Thinking about belief

[Shawna]

Long long ago, and about a foot and a half from where I am sitting now, I wrote my first post for IGI.  I was just re-reading it, and I think I can stand by everything I wrote back then (http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,9566.msg27442.html#msg27442).

But I have been thinking....

I would add a few things....   I am more skeptical of organized religion than I was back then.  Organized religion tends to create artificial divisions over ephemera.  It encourages the development of dogma.  And all too often it's the d**ks who end up in charge.  (Last week, a dear kind woman in my church shared with me that she had felt dismissed and treated disrespectfully by a not-dear-kind man in my church.  She was assuming that she had been over-sensitive.... I had to assure her that he was indeed a d**k, no matter how well-respected and influential he is because of his righteousness.  I made her laugh.... that was important.  He is in positions of influence.  She is nearly invisible to the institution.)

And I think, just maybe......   that we would all be better off if the bible had been lost to the sands of time.  I think, maybe, if we were concentrating on our own story, instead of everyone else's.... that maybe we would have found a better path by now.

But what do I know?  I waste God's time asking for help locating lost hairbushes, and I leave gifts for the guardian tree at the top of our road.  Just thinking.....

[Bordeaux]

 Good morning, Shawna ! We haven't been on thread at the same thread for a while now.Now that I am here, I will attempt to stick to this thread, contribute, read & learn  about things that I am ignorant of, hehe!!

While I agree that organised religions have caused lots of pains in the world, but I do not understand why you would want the bible to disappear, considering it is basically the only way to learn about Jesus Christ.

Truth be told, I abhor  Christianity, Judaism , Islam  and anything that reminds me of religion, but I know there are good people in these religions, which makes me think that if these good people were in charge of these religions, the world would probably be a better place for all. 

[Airyaman]

Religion, imo, is just a tool in the end.  A tool to exert power over others, just like government. Sure, there are many people that don't want the power, they just want a better life, and that is great but in the meantime, it is tainted by the power hungry.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, right? Well, in reality, wrong. Unless the tree is perfect, and I've never seen one. So religions are not all bad, but they are not all good either. Its just like the humans that run them. Shocking.

As to the bible, it has been a controlled message from the start. Obviously not everything written by the followers of the Abrahamic god made the cut. People who claimed to speak for Yahweh (and later, Jesus) gathered in committees and decided what would be in the message. Again, those who had power over the message decided what we'd eventually have access to.

I see nothing in religions or holy texts that actually makes me believe any of the gods in them ever existed. I see many claims, and I see the controlled messages, but that is not very convincing. I rarely ever just consider one side of any story because it simply is not trustworthy.

So I see humans all along the way. And humans have a propensity to disagree.

[Augusto]

People just need to "DO" something and cut the crap. As simple as that...!

[Shawna]

While I agree that organised religions have caused lots of pains in the world, but I do not understand why you would want the bible to disappear, considering it is basically the only way to learn about Jesus Christ.

Good morning, Whatever!

I am not committed to the idea that it would be better if we had lost the bible (and the other "canon" holy books).  I just have this suspicion that we would be better off.  The bible is the only way to learn the history of what happened while Jesus was on Earth over 2000 years ago....  but that's not the important thing to know, if you are a follower of Christ.  The important thing is to listen to what God teaches you directly today.  Jesus lived, died, and was crucified to reconcile the world to God... it's been done, and has been accomplished whether we know about it or not.

But we have the bible, and I used to be very happy that we had the bible... because it contains the information about a people's past relationship with God and about the life of Jesus and some of what he did... this is good stuff to learn from.  Except that I wonder if the price we pay is too high.  Because what we also have is Christians who are essentially atheists when it comes to a belief in a God who is present here and now and active in the world today, and communicating and guiding us right now, in the paths we should go.  Instead, they cling to a dead book as though God had stopped, lo these 2000 years ago, and there is nothing left to learn, except what we can glean from poring over a document like it was a magic secret code.  God isn't in that book, and yet they act like it's the only place God is.

Phooey.

[Shawna]

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, right? Well, in reality, wrong. Unless the tree is perfect, and I've never seen one. So religions are not all bad, but they are not all good either. Its just like the humans that run them. Shocking.

As to the bible, it has been a controlled message from the start. Obviously not everything written by the followers of the Abrahamic god made the cut. People who claimed to speak for Yahweh (and later, Jesus) gathered in committees and decided what would be in the message. Again, those who had power over the message decided what we'd eventually have access to.

Yeah, good trees tend to bear good fruit....but bad fruit happens.  And institutions in general are not the best place in the world to find the best fruit.

The politics around what would and what would not get included in the bible as Christians know it were huge.  A lot of Christians don't realize that even today different branches of Christians accept different books into the canon... a Catholic's bible is going to read different from a Baptist's bible. 

The orthodoxy battles of the 300's destroyed a lot of gospels.  Being human, the institution went for the lowest common denominator.  Imagine being a heart-broken monk living in Nag Hammadi and burying what you thought was the truth, in order to keep it safe.

It's the canon that's the problem, I think.  If nobody tried to control what we were allowed to read or not read, or consider inspired or not inspired, I think we'd be ok.  The institution would have less power, but from my perspective that's all good.

[Shawna]

People just need to "DO" something and cut the crap. As simple as that...!

  The Quakers have a saying, "Don't just Do something.  Sit there!"

[Airyaman]

Well, part of the reason Christianity did survive is because it is organized. When the message isn't controlled, then no one truly knows what the message is, and this does not contribute to coherence. Had all of the various writings about the various views of the god of Jesus and himself survived, we'd have no idea which one was correct. We still don't, but at least we have the controlled message of the New Testament to settle on one.

[Shawna]

But what if the controlled message is wrong?  Or, if not wrong, incomplete?  Was it really better that some controlling jerks 1700 years ago got together and decided that only those aspects of God that made them feel comfortable would be acceptable?  God's big.  God's wilder and, frankly, more dangerous than the institution lets on... Those old guys defined God in terms that agreed with what they wanted and expected from God... now we are stuck with that canon, and with a God that makes control-freaks and judgmental types very happy and comfortable.  But that's not God.

I am not sure that the survival of the institution of Christianity was worth the price.  "How much for that bowl of pottage?"  "Only your entire birthright."

[meAgain]

I am more skeptical of organized religion than I was back then.  Organized religion tends to create artificial divisions over ephemera.

I think that is too easy.  A person could do the same thing with almost any topic . . .  ?I am skeptical of marriage because marriage can create artificial divisions.  And because I know of a lot of sh*ty marriages.?  ?I am skeptical of political parties because they can create artificial divisions . . . ? 

