How do you read the Bible without ET mindset?

[jabcat]

Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Ps 94:11

If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!  Matthew 6:23

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.  Prov. 3:5

Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!"  Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.

On topic:  "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing.  Charge these things and teach."

[reFORMer]

Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!"  Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.

On topic:  "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing.  Charge these things and teach."

The phrase, "Against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" is actually, "Against wicked 'pneumatikon'" which in 1 Corinthians 12 was rendered, "spritual gifts."  Hence, an aspect of what we strive against is "wicked gifts of the spirit."  Whether this is because some have departed from or refused entry into the Kingdom of God, though they are gifted with gifts that God will not take back, so they are using them against God and His people or these are pre-ordained spiritual workings more directly of the evil...it may be both...

[reFORMer]

Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours.  The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today.  Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur.  Even atheists.  Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not.   If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?

What you say: "...Greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue..." is what seems so overlooked by some.  There are numerous books written for hundreds of years on the difficulties and alleged discrepancies of the Bible.  While not all of the same quality, there are a number that answer so many of these common objections.  I covered that ground so many years ago I forgot much and now my books are in boxes or given away, so I lack easy answers...often I just don't have the patience to type out such irksome minutiae.  Why don't you look into some of the apologetic material online Transponder?  It's sad to know there are answers for your assertions and not be able to get them to you.

I believe there are 358 verses in Mark that are in common with the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.  This is referred to as "Q."  As a document, nothing of the sort has ever been found.  The source was probably Mary who "hid these things in her heart."

An example sometimes offered as proof of unreliability is the difference between the sermon in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 known as The Sermon on the Mount" and the sermon in Luke 6.  This is easily dealt with in that what is recorded in Luke is said to be "on the plain," an obviously different location.  Jesus was an itinerant preacher.  Like the circuit riders in the American west, He would have preached similar sermons repeatedly, according to the period of ministry He was into at the time.  I recall someone recently comparing similar occaisons where He said to someone, "Take up your bed and walk."  They thought there was some difference in the accounts.  While I didn't mention it there, here let me note that Jesus healed almost certainly more than a million people in the days of His flesh.  I wonder if it could've been more than a hundred times he used that phrase.  Why think it was only once?  Jesus "cleansed the temple" twice.  John reveals the time early in His ministry.  Some, by supposing this occured only once, have proof that somebody has put it in the wrong time sequence.  This kind of thing goes on and on.  What is accomplished with answers if they're not wanted?  It isn't that the truth is unreasonable.  It is that it is not loved.

As far as any common agendas in the gospels...you better heed them if you recognize them!  It's about what it has to do with us today.  Religious systems still oppose Jesus.  The Judaism of Jesus day was God's religion of that time.  Institutional Christianity today has many parallels with that system.

[Molly]

Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!"  Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.

On topic:  "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing.  Charge these things and teach."

The phrase, "Against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" is actually, "Against wicked 'pneumatikon'" which in 1 Corinthians 12 was rendered, "spritual gifts."  Hence, an aspect of what we strive against is "wicked gifts of the spirit."  Whether this is because some have departed from or refused entry into the Kingdom of God, though they are gifted with gifts that God will not take back, so they are using them against God and His people or these are pre-ordained spiritual workings more directly of the evil...it may be both...

You're full of all these little gems, Reformer.  This almost sounds like demon spirits.  Yes, demons full of malice.  Who knows what they are.

[wrestle against]"spiritual" wickedness
G4152
πνευματικός
pneumatikos
phyoo-mat-ik-os'
From G4151; non-carnal, that is, (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious: - spiritual. Compare G5591.


I had no idea Jesus healed a million people.  That's a lot of demons.

