of the Eastern Philosophy but in his own words. As DMG says, he doesn't quote these philosophers and says he never knew about them before the conversations started. He never expected to publish his writings, so he says, but wrote them down as he was getting them then he did publish them some years later. I met him once at a conference when I was attending those things and I was not impressed with him actually. He came across as pretty egotistical but that is probably just his personality type. I think he's pretty sincere, that was my take of him, and writes with his own personality. His books are easy to read. They do challenge traditional religious beliefs but there are a lot of people that were ready for that at the time, so he has quite a community. The reason why I mentioned him is because of the conversation about having a personal relationship with God and conversations with God. That reminded me of him and his books and his claim to have had a conversation with God. I think the common element across all Christian denominations and sects is a conversation with God, and it's a very real thing. But there is a wide variation when you begin to ask people about their conception of who they talk to, and also what God does with the conversation. Everything from what some have facetiously called God as a personal valet service, to God the immoveable animist.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 19, 2014 13:44:39 GMT -5
It's not your typical conversation with God, but it seems to have resonated with a lot of people because his books are selling quite well. I read them a few years ago when I was in my researching stage. I wasn't too impressed with the original 3 books, but his New Revelations wasn't too bad. He was a Catholic before he wrote these. He supposedly hit rock bottom and asked God why and in his words, God answered. Quite a few books worth actually ... He writes in a way that anyone can understand and he does seem to use a lot of the Eastern Philosophy but in his own words. As DMG says, he doesn't quote these philosophers and says he never knew about them before the conversations started. He never expected to publish his writings, so he says, but wrote them down as he was getting them then he did publish them some years later. I met him once at a conference when I was attending those things and I was not impressed with him actually. He came across as pretty egotistical but that is probably just his personality type. I think he's pretty sincere, that was my take of him, and writes with his own personality. His books are easy to read. They do challenge traditional religious beliefs but there are a lot of people that were ready for that at the time, so he has quite a community. The reason why I mentioned him is because of the conversation about having a personal relationship with God and conversations with God. That reminded me of him and his books and his claim to have had a conversation with God. I think the common element across all Christian denominations and sects is a conversation with God, and it's a very real thing. But there is a wide variation when you begin to ask people about their conception of who they talk to, and also what God does with the conversation. Everything from what some have facetiously called God as a personal valet service, to God the immoveable animist. Yes I think you're right. Your conversation is as personal as the relationship. No one has the same concept of God that is identical to anyone else's I don't think. I guess the important part is not which God you talk to, how you perceive that god etc, but the relationship you have formed with that being. It is what seems to do the comforting, the transforming etc. Neale seems to have what he needs and it surpassed his experience of being a Catholic and the relationship he felt he had with that God for eg. Many since him have at least tried to have a relationship or conversation. I think the traditional Christian idea of what God is has been too aloof for many people and because of that they have left the church of their youth. Neale seemed to speak to those people and brought them back to a more connected relationship. He defines God as not unaccessible etc. That seems to resonate for a lot of people. He doesn't portray God as judgmental or sending anyone to hell, again more people are drawn to that then the old God of hell and brimstone. I think in a way the Hindu religion had a good idea when they created all those lessor Gods for people to relate to. Brahma was too unatainable and the lessor Gods were a stepping stone, someone they could relate to better than the 'Top God'. In a way that is the role Jesus plays in the Christian religion. He is more accessible because he has been a human for eg. I agree that God is used as a personal valet. Some people ask people to pray for everything. My youngest sister is like that. If the roads are icy, she comes onto face book asking everyone to pray she gets home safe. I am put off by that kind of appealing all the time, but that's my problem. It does seem to comfort her and lots of people come on assuring her they are praying for her safety. Each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 19, 2014 18:51:05 GMT -5
I think the common element across all Christian denominations and sects is a conversation with God, and it's a very real thing. But there is a wide variation when you begin to ask people about their conception of who they talk to, and also what God does with the conversation. Everything from what some have facetiously called God as a personal valet service, to God the immoveable animist. Yes I think you're right. Your conversation is as personal as the relationship. No one has the same concept of God that is identical to anyone else's I don't think. I guess the important part is not which God you talk to, how you perceive that god etc, but the relationship you have formed with that being. It is what seems to do the comforting, the transforming etc. Neale seems to have what he needs and it surpassed his experience of being a Catholic and the relationship he felt he had with that God for eg. Many since him have at least tried to have a relationship or conversation. I think the traditional Christian idea of what God is has been too aloof for many people and because of that they have left the church of their youth. Neale seemed to speak to those people and brought them back to a more connected relationship. He defines God as not unaccessible etc. That seems to resonate for a lot of people. He doesn't portray God as judgmental or sending anyone to hell, again more people are drawn to that then the old God of hell and brimstone. I think in a way the Hindu religion had a good idea when they created all those lessor Gods for people to relate to. Brahma was too unatainable and the lessor Gods were a stepping stone, someone they could relate to better than the 'Top God'. In a way that is the role Jesus plays in the Christian religion. He is more accessible because he has been a human for eg. I agree that God is used as a personal valet. Some people ask people to pray for everything. My youngest sister is like that. If the roads are icy, she comes onto face book asking everyone to pray she gets home safe. I am put off by that kind of appealing all the time, but that's my problem. It does seem to comfort her and lots of people come on assuring her they are praying for her safety. Each to their own. I think our perspective in evaluating someone like Neale is probably a bit different. You'll look broadly at what people in general might get out of him, whereas for me, I'll evaluate him on the basis of what I can get from him, personally speaking. I'm generally skeptical on the value of religious synthesis. It's not that one religion can't learn or gain from another, but I think you need to mainly work within one religious paradigm to obtain any degree of meaning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 19:01:35 GMT -5
Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. I think that is fair to say, although people certainly have different ideas about the nature of that conversation. The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him. I do not believe that the nature of the conversation is in any way different from the kind of conversations people have with God today. Thus I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, anymore than I might believe any Christian's ideas to be inerrant. However, I do believe that there are variations in the "quality" of the content of the conversation. The Bible writers are writers of ancient days who wrote down the events of their lives, the oral history of their people, and also participated and were led by a conversation with God. The things they wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value. I know that answer may not satisfy you. Your tendency, I think, is not to accept any explanation that does not involve a "connect the dots" physical explanation of how God's thoughts migrate to our thoughts. I don't have an answer along that line. I do believe that we're all born with an innate quality to suss out God's direction; some people listen to this and some do not. I also believe that people will think certain messages come from God and they are misled. I believe that much of church teaching and theology is along this line. This is where I probably lose people and start talking about Michel Foucault and the relationship between knowledge and power, especially within a religious system. But maybe I can give another kick at the can this way. If someone can convince you that they have a "special" pipeline to God, to understand his will or know what He is thinking, then they have power over you, and that is very intoxicating and inviting to a lot of people. When you look at a church or religious system, there's usually a hierarchical system of power according to who knows the most about God and who knows the least. The knowledge flowing from the more knowledgeable to the less knowledgeable (as perceived) tends to depart from the conversation that individuals might have with God on their own, directly. So knowledge coming out of religious hierarchies, either academic or ministerial, should be mistrusted. It shouldn't necessarily be rejected, but such knowledge is compromised toward serving those in power, more than actually helping people in providing moral guidance and wisdom, or anything in the way of hope and encouragement. Whathat, may I first say that this is a much more informative response. Responding in no particular order, I can't really disagree with anything you say in your third paragraph. The only point I am tempted to make is to ask you to clarify how you know that other people are misled but that you are not misled. Is there any reason why you should not be as susceptible to being unknowingly misled as anyone else? I say that as a man who has been unknowingly misled. As regards your first paragraph, you make the statement "The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him". I would say that there is absolutely no more evidence to support the view that the bible writers were inspired by God than there is to support the view that the bible authors were inspired only by their belief in (their) God. As regards paragraph 2' I think it may be worth pointing out that I too have had conversations with (what I understood at the time to be) God. Of course what I understood to be a conversation with God, I understand now to have been a conversation with a God which I had created in my head as a result of conditioning by the 2x2 system, by my exposure to the bible, by my parents, by my schooling and by society in general. I understand now that the conversations I thought I was having with (this) 'God' were not in fact conversations but rather merely exchanges of thoughts within my mind. The God which I was conversing with was not a real and independent entity with an independent mind and thoughts but rather a entity created in my head whose thoughts were solely dependent on the Christian God/bible related influences which I had previously absorbed and which consequently formed the basis of the entity which I had created in my mind. It is not so much that I do not accept any explanation that does not involve a "connect the dots" physical explanation of how God's thoughts migrate to our thoughts, but rather that I have come to realise that the thoughts that we understand to being the thoughts of a real, external, independent thinking, soul saving, loving, caring God are in fact not the thoughts of such a God at all but rather are merely our own thoughts which as a result of our bible based conditioning we interpret to be coming from a real, live, external God, irrespective of the fact that they only ever occur inside our head. Of course I would be interested in the details of any recent conversations you have had with God (what God said to you and what you said to God) and whether you can explain why God says such different things to you than He says to my Muslim neighbour who when in conversation with God is told clearly and without ambiguity that there is no God but Allah, that Allah is great, that Mohammad is his prophet and that he should set his face towards Mecca and kneel in prayer five times a day? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 20, 2014 9:46:39 GMT -5