It encourages the development of dogma.

This one always makes me laugh. 

Chesterton has some awesome words on the topic.  The quote is much longer and beautiful, but I?ve shortened it . . .

Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded. -Chesterton


?In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.?? G.K. Chesterton

Dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education. It IS education. A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching. There are no uneducated people; only most people are educated wrong. The true task of culture today is not a task of expansion, but of selection-and rejection. The educationist must find a creed and teach it. -G. K. Chesterton

Well, anyway, you get the idea.

And all too often it's the d**ks who end up in charge.

See my first response.

(Last week, a dear kind woman in my church shared with me that she had felt dismissed and treated disrespectfully by a not-dear-kind man in my church.  She was assuming that she had been over-sensitive.... I had to assure her that he was indeed a d**k, no matter how well-respected and influential he is because of his righteousness.  I made her laugh.... that was important.  He is in positions of influence.  She is nearly invisible to the institution.)

Wait . . .  didn?t you just say this in some other thread . . .

There's d**ks, pedants, and sweethearts all up and down the bell curve of belief.

And I think, just maybe......   that we would all be better off if the bible had been lost to the sands of time.  I think, maybe, if we were concentrating on our own story, instead of everyone else's.... that maybe we would have found a better path by now.

Ha!

^ my response isn?t intended to be rude.  I?m just not sure how dangerous you realize this would be.  Really?  We ought to concentrate on our own story? Isn?t that exactly what clever Satan would hope we do?  I think we better stick to concentrating on the story of Jesus Christ.  He should always be our center and focus. 

[Augusto]

Without the bible, islamism would not exist.

[Shawna]

<snip>

Thank you for sharing, Meagain.  This is the Testimonials board.  Please abide by the instructions for the Testimonials board: "Describe your beliefs here. No disagreements please - implied or otherwise."

I am interested in exploring these ideas, not debating them.  If I was interested in debating them, I would have posted this thread in a different board.  If you have a question, feel free to ask.  If you have a thought, feel free to share.  If I feel that what you post moves too far along the continuum into "Gee, Shawna, you're so wrong", I won't respond, and I may report it to the moderators.

If you just can't bear it, and you absolutely feel a need to debate my current developing thoughts, feel free to start a thread in another board somewhere.

[Shawna]

Without the bible, islamism would not exist.

Maybe.  It would probably be best if all the "canonical" big books of religion were gone....  the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavad Gita, the Tanach....  you get the idea.

[none]

isn't the OP originally written by a witch?

[Augusto]

I feel renewed my hope in humanity most of the time after reading Shawna or Kevin.

[Shawna]

isn't the OP originally written by a witch?

Witch as in wiccan, or witch as in b***h?

I am not a wiccan, but I can be one hell of a scary b***h when I feel like it.

[none]

isn't the OP originally written by a witch?

Witch as in wiccan, or witch as in b***h?

I am not a wiccan, but I can be one hell of a scary b***h when I feel like it.

yeah witch like burned at the stake, I don't think you are a b***h
you are christian and believe what the bible says about witches so I figured you'd know what I was talking about.
you go girl!

[Augusto]

Christians sometimes can be true bullies, can't they?

[meAgain]

Thank you for sharing, Meagain.  This is the Testimonials board.  Please abide by the instructions for the Testimonials board: "Describe your beliefs here. No disagreements please - implied or otherwise."

Oh, sorry.  I didn?t pay attention to where I was reading this.

I am interested in exploring these ideas, not debating them.

So was I  .

Are you ever interested in exploring why you might be wrong? 

If I feel that what you post moves too far along the continuum into "Gee, Shawna, you're so wrong", I won't respond, and I may report it to the moderators.

Don?t you do this in every thread anyway?  (A little joke)

If you just can't bear it, and you absolutely feel a need to debate my current developing thoughts, feel free to start a thread in another board somewhere.

Not unless you want to, but sounds like you aren?t that interested.  But as long as you are exploring ideas . . .  Have you ever considered the benefits of appointing leaders or having different positions within an organization with different levels of responsibility?  Or have you ever understood the benefits of obedience even when we don?t particularly care for the authority figure or the rule? Or have you ever tried to come up with a practical alternative/solution to something you?ve seen as wrong?

[Shawna]

yeah witch like burned at the stake, I don't think you are a b***h
you are christian and believe what the bible says about witches so I figured you'd know what I was talking about.
you go girl!

Got it...   

Yes, I suppose it is heretical.  Back when they were burning people at the stake, I might have ended up on one.  Phew!  Dodged that bullet!

[Shawna]

Christians sometimes can be true bullies, can't they?

So can nontheists, and theists of other types.  People can be true bullies......

[Augusto]

Yeap

[Shawna]

Are you ever interested in exploring why you might be wrong? 

Sure.  I explore why I might be wrong all the time..... at the moment, I am exploring why I might have been wrong when I thought that the bible was a great thing to have around.

Have you ever considered the benefits of appointing leaders or having different positions within an organization with different levels of responsibility?

There are many benefits to appointing/voting for/recognizing leaders... but only when the leaders are willing to explore why they might be wrong.   

Or have you ever understood the benefits of obedience even when we don?t particularly care for the authority figure or the rule?

Do you mean "just don't like a certain rule", or do you mean "think a certain rule is wrong"?  If an authority figure or rule is wrong, then there is no reason to obey him/her/it, other than to make things easier for yourself.  I run into this sort of thing at my kids' schools sometimes.  A teacher will tell my kid something that is wrong....  I usually tell my kid to humor him/her and let it go.

If you mean "just don't like a certain rule", the only reason to follow it is if it is part of a larger whole that is otherwise rewarding.

Or have you ever tried to come up with a practical alternative/solution to something you?ve seen as wrong?

Yup.  All the time.

[Bordeaux]

While I agree that organised religions have caused lots of pains in the world, but I do not understand why you would want the bible to disappear, considering it is basically the only way to learn about Jesus Christ.

Good morning, Whatever!

I am not committed to the idea that it would be better if we had lost the bible (and the other "canon" holy books).  I just have this suspicion that we would be better off.  The bible is the only way to learn the history of what happened while Jesus was on Earth over 2000 years ago....  but that's not the important thing to know, if you are a follower of Christ.  The important thing is to listen to what God teaches you directly today.  Jesus lived, died, and was crucified to reconcile the world to God... it's been done, and has been accomplished whether we know about it or not.