[Transponder]

:cloud9: It's not a question of what I believe, it's a matter of what the Spirit of God spoke out of my mouth at my bible study about 1 year after I came to him, that completely bypassed my carnal mind. See, He is a Spirit, and He can do whatever He wants with a completely surrendered vessel. Actually, He can with a completely UN-surrendered vessel also, but tries to be gentlemanly about it and not give the unbelieving heart attacks. :laughing7:

I don't think this is going anywhere and is off topic anyway. People's personal experiences are taken as empirical evidence of something and are trotted out to me as such.  have heard enough to not accept such tales at face value. I'm not saying deception, I just know that people are capable of apparently believing all sorts of things. I am back to logic and reason and evidence again, not subjective experiences. 

And; What's WRONG with  :cloud9: PINK whitewash? I happen to like pink whitewash, personally. What's neat about your color choice there, Trans, is pink is the color of His love. If you mix white (righteousness) with the red (the blood), you get pink, the love. Gosh, if I didn't know better  :winkgrin: I'd think He was starting to speak thru YOU........  :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings to you.......

It ain't my favourite colour but it's ok. Depends how it is used. On a house or fence it may make me wince but...fair enough. It's when it is used to slosh over a wallfull of information and reports that it becomes a bit annoying.

[Transponder]

Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours.  The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today.  Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur.  Even atheists. ".   If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?

How easily you revert to quoting (supposed) authority is a way that you would never do in respect of evolution. I say 'supposed' as your implied universal acceptance of the general historicity of the gospel account is by no means as universal as you would like.

But it isn't a numbers game. It isn't even an authority game. If you want authority, Molly brought to my attention that the Jefferson Bible clearly accepted the general shape of the Jesus story (in a very uncritical way) but clearly didn't accept any of the miraculous stuff.

It's probably inevitable that people will bring their own 'take' to the Gospel story. Some will be believers and some skeptics. That doesn't matter. What matters is how honestly and fully they consider the story.

One incredibly erudite book on Matthew still shrugged off the 'two donkeys' problem in a way that would have disgraced a Bible-literalist. Others have evaluated the story objectively and have produced the conclusions that I share. It doesn't take a genius to see which are looking at the problems and which are shrugging them off - as you do.

" Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not"

Sadly you persist in misrepresenting me and trying to fudge the issue. Sadly, your dishonesty - for  - Faith is becoming ever more evident. It is beside the point how smart these guys were and how well-honed their journalism was. What is at issue is that their accounts differ so strikingly at salient points that the supposition that they were eyewitness accounts cannot be sustained, and the evidence that the events have been doctored to prove Jesus miraculous, is not to be dismissed, other than by trying to ignore the whole issue in the interests of maintaining faith - as you are doing.

In the end it doesn't matter to me what you believe, what matters is what you can convince me of. So far you haven't even tried, you have evaded the whole matter, which is enough to convince me that you don't trust the gospels to add up yourself.

[Transponder]

Very well. In that case should we not try to get an overall view in comparing varying accounts, taking into account the particular angle of the paper or editir or govrnment that controls the view of the pare, rather than just accepting whatever is said, on trust?

This is getting away from the ET mindset, rather, but it does have a bearing on the sort of mentality one brings to reading the bible - or anything else, for that matter.

What is your point?  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were lousy 'journalists'?  They were not journalists, they were writing the Holy Scripture.

And, as far as modern day journalists are concerned, they write what they are told and they publish what their editor will allow.   Not much difference here, except in the above case, the editor was God.

Answered above, to Rev. G. Study - proper study of the gospels, will make it clear that the were not written by Jesus' disciples at all. That's beside the point. What is the point is that even if dumb fishermen reported something it would not differ so wildly as much of the gospel does unless someone was tinkering with the text, and it would not agree to the extent of using the same wording, unless it was common text they were tinkering with. The evidence is staring us in the face.

[Transponder]

And, as far as modern day journalists are concerned, they write what they are told and they publish what their editor will allow.   Not much difference here, except in the above case, the editor was God.