Anyone who follows Jesus or is a Christian is involved in an active and ongoing "conversation" with God. I think that is fair to say, although people certainly have different ideas about the nature of that conversation. The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him. I do not believe that the nature of the conversation is in any way different from the kind of conversations people have with God today. Thus I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, anymore than I might believe any Christian's ideas to be inerrant. However, I do believe that there are variations in the "quality" of the content of the conversation. The Bible writers are writers of ancient days who wrote down the events of their lives, the oral history of their people, and also participated and were led by a conversation with God. The things they wrote might not be perfect but they have tremendous value. I know that answer may not satisfy you. Your tendency, I think, is not to accept any explanation that does not involve a "connect the dots" physical explanation of how God's thoughts migrate to our thoughts. I don't have an answer along that line. I do believe that we're all born with an innate quality to suss out God's direction; some people listen to this and some do not. I also believe that people will think certain messages come from God and they are misled. I believe that much of church teaching and theology is along this line. This is where I probably lose people and start talking about Michel Foucault and the relationship between knowledge and power, especially within a religious system. But maybe I can give another kick at the can this way. If someone can convince you that they have a "special" pipeline to God, to understand his will or know what He is thinking, then they have power over you, and that is very intoxicating and inviting to a lot of people. When you look at a church or religious system, there's usually a hierarchical system of power according to who knows the most about God and who knows the least. The knowledge flowing from the more knowledgeable to the less knowledgeable (as perceived) tends to depart from the conversation that individuals might have with God on their own, directly. So knowledge coming out of religious hierarchies, either academic or ministerial, should be mistrusted. It shouldn't necessarily be rejected, but such knowledge is compromised toward serving those in power, more than actually helping people in providing moral guidance and wisdom, or anything in the way of hope and encouragement. Whathat, may I first say that this is a much more informative response. Responding in no particular order, I can't really disagree with anything you say in your third paragraph. The only point I am tempted to make is to ask you to clarify how you know that other people are misled but that you are not misled. Is there any reason why you should not be as susceptible to being unknowingly misled as anyone else? I say that as a man who has been unknowingly misled. As regards your first paragraph, you make the statement "The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him". I would say that there is absolutely no more evidence to support the view that the bible writers were inspired by God than there is to support the view that the bible authors were inspired only by their belief in (their) God. I don't like chopping up posts, but there's a few questions here, and I'll resist my tendency to extemporize. First, regarding "being misled", it's all relative of course. There is no hypothesis testing or objective frame against which any of our religious or spiritual ideas can be tested. I mean, I talk to people all the time who think I'm misled as much as I think they're misled. Ask Irvine Grey about this. There is one objective test for "being misled" and that is willful blindness, and man, there is a lot of that. From friends and workers who aren't interested in details of their history, to 'Young Earth Creationists' who have strong ideas about origins but know nothing about evolution except the critiques they read, to Trinity believers who don't understand the history of the doctrine. You need to know something about both sides of the argument before you draw a conclusion. Second question. To me there is no difference between being inspired by God and being inspired by a belief in God. What's the difference? Perhaps I am missing something. I think we're not so far apart as what you might think. Of course, one's relationship with God occurs entirely in one's head as you indicate. If you watched the movie, The Matrix, we can't actually prove that all of our experience isn't happening just inside our head. I'm sure when you had the experience of walking with God it was very real for you, in spite of never actually hearing the voice of God booming across the plains as in Old Testament days, no burning bush, voice in the thunder cloud, or even a still small voice coming perhaps, from under the bed. But real, nonetheless. Aside from what is going on in our heads, people do postulate about the reality of the God that we pray to, sing about and worship. Who is He, actually? What would He look like if you saw or could see Him? How does He physically interact with the world? The Christian experience is very much a "given" experience. There it is, nice tidy little bundle, that we are raised into. I don't accept the validity of all of it as you might know from my comments on the exclusive Trinity doctrine. That can't be correct, if we think that God has anything of the quality of love that we think he should have. I'm also not a literalist. I believe the Bible has errors. I don't accept the doctrine of "substitutionary atonement". I learned to reject that doctrine, and that of the Trinity, from my years with the friends, by the way. In the process of making the Bible very real, which is what the friends do, they un-self-consciously discard much of the artifice you find in Christianity. Jesus death on the Cross is very real for me, however, very emotional and goes to the core of my being and feeling for life, for the people I know and for humanity. To me it's a symbolic act, giving one's life for what is right and true, in the face of the permeating horror of Roman military might and domination, which is the nature of human existence. The key fact is that God just let's that happen, to one of his very sons, possibly his only son. The essential aspect of following Jesus is to be willing to carry the cross. So, those things are all very real for me. And not just because they make a powerful story, but because that all actually happened. I have an interest in Jesus' life outside of what we read in the Bible, in how it has affected the lives of others throughout history. Who physically and actually is God? The Christian experience represents an encounter with God but at best we get shadows on the cave wall,as in the Platonic parable. The stuff I told you in the previous paragraph is very real for me. But if you tell me God made the Earth in six days, and he is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, I begin to draw blanks. To me that isn't real. A footnote that might help describe my experience. I listen to Anthem by Leonard Cohen, and I see an echo of the life of Jesus Christ. I hear the words "the wars they will be fought again, the holy dove will be caught again" and I see an analog of what I was telling you about Jesus on the Cross. I think what Cohen does is mainly a mash-up of Christian and Jewish concepts, and it comes out very real for people. But some atheists who like that song might be angered by the suggestion the song has anything to do with Christianity... I've encountered that, and that is very sad because it means that they don't see the Christ that I see. You might say, they've been misled ... by Christians and what they preach. Lately, I've been arguing with some Christians who tell me that I can only be a Christian if I hate homosexuality (the sin, not the person, they are always careful to say, but that's not what they mean). This also makes me sad, and I have thought of just saying that I follow Jesus, and discard the term Christian. Now, I'm wandering off topic.
|
|