But we have the bible, and I used to be very happy that we had the bible... because it contains the information about a people's past relationship with God and about the life of Jesus and some of what he did... this is good stuff to learn from.  Except that I wonder if the price we pay is too high.  Because what we also have is Christians who are essentially atheists when it comes to a belief in a God who is present here and now and active in the world today, and communicating and guiding us right now, in the paths we should go.  Instead, they cling to a dead book as though God had stopped, lo these 2000 years ago, and there is nothing left to learn, except what we can glean from poring over a document like it was a magic secret code.  God isn't in that book, and yet they act like it's the only place God is.

Phooey.

I am late to the party once again, but  that will not stop me from  enjoying my stay.  And btw, Good Morning to you, Shawna.

Well, the bible is true. It exists, which is a fact.  It is real whether you accept it or not. I think the question at hand is how true the information presented in the bible is? and how true are claims made about the bible..

Of course, there are side issues dealing with the origin of the information contained therein, alleged 'divine' authorship,IMO, which  I am having a lot of difficulties to embrace; because many  verses in the bible can not be agreed upon, let alone be fully attributed to their authors.


I tend to side partially with your suspicious of 'we would be better off', but what would be the Godly alternative  for those who follow Jesus Christ & believe  every word in the bible is objectively true?


I am more concerned with the question of origins then factuality of religious texts. Why, if not for truth, would people spend millennia drooling around these writings? Am I missing something?

In my opinion, without the bible, christianity would have never been borne in our society.

[Shawna]

Well, the bible is true. It exists, which is a fact.  It is real whether you accept it or not. I think the question at hand is how true the information presented in the bible is? and how true are claims made about the bible..

Of course, there are side issues dealing with the origin of the information contained therein, alleged 'divine' authorship,IMO, which  I am having a lot of difficulties to embrace; because many  verses in the bible can not be agreed upon, let alone be fully attributed to their authors.

I tend to side partially with your suspicious of 'we would be better off', but what would be the Godly alternative  for those who follow Jesus Christ & believe  every word in the bible is objectively true?

I am more concerned with the question of origins then factuality of religious texts. Why, if not for truth, would people spend millennia drooling around these writings? Am I missing something?

In my opinion, without the bible, christianity would have never been borne in our society.

I do not doubt that the bible is essentially and at its heart, True.  It was written by people, and so it is subject to the same sorts of vagaries of inaccuracy that all things undertaken by people are subject to, but it is a document (comprised of many documents) that tells the story of a people's search for God, relationship with God, and what they came to understand of the nature of God and what God wanted from the relationship.

It is also the only written record we have of Jesus' time here on earth 2000 years ago.

Those are very valuable things.  But I am not certain that their value outweighs the negative impact that having the bible around has had.

There are many many stories of individuals' search for God, relationship with God, and what they came to understand of the nature of God and what God wanted from the relationship.  If we lost the bible, we wouldn't lose stories of faith.  We would lose those stories of faith.... but stories of faith would still exist to guide and to inspire and to comfort us.

And it is good to know about what happened 2000 years ago, but it isn't necessary.  What Jesus did for us doesn't require that we know about it in order to benefit from it.

Unfortunately, what happens because we have the bible, is people tend to rely on the book, instead of on God.  In fact, people end up not trusting God to be able to communicate with them.  They end up not trusting themselves to listen to God, and they end up not trusting others to be able to listen either.

I used to tell myself that it was important to have the bible, because it was an outward objective source by which to test one's inner leadings and the leadings of others.  But, you know, it's not objective.  Any experience of God will be colored by the attitudes and understanding of the person experiencing it.  That goes for the experiences recorded in the bible as well.  I can be as successful testing my leadings and the leadings of others by referring to the spiritual experiences of other people; the bible just isn't qualitatively superior in that regard.  How did I come to this thought?  Well, because people have been testing their leadings and the leadings of others using the bible for quite a long time now, and we still disagree with each other about what exactly the bible means to say. 

In other words.... "Can one consistently test spiritual insights against the bible?  Can the results be independently reproduced?"  "Well, no.  A test of spiritual insights against the bible is highly dependent on the attitude and understanding of the person conducting the test."

I agree that the institution of Christianity may never have existed without the bible.  But the institution of Christianity is not the important thing about God.  The important thing about God is following and getting to know God, not the name that one calls it.  Our names and our labels sometimes even seem to be stumbling blocks to faith.

Anyway, I am still exploring this idea........  Do I seem to be making myself clear?

[Airyaman]

Clear to me. In fact, you've come closest to describing what drives me to continue being on this site. I've been basically asking people how they can have a relationship with a god that they only know from a book? How does someone love someone more than all things in life, and yet only have the written words of others 2000 years ago to know him?

In real life, relationships need much more than one way adoration. They need communication most of all to even survive, much less result in the number one love you have.

I see no reason to believe that most Jesus followers, with this board included, have what we'd consider a relationship with their god. Its just devotion to an idol, whether it be the bible or the concept of god in the individuals head. Maybe the idol is a religious organization based in Rome, who knows? From where I stand, looking from the outside in, I see no gods.

But at least you seem to get it, that a relationship takes much more.

[Goombah]

For me the Bible is the sign post that leads to Christ.Just as I wouldn't dismiss a two thousand year old treasure map as irrelevant if you can use it to find the treasure-that is the role the Bible had for me- and continues to do so.

I find most of the ex-christians do come across as never having had an interpersonal experience with God; it's no wonder they would give up.I certainly went through that myself.

[meAgain]

 

[Shawna]

I see no reason to believe that most Jesus followers, with this board included, have what we'd consider a relationship with their god. Its just devotion to an idol, whether it be the bible or the concept of god in the individuals head. Maybe the idol is a religious organization based in Rome, who knows? From where I stand, looking from the outside in, I see no gods.

I can often find evidence of God's presence when I listen to other people tell about God, but that becomes more and more obscure the more the believer relies on institutional structures or on the bible for their validation.

There's a lot of people in the world who feel a strong need for structure and certainty and clear rules....  for a while, I just told myself that God made sure there was a way for those people to feel comfortable with the presence of the divine, by giving them the structure and predictability they craved in institutional religion and the bible.  But I am moving towards thinking that it was humans who forced the structure on the Spirit because it was so out of their comfort zones.

[Shawna]

For me the Bible is the sign post that leads to Christ.Just as I wouldn't dismiss a two thousand year old treasure map as irrelevant if you can use it to find the treasure-that is the role the Bible had for me- and continues to do so.

Yes, I am very fond of the bible myself.  It is inspiring and helpful in many many ways.  Heroin was helpful to people in many ways too.  But its drawbacks outweighed its advantages as a painkiller.