I really like this quote Molly.  As I said earlier, we all serve somebody.  Our carnal mind may think we only answer to ourselves, and we may call that logic, reason, "seeing through things", having a higher consciousness, whatever.  But I maintain we're either influenced by the god of this world, or YHWH, Father-God Who loves us and only wants what's best for us.  Trans, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think you "see through" believers.  Well, God has prepared me to be able to "see through" atheists...He has given me 40+ years of observing, interacting with, and coming to know the mindset...and He shows me that a mistaken belief in controlling one's own destiny is exactly what Satan wants carnal man to believe...that's exactly a main way he influences us, subtly whispering in our ear that we know better than God, that we really can "lean to our own understanding".  That lie is as old as this creation, and most men are still falling for it. 

Of course, we all think we know better than the other suckers who are deluded. That's why personal views are not to be trusted, and the most reliable guide is what can be shown on paper; not in the mind. What I show in paper is being ignored in favour of being told that what is in your minds must be true. And here you all are telling each other so.

[Transponder]

Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Ps 94:11

If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!  Matthew 6:23

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.  Prov. 3:5

Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!"  Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.

On topic:  "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing.  Charge these things and teach."

I don't know whether this is supposed to convince me or just give you another faith-shot, but I'll tell you now that Bible-preaching does not impress me.

[Transponder]

Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours.  The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today.  Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur.  Even atheists.  Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not.   If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?

What you say: "...Greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue..." is what seems so overlooked by some.  There are numerous books written for hundreds of years on the difficulties and alleged discrepancies of the Bible.  While not all of the same quality, there are a number that answer so many of these common objections.  I covered that ground so many years ago I forgot much and now my books are in boxes or given away, so I lack easy answers...often I just don't have the patience to type out such irksome minutiae.  Why don't you look into some of the apologetic material online Transponder?  It's sad to know there are answers for your assertions and not be able to get them to you.

I believe there are 358 verses in Mark that are in common with the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.  This is referred to as "Q."  As a document, nothing of the sort has ever been found.  The source was probably Mary who "hid these things in her heart."

An example sometimes offered as proof of unreliability is the difference between the sermon in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 known as The Sermon on the Mount" and the sermon in Luke 6.  This is easily dealt with in that what is recorded in Luke is said to be "on the plain," an obviously different location.  Jesus was an itinerant preacher.  Like the circuit riders in the American west, He would have preached similar sermons repeatedly, according to the period of ministry He was into at the time.  I recall someone recently comparing similar occaisons where He said to someone, "Take up your bed and walk."  They thought there was some difference in the accounts.  While I didn't mention it there, here let me note that Jesus healed almost certainly more than a million people in the days of His flesh.  I wonder if it could've been more than a hundred times he used that phrase.  Why think it was only once?  Jesus "cleansed the temple" twice.  John reveals the time early in His ministry.  Some, by supposing this occured only once, have proof that somebody has put it in the wrong time sequence.  This kind of thing goes on and on.  What is accomplished with answers if they're not wanted?  It isn't that the truth is unreasonable.  It is that it is not loved.

As far as any common agendas in the gospels...you better heed them if you recognize them!  It's about what it has to do with us today.  Religious systems still oppose Jesus.  The Judaism of Jesus day was God's religion of that time.  Institutional Christianity today has many parallels with that system.

I have pretty much dealt with this but I'll say (or ask) again, you really think I haven't read apologetic literature? Do you think I haven't looked up the believer explanations for these Gospel problems? It is reading those that did the most to convince me that something was wrong, because their arguments ranged from the slipshod to the irrelevant. Just the sort we have had here - suggestions that the synoptics overlooked the Thomas episode because of some personal revulsion. Or the dismissing of problems with argument from eyewitness discrepancies or 'they were not Journalists'. That is not looking at the problem, it is ignoring it.

This is a good example:

"I believe there are 358 verses in Mark that are in common with the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.  This is referred to as "Q."  As a document, nothing of the sort has ever been found.  The source was probably Mary who "hid these things in her heart."