I wonder if the bible would work for you if it weren't defined as The Holy Book.  What if we didn't have canon?  What if the experiences and insights people recorded over the years were available to read, but they were available in the same way that Corrie Ten Boom's or G.K. Chesterton's or C.S. Lewis's works are available?  Surely, God inspired those folks and was working in their lives and through their pens as well.......

It may be that the trouble I see (which not everyone sees or agrees with) is related more to the attitude with which people approach the bible than with the text itself.  If the text were not sacrosanct, and was instead thought of as useful but not inherently Holy, maybe that would solve the problem I am thinking about.......

[meAgain]

.

[Shawna]

Meagain, in the Testimonial board, the idea is to have a discussion that isn't full of challenges and contradicttions.  The idea is to listen to what someone else has to say, and then deepen the conversation by sharing one's own experience, or asking a question to clarify the thoughts being shared.  Notice how Goombah did it... he shared his own experience....  "In my experience, x and y and z"... and this helps to further the exploration of ideas, not to stop them.

What you are trying to do is prove me wrong.  Ok, go do it elsewhere please.  You have started that thread in the Religion board.... please make your unassailable debating points there rather than here.  I have reported the last two posts of yours for violating the instructions of the Testimonials board.

Have a nice day.

[meAgain]

.

[meAgain]

.

[Gnu Ordure]

Yes, I am very fond of the bible myself.  It is inspiring and helpful in many many ways.  Heroin was helpful to people in many ways too.  But its drawbacks outweighed its advantages as a painkiller.

Point of information; heroin's drawbacks are minimal, and it's therefore regularly used as a painkiller (in Britain).

[Shawna]

Point of information; heroin's drawbacks are minimal, and it's therefore regularly used as a painkiller (in Britain).

Figures.  Americans are always getting all hysterical about drugs.

Maybe the bible should just be prescription only?

[Shawna]

My comments are not full of contradictions and others have disagreed with your thoughts in this thread as well. 

No, actually, everyone else has been careful to express themselves with "IMO" and "For me" when they have had thoughts that diverged from my own.  They expressed their ideas in a way that would allow the discussion to progress between people who had divergent ideas, but who were willing to allow the other person to hold their own opinion.

No one else wrote anything similar to:

^ my response isn?t intended to be rude.  I?m just not sure how dangerous you realize this would be.  Really?  We ought to concentrate on our own story? Isn?t that exactly what clever Satan would hope we do?  I think we better stick to concentrating on the story of Jesus Christ.  He should always be our center and focus.

That ^ is a disagreement that is telling me that I should change my mind about what I am sharing, because I am wrong.  It is not a sharing of your own experiences that allows for others to hold divergent opinions.

Seriously, I am not interested in educating you about how to converse with someone in the Testimonials board.  If you don't know how to do it, just don't post here.

[meAgain]

 

[Shawna]

Meagain, I am of two minds about this.... either you really truly don't understand how to communicate with people you disagree with without telling them they're wrong, or you are deliberately misunderstanding the rules of the board, in order to pretend that you think you are innocent of breaking the rules.

Your questions are not tough questions, Meagain.  They're stupid, boring, unoriginal, conventional questions.  And they are also leading and/or rhetorical, designed to point out how wrong you think my thoughts are.  They therefore have no place at all in the Testimonials board.

Whether you truly don't understand, or you are disingenuously pretending to be unable to understand, Stop.  If you can't follow the rules, don't post in the board.

[Goombah]

For me the Bible is the sign post that leads to Christ.Just as I wouldn't dismiss a two thousand year old treasure map as irrelevant if you can use it to find the treasure-that is the role the Bible had for me- and continues to do so.

Yes, I am very fond of the bible myself.  It is inspiring and helpful in many many ways.  Heroin was helpful to people in many ways too.  But its drawbacks outweighed its advantages as a painkiller.

Heroin was instituted to mask or alleviate the symptoms of a variety of conditions.
The Bible provides us with the cure.

I wonder if the bible would work for you if it weren't defined as The Holy Book.  What if we didn't have canon?  What if the experiences and insights people recorded over the years were available to read, but they were available in the same way that Corrie Ten Boom's or G.K. Chesterton's or C.S. Lewis's works are available?  Surely, God inspired those folks and was working in their lives and through their pens as well.......

woulda, coulda and shoulda scenarios are difficult to come to a solid conclusion from.We do have The Bible.We have to work from there.
Having read Corrie Ten Boom and Lewis' writings I don't think you can separate their insight from what their biblical foundations were.Chesterton I'm not that familiar with.

It may be that the trouble I see (which not everyone sees or agrees with) is related more to the attitude with which people approach the bible than with the text itself.  If the text were not sacrosanct, and was instead thought of as useful but not inherently Holy, maybe that would solve the problem I am thinking about.......

The different things I've read from  Quakers always seems to say something to the effect of " their insight doesn't contradict what Scripture teaches".The Bible remains as mankinds 'Polar Star' IMO.

[kevin]

The Bible remains as mankinds 'Polar Star' IMO.

if the bible is the pole star, goombah, what do you leave for jesus?

[Goombah]

The Bible remains as mankinds 'Polar Star' IMO.

if the bible is the pole star, goombah, what do you leave for jesus?

   Everything Scripture reveals Him to be.Do you think you are able to have a leading from the Holy Spirit that you couldn't verify as being in line with biblical principles?

[kevin]

i think the holy spirit often has things to say to me that aren't written in scripture, goombah.

i once met a group of devout ethiopian evangelicals. whenever they had a question tor god they would pray, then open their bibles randomly to search for the answer. this was in line with their historical culture.

what is your opinion of that?

[Goombah]

i think the holy spirit often has things to say to me that aren't written in scripture, goombah.

i once met a group of devout ethiopian evangelicals. whenever they had a question tor god they would pray, then open their bibles randomly to search for the answer. this was in line with their historical culture.

what is your opinion of that?

Kevin, I think we can distinguish "Scriptural" from "Biblical" in a sense.My example being : Jesus used spit in Scripture to heal a person.I don't know of any healings that incorporated spittle .I don't discount the possibility of themoccurring because the biblical principle teaches me that Jesus heals.

[meAgain]

The Bible remains as mankinds 'Polar Star' IMO.

if the bible is the pole star, goombah, what do you leave for jesus?

Kevin, why can't you believe Jesus would give us a pole star?  And if He does, why does that detract from Him?

[meAgain]

i think the holy spirit often has things to say to me that aren't written in scripture, goombah.

That isn't what he asked you.

[nateswift]

The different things I've read from  Quakers always seems to say something to the effect of " their insight doesn't contradict what Scripture teaches"

lThat would be correct, though you would have to be just as careful as you are in your next post about "biblical principles."  You see, Quakers follow "Biblical principles" while ignoring specific instructions that violate those principles, such as women are to keep silent.

[Goombah]

The different things I've read from  Quakers always seems to say something to the effect of " their insight doesn't contradict what Scripture teaches"

lThat would be correct, though you would have to be just as careful as you are in your next post about "biblical principles."  You see, Quakers follow "Biblical principles" while ignoring specific instructions that violate those principles, such as women are to keep silent.

I'm not familiar with the Bible principle that says women are to be silent as a universal. I read about women ministering, praying and prophesying.If Paul's teaching is about specific circumstances I think they do deserve consideration.

[Shawna]

I'm not familiar with the Bible principle that says women are to be silent as a universal.

There are extremely few biblical principles that are accepted universally by those to claim to be Christian.  If you look carefully at the beliefs and actions of everyone who claims to use the bible as their Pole Star, you will find that that Pole Star's location seems to fluctuate quite widely.

[Shawna]

OK, I've had time to consider my original inklings, and digest these new ideas a bit.

Yup.  We probably would have been better off without a bible... that is, a piece of official canonical literature that people look to for the official word on what God wants.  It has had the effect of causing people to distrust their own spiritual insights and the insights of others.  It has led to people distrusting God, and God's ability to communicate directly with us.

Even the story of Jesus, while a wonderful narrative to learn about, may not be enough to outweigh the burden of distrust that the bible has sown against God's ability to act and to inspire people in the here and now.

See.....  as far as I can tell, God never intended for us to be Christians.  It wasn't good for God to be alone, so God made people.  And we walked in the garden with God for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of years.  I don't think God kicked us out.  I think we left.  That bit in the bible where it says God kicked out Adam and Eve reads like one side of a family disagreement... I think we left, and the writer of Genesis only provides one side of the story.  At any rate, Jesus was God's Plan B, to help us get back to the garden.  It was a good Plan B, but God's original intent for humans had nothing to do with institutional religion, or being a Christian, or studying a book to find out what God wants, when God is standing right next to us all the time.

Walking in the garden with God, which was God's entire intent for human beings in the first place, doesn't require an instruction manual.  It only requires that one be willing to listen to God, and hang out with God.

[Shawna]

*Deep sigh*

Well, Meagain, you are correct that it is not against the rules to smite people in the Testimonials board.  I'm glad you figured out a way to let your opinion be known, without breaking the rules.

[Goombah]

I'm not familiar with the Bible principle that says women are to be silent as a universal.

There are extremely few biblical principles that are accepted universally by those to claim to be Christian.

I guess we'd have to determine which ones are universally accepted to decide how important that is.

  If you look carefully at the beliefs and actions of everyone who claims to use the bible as their Pole Star, you will find that that Pole Star's location seems to fluctuate quite widely.

Are you claimimg to have looked carefully at the beliefs and actions of everyone who claims to use their bibles as a Pole Star?Where I live the Pole Star points to 'true north'.By the Bible being a 'Pole Star' I mean it directs us to Jesus.The Bible always points us to Him.It's when our compasses aren't lined up with the Pole Star we get lost in my experience.

[kevin]

goombah, the witnesses use the bible, very carefully.

their bible points to jesus too.

do you agree with their beliefs?

[meAgain]

 

[nateswift]

But I have been thinking....

I would add a few things....   I am more skeptical of organized religion than I was back then.  Organized religion tends to create artificial divisions over ephemera.  It encourages the development of dogma.  And all too often it's the d**ks who end up in charge.

Yup, it's time to move on to THIS part of the OP

[meAgain]

..

[Shawna]

Are you claimimg to have looked carefully at the beliefs and actions of everyone who claims to use their bibles as a Pole Star?Where I live the Pole Star points to 'true north'.By the Bible being a 'Pole Star' I mean it directs us to Jesus.The Bible always points us to Him.It's when our compasses aren't lined up with the Pole Star we get lost in my experience.

Yes, the bible should direct us to Jesus, and it does.  And the people who read and interpret the bible will point to all different parts of the sky, shouting, "Look, that's Jesus!"  "Lo He is there!"  The nature of Jesus and what He wants from us varies....  a lot, in some cases.  Same Pole star, different parts of the sky.

[Shawna]

But I have been thinking....

I would add a few things....   I am more skeptical of organized religion than I was back then.  Organized religion tends to create artificial divisions over ephemera.  It encourages the development of dogma.  And all too often it's the d**ks who end up in charge.

Yup, it's time to move on to THIS part of the OP

That seems to be kinda self-evident....   

[none]

But I have been thinking....

I would add a few things....   I am more skeptical of organized religion than I was back then.  Organized religion tends to create artificial divisions over ephemera.  It encourages the development of dogma.  And all too often it's the d**ks who end up in charge.

Yup, it's time to move on to THIS part of the OP

That seems to be kinda self-evident....   

Jesus was the first leader and he was killed.... maybe the tradition should have kept going 

[Shawna]

If you look carefully at the beliefs and actions of everyone who claims to use the bible as their Pole Star, you will find that that Pole Star's location seems to fluctuate quite widely.

. . . .  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that is why Christ gave us One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

Once again showing the problem isn?t in the Bible.  Maybe that is a belief you should start thinking about?

Thank you for sharing, Megain.  You almost manage not to disagree with me in this post.

Which belief are you referring to....  the erroneous belief you have that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is visible on Earth as the Roman Catholic Church?  It seems clear to me that the roman catholic church is an imperfect institution made up of fallible human beings.  Some of them are doing the best they can to follow God, and are members of the Church.

People who are members of the Church often find that God can directly instruct them just fine, even if they do enjoy reading the bible.

[Shawna]

Jesus was the first leader and he was killed.... maybe the tradition should have kept going 

lol.....   

[Jstwebbrowsing]

People who are members of the Church often find that God can directly instruct them just fine, even if they do enjoy reading the bible.

Instruct them about what?

[Goombah]

goombah, the witnesses use the bible, very carefully.

their bible points to jesus too.

do you agree with their beliefs?

Do the majority of Christian scholars agree with what constitutes their scriptures?
Which beliefs do you mean?

[Shawna]

Everything.  God can and does talk to us.  Each of us.  God talks to us about what to do in a given situation, or where we might look for a lost hairbrush, or what principles one ought to live by in general.....  Sometimes God won't let us say something we want to say, and later we realize why.....

[none]

Everything.  God can and does talk to us.  Each of us.  God talks to us about what to do in a given situation, or where we might look for a lost hairbrush, or what principles one ought to live by in general.....  Sometimes God won't let us say something we want to say, and later we realize why.....