Vague references to "Q" which sounds nice and authoritative, and is a basis for dispute even now. And then a 'probably' source (anyone will do - backed up with a Biblequote as though that proved anything)  which is enough for you to put the whole matter out of your mind and go back to Faith.

Ok, like I said to the Rev. That's your choice. But it doesn't amount to squat as sound evidence.

An example sometimes offered as proof of unreliability is the difference between the sermon in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 known as The Sermon on the Mount" and the sermon in Luke 6.  This is easily dealt with in that what is recorded in Luke is said to be "on the plain," an obviously different location.  Jesus was an itinerant preacher.  Like the circuit riders in the American west, He would have preached similar sermons repeatedly, according to the period of ministry He was into at the time.  I recall someone recently comparing similar occaisons where He said to someone, "Take up your bed and walk."  They thought there was some difference in the accounts.  While I didn't mention it there, here let me note that Jesus healed almost certainly more than a million people in the days of His flesh.  I wonder if it could've been more than a hundred times he used that phrase.  Why think it was only once?  Jesus "cleansed the temple" twice.  John reveals the time early in His ministry.  Some, by supposing this occured only once, have proof that somebody has put it in the wrong time sequence.  This kind of thing goes on and on.

Excellent. We are on the same page. That is just the conclusion I came to. The two sermons (if genuine) were given in different places. The difference between you and me is you, satisfied and your doubts put at rest, put the matter out of your mind. I didn't. I looked further. And it became clear that the historicity of the sermons is doubtful for other reasons than the discrepancies between the two versions.

Your explanation of the 'pick up your bed and walk' (I think it was me that raised the matter) is a typical example of explaining away the problem. The same phrase was used on more than one occasion. Again, satisfied, you put the matter out of your head. Taken out of the big picture that would work. Explaining each problem more or less (usually less) convincingly enables the question of historicity to be shelved.

Doesn't even need to be each problem. Find one easily explained and tacitly argue that this must explain all the others, too.

You don't need to take my word for it. Listen to Pierac, was it? and his post on the septuagint. Didn't it clear up the problem of why the gospel quotes were wrong? It was because they quoted from the Septuagint. Problem solved, except, why would supposed Galileans and Judeans take their Bible quotes from a greek translation? I have no doubt that can be shrugged off as an irrelevant detail or there must be some explanation. I could come up with a dozen myself, more or less far - fetched.

And if you really think that the gospel accounts show two separate cleansings rather than John shifted the one in time, then I cannot respect either your intelligence or honesty. Are you going to tell me that Jesus probably did a lot of temple cleansings and quite likely used the same wording on all those occasions. And so, quite probably did the sanhedrin when they came to ask what he was doing. Quite a conventional little rite. Come on; they are the same account. Be honest with yourself, even if you can't be honest with me.

What is accomplished with answers if they're not wanted?  It isn't that the truth is unreasonable.  It is that it is not loved.

As far as any common agendas in the gospels...you better heed them if you recognize them!  It's about what it has to do with us today.  Religious systems still oppose Jesus.  The Judaism of Jesus day was God's religion of that time.  Institutional Christianity today has many parallels with that system.

Have to agree. What is the use of proving anything if people won't listen? It isn't that it is wong, it is that the faithful don't want to lose their faith. I couldn't agree more. The faiths of today are looking more and more like the pharisees of the gospels. Sight more than the actual Pharisees of Jesus' time ever did. The lone voice attracted some attention but nothing but hostility amongst the 'Pharisees'. They didn't want to change their entrenched beliefs, isn't that it?.

[Molly]

The faiths of today are looking more and more like the pharisees of the gospels. Sight more than the actual Pharisees of Jesus' time ever did. The lone voice attracted some attention but nothing but hostility amongst the 'Pharisees'. They didn't want to change their entrenched beliefs, isn't that it?.

You are overlooking a few very important things.  The Pharisees were not only the religious leaders of the day, they were also the political leaders and the richest and most powerful men in the group--a combination of riches and power, such that could hold a fake mock trial and kill a man just because they didn't like what he was saying. 