I am sharpening the axe... to go along with my previous post...

[Shawna]

It might help discourage people from seeking positions of power within the institution...... 

Hmmmm.... no axe emoticons.....   

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Everything.  God can and does talk to us.  Each of us.  God talks to us about what to do in a given situation, or where we might look for a lost hairbrush, or what principles one ought to live by in general.....  Sometimes God won't let us say something we want to say, and later we realize why.....

So how do you learn what God has done, is doing, and will do in the future on a larger scale?

[Shawna]

So how do you learn what God has done, is doing, and will do in the future on a larger scale?

Does any of that matter?  When it matters for us, God can communicate with us. God has shared some of the principles by which God works with me directly...... for example, I know from God that God is process-oriented, not goal-oriented.  How we do things is more important than whether we are "successful" at accomplishing a given task.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So how do you learn what God has done, is doing, and will do in the future on a larger scale?

Does any of that matter?  When it matters for us, God can communicate with us. God has shared some of the principles by which God works with me directly...... for example, I know from God that God is process-oriented, not goal-oriented.  How we do things is more important than whether we are "successful" at accomplishing a given task.

Does God have goals?  If so, what are they?

[none]

So how do you learn what God has done, is doing, and will do in the future on a larger scale?

Does any of that matter?  When it matters for us, God can communicate with us. God has shared some of the principles by which God works with me directly...... for example, I know from God that God is process-oriented, not goal-oriented.  How we do things is more important than whether we are "successful" at accomplishing a given task.

Does God have goals?  If so, what are they?

reminiscent of a previous conversation in which you said god would return to put into action another system... a way to end world hunger.
sounds like a goal to me.

[kevin]

Do the majority of Christian scholars agree with what constitutes their scriptures?
Which beliefs do you mean?

goombah, you have shifted your pole star from the bible to the majority of christian scholars instead. christian scholars have disagreed for centuries. is the nature of the gospel decided by voting?

Which beliefs do you mean?

the witnesses believe that the bible points to the christ as the worldly incarnation of the archangel michael. do you agree?

they use the same pole star you do, pointing to jesus, as yours does.

[Goombah]

John 19 : 30

......" it is finished!"
God's whole plan regarding mankind was a specific goal.

[kevin]

so you agree with the witnesses.

[Goombah]

so you agree with the witnesses.

That wasn't directed at your comment to me Kevin.I'm not sure how your comment relates to what I said (John 19:30).

[kevin]

so you agree with the witnesses.

That wasn't directed at your comment to me Kevin.I'm not sure how your comment relates to what I said (John 19:30).

ah

this makes it all perfectly clear

[meAgain]

It seems clear to me that the roman catholic church is an imperfect institution made up of fallible human beings.  Some of them are doing the best they can to follow God, and are members of the Church.

This seems clear to me too.  Did I suggest otherwise?

[Airyaman]

But what of the pope? Is he a fallible human as well?

[meAgain]

But what of the pope? Is he a fallible human as well?

Of course.  Just like Peter, the first Pope, made mistakes, so is the current Pope capable of sin.  UNLESS he is speaking for the Church on matters of faith or morals.  Christ promised to keep her Church free from error and has. 

[Shawna]

But what of the pope? Is he a fallible human as well?

Of course.  Just like Peter, the first Pope, made mistakes, so is the current Pope capable of sin.  UNLESS he is speaking for the Church on matters of faith or morals.  Christ promised to keep her Church free from error and has.

Except when the RCC is in error regarding faith and morals...  the RCC has revised itself a few times over the years because of that.  Meagain, what you are saying is that the RCC is completely free from error, except when its fallible members make an error.   

We are all fallible human beings.  All of our institutions are fallible too, as a result.  So is everything we've ever written.  Rather than irrationally hold on to a pretense that something we have created is infallible--like the bible or a religious institution--we would do better to remain aware that everything humans touch could turn out to be in error at some point.

[Shawna]

Does God have goals?  If so, what are they?

You will have to ask God that.  I am God's follower, not God's prime minister.   

To the best of my understanding, God's original purpose in creating people was for companionship.  God's goals probably are related to that, and also to God's nature as an Artist and Creator.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Does God have goals?  If so, what are they?

You will have to ask God that.  I am God's follower, not God's prime minister.   

To the best of my understanding, God's original purpose in creating people was for companionship.  God's goals probably are related to that, and also to God's nature as an Artist and Creator.

So then it sounds to me that God doesn't really instruct you about very much.  I thought Christians were ambassadors for Christ.  What good is an ambassador that doesn't actually know anything about God?  It seems all of your worship is focused inward.

[Shawna]

Do you think that it is important to know more about God's goals than that God loves us, that God desires companionship with us, and that God can and does communicate with us to guide and comfort and instruct?  Do I need to tell people more than that?  Do I need to know more than that?

I can provide you with all sorts of instruction based on "head knowledge", as the old Quakers used to call it.  That boils down to nothing much more than memorized words.

The saving "heart knowledge" comes from knowing and communicating with God, not from memorizing creeds and bible verses.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Do you think that it is important to know more about God's goals than that God loves us, that God desires companionship with us, and that God can and does communicate with us to guide and comfort and instruct?  Do I need to tell people more than that?  Do I need to know more than that?

Yes I think so.

I can provide you with all sorts of instruction based on "head knowledge", as the old Quakers used to call it.  That boils down to nothing much more than memorized words.

The saving "heart knowledge" comes from knowing and communicating with God, not from memorizing creeds and bible verses.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Mk 12:30)

I think it is important to worship him with both our heart and our minds.  I think we can worship him with our minds by learning as much as we can about him and his purposes.  I think we can worship him with out hearts by being obedient to what we learn.

[Goombah]

Do the majority of Christian scholars agree with what constitutes their scriptures?
Which beliefs do you mean?

goombah, you have shifted your pole star from the bible to the majority of christian scholars instead. christian scholars have disagreed for centuries. is the nature of the gospel decided by voting?

No, the Bible is still the pole star.Why shouldn't I avail myself of Bible teachers if Christ placed them into His body?
I'm not a student of the languages which Scripture was written in -if I am to " study to show myself approved" as it were, I seek expert advice.That seems like a sensible approach.
Everybody has disagreed with other people since Cain and Abel....that doesn't render Scripture null and void.Quakers are divided yet you still seem to claim that you are one.

Which beliefs do you mean?

the witnesses believe that the bible points to the christ as the worldly incarnation of the archangel michael. do you agree?

they use the same pole star you do, pointing to jesus, as yours does.