So if you want to look for the Pharisees of today, look for the richest and most powerful in the group--any group you are looking at.  That is where you will find them.

Then, if you are able, scratch the surface a bit and you will find they are liars, thieves, and cheats,  robbing the people blind, and without justice or mercy, making this place hell on earth.

And, if you can do that, you may begin to understand, if not the spiritual implications, at least the social ones.

[jabcat]

Very useful points Molly.  Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.

I found some good reminders for me, may help some others as well. I'm fine with discussing things and "contending for the faith", but for my (and I believe God's) purposes, I don't feel OK about lashing out, personally attacking, etc...(not saying I'm good at this  :mblush:) It seems for the most part, IMO, everyone in this discussion has done a good job of being considerate of individual(s).  God's blessing, James.

Taken from www.believers.org/argue.htm

Why Doesn't God Settle This?

You might be frustrated with God -- thinking that He should have made things clearer so it would be impossible to doubt.

Here are some interesting Scriptures concerning people not being able to believe unless God reveals Himself to them : Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 6:44, John 6:64-65.

Interestingly, after people turned away from Him, Jesus made no effort to change their minds (John 6:66-67).

Obviously, God does not reveal Himself to everyone in the same measure. Does that mean God is unfair? No. Just that He knows people's heart and how they will respond..[and He works all according to His will--addition mine].   

God Wants Diligent Seekers

It seems God is not interested in revealing Himself to casual inquirers -- He desires diligent seekers.
HEBREWS 11:6 NKJ 

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Does God Want Us To Defend Him?

Mainly, God wants us to be a witness by walking with Him and walking in love toward our fellow-man. (God commanded us to love our neighbors -- but did not command us to convert them.)  [Only God can change the heart--addition mine].

[Molly]

It seems God is not interested in revealing Himself to casual inquirers -- He desires diligent seekers.
HEBREWS 11:6 NKJ 

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Yes, he makes this promise to those who seek him.

Deuteronomy 4:29
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Mainly, God wants us to be a witness by walking with Him and walking in love toward our fellow-man. (God commanded us to love our neighbors -- but did not command us to convert them.)  [Only God can change the heart--addition mine].

That's right, Jab.



Matthew 10:14
And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.

[Transponder]

author=Molly link=topic=2120.msg22961#msg22961 date=1205183980

The faiths of today are looking more and more like the pharisees of the gospels. Sight more than the actual Pharisees of Jesus' time ever did. The lone voice attracted some attention but nothing but hostility amongst the 'Pharisees'. They didn't want to change their entrenched beliefs, isn't that it?.

You are overlooking a few very important things.  The Pharisees were not only the religious leaders of the day, they were also the political leaders and the richest and most powerful men in the group--a combination of riches and power, such that could hold a fake mock trial and kill a man just because they didn't like what he was saying.

You are overlooking one rather important thing yourself, Molly, which is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your Gospel - derived misrepresentation of the Pharisees applies more to the Sadducees - they were the aristocratic families with riches and power - gained from working with the Romans, which is why they ran the Temple.

The Pharisees were ordinary people, learned in scripture, but doing ordinary jobs and teaching the ordinary people in synagogues. So your point below rather falls flat.

"So if you want to look for the Pharisees of today, look for the richest and most powerful in the group--any group you are looking at.  That is where you will find them."

However, that is (was) the actuality. When we talk of 'Pharisees' in the sense of Biblical hostility to the 'lone voice' we are talking of the gospel view. Incorrect and biased, but that is the view nonetheless. And we see it today.  

"Then, if you are able, scratch the surface a bit and you will find they are liars, thieves, and cheats,  robbing the people blind, and without justice or mercy, making this place hell on earth."

And where do you find them? The powerful ones with enough money to shoehorn a conflict-starting idiot into the White House? Owning hospitals, colleges and TV networks and using those to indoctrinate US youth with their Bible - based if not Creationist views? Who, Molly?

And, if you can do that, you may begin to understand, if not the spiritual implications, at least the social ones.

Oh, I understand it. Do you?

[Transponder]

Here are some interesting Scriptures concerning people not being able to believe unless God reveals Himself to them : Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 6:44, John 6:64-65.

Interestingly, after people turned away from Him, Jesus made no effort to change their minds (John 6:66-67).

I'm not sure whether those other posts were directed to me or just a huddle "Never mind what the atheist says - just focus on your faith" however, the whole point of my being here (for all that I have got involved in debates on genesis and evolution) is to question whether the gospels are generally reliable records of what Jesus was, did and said, or whether they are the views of Pauline Christians. If they are (the latter) then deriving proof of Christian belief from their quotes is the most circular of circular arguments.

If Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, then whatever good advice or philosophies may be found in the Bible, or in Christian sages or philosophers, they carry no more weight or authority than any other human thinker's opinion, and quoting John as proof of anything is utterly misquided.

How do we find out whether the gospels are to be trusted or not? By looking at them honestly and objectively. I really doubt that any here could do that. Faith makes it impossible.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Trans, I know this is off topic but...........my father was an atheist until about 30 days before he died. Right before he went thru his second emergency surgery, to be exact. He was 68 years old. Now while I rejoiced that he had found the Lord of all and gave thanks for it, I also grieved for a life wasted by bitterness and blaming God for something He had nothing to do (his father was murdered at age 11) with. A life that could have known His peace, joy, and most of all, His unconditional love he didn't know he craved until the last 2 years of his life.

Like you, he was very intellectual; he read law books at night for entertainment and eschewed the dumbing down of our culture by it's dependence on the television. He was a health nut before anyone knew what a health nut was. He had some very good qualities and some very bad qualities, but at the end of it all, he recognized he was not all-powerful and if there was a God, he owed it to himself to take a chance and find out for himself.

I hope that you too, take a chance at some point, throw all reason to wind, and I hope that, unlike my father, you don't wait until almost the end to do it.  :HeartThrob: Blessings to you......

[gr8wuf]

Very useful points Molly.  Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.

You all lost me a long time ago. But I keep checking in to see if there are any new posters to my original question.  :grin:

[Transponder]

:cloud9: Trans, I know this is off topic but...........my father was an atheist until about 30 days before he died. Right before he went thru his second emergency surgery, to be exact. He was 68 years old. Now while I rejoiced that he had found the Lord of all and gave thanks for it, I also grieved for a life wasted by bitterness and blaming God for something He had nothing to do (his father was murdered at age 11) with. A life that could have known His peace, joy, and most of all, His unconditional love he didn't know he craved until the last 2 years of his life.

Like you, he was very intellectual; he read law books at night for entertainment and eschewed the dumbing down of our culture by it's dependence on the television. He was a health nut before anyone knew what a health nut was. He had some very good qualities and some very bad qualities, but at the end of it all, he recognized he was not all-powerful and if there was a God, he owed it to himself to take a chance and find out for himself.

I hope that you too, take a chance at some point, throw all reason to wind, and I hope that, unlike my father, you don't wait until almost the end to do it.  :HeartThrob: Blessings to you......

I take your post as well intentioned rather than a pleas for God to open tranponder's heart. And if your father found some sort of peace because he couldn't face the inevitability of death the way I'm ready for mine whenever, then I'm happy for him - in a way.

[Transponder]

Very useful points Molly.  Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.

You all lost me a long time ago. But I keep checking in to see if there are any new posters to my original question.  :grin:

Sorry about that. I recall that my suggestion was 'selectively' or at least, interpreting it to fit the ET mindset. Ir, if one can't do that, avoid reading it much at all. After all as has been said before on the boards, it is not the Bible that is the basis of Christian faith, but the Christian faith itself.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Any suggestions as to how to approach a "re-reading" of sorts?