No I don't agree.Again, in part because of the opinions of scholars regarding the witness' translation of John 1.Partly because what scriptures I read for myself also don't seem to agree with their views about Jesus.

I'm not familiar with any other christian groups that use the same translation as they do.Do you know of any off-hand?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Just for the record the NWT is only one of many Bible translations that render John 1:1 in that way. The translation of it in that way is not unique among Witnesses.

[kevin]

No, the Bible is still the pole star.Why shouldn't I avail myself of Bible teachers if Christ placed them into His body?
I'm not a student of the languages which Scripture was written in -if I am to " study to show myself approved" as it were, I seek expert advice.That seems like a sensible approach.

i would agree with that. the problem, of course, is that the assertion is that the bible is unique and inspired, a document intended to guide disciples. yet it cannot be trusted to be clear without the help of paid professionals with lengthy resumes. personally i suspect such sources of universal insight.

Everybody has disagreed with other people since Cain and Abel....that doesn't render Scripture null and void.Quakers are divided yet you still seem to claim that you are one.

no, we don't.

the witnesses believe that the bible points to the christ as the worldly incarnation of the archangel michael. do you agree?

they use the same pole star you do, pointing to jesus, as yours does.

No I don't agree.Again, in part because of the opinions of scholars regarding the witness' translation of John 1.Partly because what scriptures I read for myself also don't seem to agree with their views about Jesus.

of course you don't agree, goombah. the fact that you don't agree with the witnesses using the same book you do is my point. the guide is subjective, and subject to interpretation. john 1 can be correctly translated as the witnesses do, as i understand it. the problems with the NWT are significant, but elsewhere.

I'm not familiar with any other christian groups that use the same translation as they do.Do you know of any off-hand?

their NWT is translated from the very famous greek new testament of westcott and hort. you can read other translations of that 19th century bible in other places. you do understand that your NT is a document put together by academicians who decide, as scholars, what passages in what form are going to compose your bible? not commentaries, but the base text?

here is john 1:1, according to westcott and hort:

John 1:1
en archee een ho logos kai ho logos een pros
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD
1722 0746 1511_3 3588 3056 2532 3588 3056 1511_3 4314
ton theon kai theos een ho logos
THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
3588 2316 2532 2316 1511_3 3588 3056

http://www.westcotthort.com/books/Westcott_Hort_Interlinear.pdf

[Airyaman]

Just for the record the NWT is only one of many Bible translations that render John 1:1 in that way. The translation of it in that way is not unique among Witnesses.

http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm 

[meAgain]

We are all fallible human beings.  All of our institutions are fallible too, as a result.  So is everything we've ever written.  Rather than irrationally hold on to a pretense that something we have created is infallible--like the bible or a religious institution--we would do better to remain aware that everything humans touch could turn out to be in error at some point.

You keep ignoring what I say and repeating your false accusation.  I have repeatedly said the Church is made up of fallible human beings and have repeated the Bible could contain factual errors or be mistranslated or misunderstood.  So please stop pretending I don't think that! 

But why mistrust Christ's words to us and why not believe Christ gave authority to His Church?

i would agree with that. the problem, of course, is that the assertion is that the bible is unique and inspired, a document intended to guide disciples. yet it cannot be trusted to be clear without the help of paid professionals with lengthy resumes. personally i suspect such sources of universal insight.

It is those outside of the Church that felt the need for paid professionals with lengthy resumes to tell us what the Bible says.  And they are free to do their Bible analysis, point out ?contradictions?, and come to their ?scholarly? conclusions (which is usually found to resemble quite closely the conclusions the Church teaches). In the mean time, the people have always had Christ?s Church to safeguard Christ?s teachings.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Just for the record the NWT is only one of many Bible translations that render John 1:1 in that way. The translation of it in that way is not unique among Witnesses.

http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm 

1864 ?and a god was the Word? (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1867 ?In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God? - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
1935 ?and the Word was divine? - The Bible?An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955 ?so the Word was divine? - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1978 ?and godlike sort was the Logos? - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G?ttingen, Germany

[Airyaman]

^^ So at least a handful of people use those other translations?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

It seems to me that either way it's translated it may be done to fit a preexisting doctrine.

[Airyaman]

And yet you won't extend the same notion to the bible itself...

[Shawna]

We are all fallible human beings.  All of our institutions are fallible too, as a result.  So is everything we've ever written.  Rather than irrationally hold on to a pretense that something we have created is infallible--like the bible or a religious institution--we would do better to remain aware that everything humans touch could turn out to be in error at some point.

You keep ignoring what I say and repeating your false accusation.  I have repeatedly said the Church is made up of fallible human beings and have repeated the Bible could contain factual errors or be mistranslated or misunderstood.  So please stop pretending I don't think that! 

But why mistrust Christ's words to us and why not believe Christ gave authority to His Church?

OK, you don't say the RCC is infallible.  You say it is free from error.  That's like saying "2x3 isn't 6, 3x2 is 6."

I believe that Jesus gave authority to his Church.  I don't believe that the institutional religions that call themselves churches are representatives of that Church, except where their membership happens to intersect.

[meAgain]

I don't believe that the institutional religions that call themselves churches are representatives of that Church . . .

There is Scriptural and Traditional evidence showing that Christ intended one, actual, visible, hierarchically organized Church.  It is also the only thing that makes sense when considered logically and with an open heart and mind. 


**and a little side note  -- I am still a bit confused if I am even allowed to post this in this thread.  You keep turning me in for violating the testimonial board rules and yet there are many others, yourself included, who continue to argue in this thread and yet you are giving yourself and all of them a pass.  What am I missing?   

[Shawna]

I don't believe that the institutional religions that call themselves churches are representatives of that Church . . .

There is Scriptural and Traditional evidence showing that Christ intended one, actual, visible, hierarchically organized Church.  It is also the only thing that makes sense when considered logically and with an open heart and mind. 


**and a little side note  -- I am still a bit confused if I am even allowed to post this in this thread.  You keep turning me in for violating the testimonial board rules and yet there are many others, yourself included, who continue to argue in this thread and yet you are giving yourself and all of them a pass.  What am I missing?   

Your church (lowercase "c") interprets the scripture to mean that.  Others interpret it to mean other things.

**** You are a very borderline contributor to this thread, because you still have no idea how to have a discussion without trying to "correct" what you view as someone's misguided ideas.  When a post contains laughter or derision about the topic, I report it.  You have done both.  When a post contains phrases like "Shawna is wrong/mistaken/misguided", I report it.  You have done so.  When a post contains phrases like "Shawna isn't thinking through the negative consequences of her ideas" I report it.  You have done so.