This is something that I also have recently wondered.  As I have scoured the internet reading articles and such I wish for scripture to come alive for me when just reading verses.

I come to think about this recently and am taking this route, at least for the time being.

We hear God created everything,  but did he really?  I do not believe God created Love,  God is Love.   So, why wouldn't every single verse somehow be a declaration of Love?

[Reverend G]

Got this in an email recently....says a lot about the why we shouldn't fear the "lake of fire".  Don't know how much truth there is to it, but it is a great analogy.


Malachi
3:3 says:'He
will sit as a refiner and purifier of
silver.'     
 

This verse puzzled some women

in a Bible study and they

wondered what this statement

meant about the character and

nature of God.
 
 

One of the women offered to

find out the process of refining
silver and get back to
the group
at their next Bible Study.

 

That week, the woman called a
silversmith and made an
appointment
to watch him at
work. She didn't mention

anything about the reason for

her interest beyond her curiosity

about the process of refining

Silver.
   
 
 

As she watched the silversmith,

he held a piece of silver over

the fire and let it heat up. He

explained that in refining silver,

one needed to hold the silver in

the middle of the fire where

the flames were hottest as to

burn away all the impurities.
 

 
The woman thought
about God holding us in such a hot spot;
then she thought again about

the verse that says:
'He sits as a
refiner and purifier of silver.'

She asked the silversmith if it

was true that he had to sit there
in front of the fire the whole

time.   

 
The man answered that
yes, he
not only had to sit there holding

the silver, but he had to keep

his eyes on the silver the entire

time it was in the fire. If the silver

was left a moment too long in the flames, it
would be destroyed.
 

The woman was silent for a

moment. Then she asked the silversmith, 'How
do you know
when the silver is fully
refined?'

He smiled at
her and answered,
'Oh, that's easy -- when I see

my image in it.'
 
 

[Craig]

Okay, I haven't actually read the Bible in a very long time especially since coming to a belief in UR. Why? Well first off I've been set free from the condemnation of not reading the Bible, but more so ...

When I want to read it, as I read I hear that old ET mindset and just seem to get confused.

Any suggestions as to how to approach a "re-reading" of sorts?

Very simple. The Lord said to me as clear as day. Always read everything from the perspective of love, and with the expectation and understanding of love. You will never read Scripture the same again; if you read something that confuses you or seems to be opposite of love; then you misunderstood it, keep reading.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Paul... :hithere:

:dsunny: :dsunny: :dsunny:

We hear God created everything,  but did he really?  I do not believe God created Love,  God is Love.   So, why wouldn't every single verse somehow be a declaration of Love?

:goodpost:

I agree Paul... He did not "create" LOVE, for LOVE is ETERNAL, and is the essence of WHO and WHAT He is...  :HeartThrob: :gangel: :cloud9:

GOD created all within the FINITE realm of TIME... that which is ETERNAL, ...always IS...

  :HeartThrob:  pEAce  :HeartThrob: 
...willieH  :happy3:

[autoimmune]

I don't think this is going anywhere and is off topic anyway. People's personal experiences are taken as empirical evidence of something and are trotted out to me as such.  have heard enough to not accept such tales at face value. I'm not saying deception, I just know that people are capable of apparently believing all sorts of things. I am back to logic and reason and evidence again, not subjective experiences. 

I can't argue that because I've found it true in my own life.  Like you, I have always placed a high value on reason and (linear) logic.  But, being a long time feminist, I equally value the feminine counterparts, emotion and intuition.

The (maybe not so) odd thing is, that in the end, I found that emotion and intuitive thinking could not prove spiritual reality any more than reason and logic could. As you said, you end up with subjective, relative truth, never sure that what you have experienced is THE ontonlogical capital-T Truth we all say we are seeking in life.

I realized that my mind could create rational arguments for either side of any debate.  If someone says they can prove the afterlife with NDEs, I can whip out Persinger's studies and show that what seems "proof" of an afterlife may be no more than manipulation of particular areas of the brain, or the process of the brain shutting down before true death.  If you gave me an argument from the bible, I could show you a conflicting passage that threw both into doubt, and trust in the bible along with it.  Talk to me about the doctrines of religion and I could counter with the controlling goals of the four pillars of society and how religion was one of the main methods of controlling the masses, particularly women.

As for personal spiritual experience, well, no matter how convincing such events are, they can't really be trusted because they are just as likely to be a product of my own ego needs as a visitation from God.  As good as they "felt," the feeling was not proof of God's existence.

I finally came to the place I could best describe as standing on the edge of a deep abyss, surrounded by darkness.  Neither logic/reason or intuition/emotion could prove OR disprove the existence of God.  I had equally compelling reasons to believe or disbelieve.

All I was left with at that time was my will.  What did I choose to believe?

I realized at that moment that both belief in God and atheism had to be acts of faith, since neither can be proven or disproven by the other. 

My husband is an atheist and, not surprisingly, he tells me of reaching the same moment and he described it exactly as I did--standing on the edge of a deep abyss, surrounded by darkness.

We each also admitted to the other that, at that point, we had the feeling we were being asked to jump in.  My husband told me his response was "That's irrational and illogical!  No way will I jump."

As for me, I decided to jump, perhaps because I have had subjective spiritual experiences that led me to HOPE that what I could not prove MIGHT be true, and I would just as soon crash on the unseen rocks I was sure was below if it meant finally having the answer I sought.  As long as I stood on the edge of that abysss, hesitating, I would never know. The thing is, when I finally did jump, I was surprised to find that I could "fly."

When I discovered that I was perfectly free to choose either option  (belief in God or not) because I had no rational or emotional proof either way, I decided that life lived according to the Way Jesus taught made me happy because it was focused on love.  Whether that happiness was "articifial" or not didn't matter.  The practical reality is whatever I experience subjectively.

I came to understand that the best we can do in life is discover our own relative, small-t truth and hope that it approximates whatever the capital-T ontological Truth is.

My point, Transponder, is that you can argue the details of the bible or belief in God endlessly, but that avoids the underlying issue any true seeker after Truth must face:  in light of no proof either way, do you jump or not? 

I can't argue if you think such a choice is irrational and illogical, because essentially you are correct.  But I will say that you will NEVER know until or unless you do jump.  You will continue to debate and discuss and attempt to disprove every thing that offers you the hope necessary to jump, but all you've done is show one half of what those on the edge of that abyss understand:  that there is no rational or emotional proof either for OR against the existence of God.  The truth doesn't come in showing there is no proof FOR God, but in admitting the obverse as well and realizing that the only way to truly know is to jump blindly and see what happens.

Mary Ellen

[autoimmune]

Very useful points Molly.  Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.

You all lost me a long time ago. But I keep checking in to see if there are any new posters to my original question.  :grin:

Someone else gave you the advice I would have:  read the bible in the context of Jesus' teachings about God being Love.  Anything that doesnt conform to that is based on some assumption you have in your mind about what it should mean.

When I returned to bible reading this was the method I used: 

1. ask for the Holy Spirit's grace to see what you cannot see presently
2. look for the underlying assumption
3. once you recognize it, re-ask the question
4. and then read the passage again.

Most of what we object to in the bible comes from accepting the unspoken assumptions we have about it.  Once we get past the assumptions, it's amazing how unified the truth of the bible really is, and it all hinges on UR, imo.

As an example, most Christians assume the existence of eternal punishment.  Once we identify the assumption, we can reread and see all the passages pertaining to God's plan being universal restoration of all things through Christ.

Since you've seen past that assumption, start asking yourself where this new understanding comes into conflict with something else.  And then look for the assumption there.

That begins a process of relearning most of what we have been taught.

IF you think this might work for you as a practical way of studying the bible again, let me know and I'd be happy to go over a few of the assumptions I had to rethink myself.

Mary Ellen