When people disagree with each other, without addressing me or referring to me in this thread, I ignore it.  It seems to me that the "no disagreements" rule is specific to the OP, not to all posts.  When people express ideas that are in disagreement with my own views, but use phrases like "It seems to me" or "in my experience", I do not report that, because the way they phrase their contribution allows others to hold differing views, without automatically declaring those differing views to be wrong.

You, Meagain, are so determined to prove me wrong, that you can't hold a conversation here, in Testimonials.  Testimonials was designed to allow people to share their ideas/beliefs/experiences without fear of having to leap up and defend themselves.  It is a safe corner for IGI, away from debate and fault-finding.  As such, the Testimonial threads tend to be short... composed mainly of a few "thank you for sharing" type posts.  Really, if you can't figure it out, don't post here. 

[meAgain]

When people express ideas that are in disagreement with my own views, but use phrases like "It seems to me" or "in my experience", I do not report that, because the way they phrase their contribution allows others to hold differing views, without automatically declaring those differing views to be wrong.

I do this and use these phrases just as often as others, but like I've said before, personally, I assume it is obvious and one shouldn't need to preface everything this way.  No kidding it is my experience, my opinion, seems to me, or what I think.  I think you still don't realize just how personal you seem to make it.  Well, for the record, it isn't personal for me and I will continue to try to understand your sensitivity, even though I am finding it very difficult.   

[Goombah]

No, the Bible is still the pole star.Why shouldn't I avail myself of Bible teachers if Christ placed them into His body?
I'm not a student of the languages which Scripture was written in -if I am to " study to show myself approved" as it were, I seek expert advice.That seems like a sensible approach.

i would agree with that. the problem, of course, is that the assertion is that the bible is unique and inspired, a document intended to guide disciples. yet it cannot be trusted to be clear without the help of paid professionals with lengthy resumes. personally i suspect such sources of universal insight.

The Bible is certainly clear enough regarding what is necessary for our salvation.I was just recently reading about the thousands of uneducated Indian dalits who have been born-again because they understood the plain teaching of Scripture.There were no professionals involved when I was saved...just the Book of Romans and myself.
If you suspect them then by all means don't use them.Personally I suspect the people who say God enlightened them on an individual basis when I have no means to 'fact check' their revelation.

Everybody has disagreed with other people since Cain and Abel....that doesn't render Scripture null and void.Quakers are divided yet you still seem to claim that you are one.

no, we don't.

Sorry for being unclear...I mean you personally are a Quaker even though Quakers are very much divided.

the witnesses believe that the bible points to the christ as the worldly incarnation of the archangel michael. do you agree?

they use the same pole star you do, pointing to jesus, as yours does.

No I don't agree.Again, in part because of the opinions of scholars regarding the witness' translation of John 1.Partly because what scriptures I read for myself also don't seem to agree with their views about Jesus.

of course you don't agree, goombah. the fact that you don't agree with the witnesses using the same book you do is my point. the guide is subjective, and subject to interpretation. john 1 can be correctly translated as the witnesses do, as i understand it. the problems with the NWT are significant, but elsewhere.

Again ,Kevin most of the scholars I read in no way possible allow for John 1: 1 to be taken as a proof text to be used to disallow Jesus' divinity.How many christian denominations use the NWT?Would you name a couple so I can do further study of them.
So, The problems with the NWT lie elsewhere?They are significant?You question my use of experts to bolster my understanding of Scripture.....how did you come to your conclusions about the NWT? Are you an expert? If its your opinion, what is it based on?

I'm not familiar with any other christian groups that use the same translation as they do.Do you know of any offhand?

their NWT is translated from the very famous greek new testament of westcott and hort. you can read other translations of that 19th century bible in other places. you do understand that your NT is a document put together by academicians who decide, as scholars, what passages in what form are going to compose your bible? not commentaries, but the base text?

Yes it is famous.Do you know why it became famous.....because of the expert scholars involved in it's formulation.
I have an understanding of the foundation of The NT, and, so what?

here is john 1:1, according to westcott and hort:

John 1:1
en archee een ho logos kai ho logos een pros
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD
1722 0746 1511_3 3588 3056 2532 3588 3056 1511_3 4314
ton theon kai theos een ho logos
THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
3588 2316 2532 2316 1511_3 3588 3056

http://www.westcotthort.com/books/Westcott_Hort_Interlinear.pdf

Two questions:

1) Without consulting anything scholarly, how do I determine the meaning of the word 'toward' in that context and historical time frame?

2)How does that not claim Jesus ( the Word) is God?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Another thing for the record.  John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus being identified as Michael.

And here is a curious thing about that scripture.  The first reference to God is "the God" while the second only says "God".  That is true in the Greek also.  If I remember correctly "a" does not appear anywhere in Greek.  It is entirely up to the translator where to place an "a".

[kevin]

why are you guys so defensive about the bible?

i can't even mention that mine has black leather covers without somebody claiming that i'm defending some illogical and blasphemous theology or another.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I'm not being defensive.  I simply cleared up an error.

[urs]

Another thing for the record.  John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus being identified as Michael.

And here is a curious thing about that scripture.  The first reference to God is "the God" while the second only says "God".  That is true in the Greek also.  If I remember correctly "a" does not appear anywhere in Greek.  It is entirely up to the translator where to place an "a".

Not all languages utilize articles (a, an, or the). This leaves a certain amount of ambiguity regarding interpretation unless there is another means within the context, grammar, or syntax of communicating such specifics.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Another place I've noticed there is a difference in translation is at John 4:24.  Some say "God is a spirit" whereas others say, "God is spirit". 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Spirit is a nebulous word.




There were many and diverse spirits at my cousins wedding this past Saturday. My spirit was uplifted.

[Airyaman]

Another place I've noticed there is a difference in translation is at John 4:24.  Some say "God is a spirit" whereas others say, "God is spirit".

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

[meAgain]

Not all languages utilize articles (a, an, or the). This leaves a certain amount of ambiguity regarding interpretation unless there is another means within the context, grammar, or syntax of communicating such specifics.

Another place I've noticed there is a difference in translation is at John 4:24.  Some say "God is a spirit" whereas others say, "God is spirit".

. . . Even more reason to recognize that if a Christian believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, it would be only logical to believe Christ left an authoritative Church to who we could turn to be sure we are getting His words right!  Nothing else makes sense. 

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

Not all of us are confused. 

[Airyaman]

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

Not all of us are confused.

Not being confused should not be mistaken for being right.

[meAgain]

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

Not all of us are confused.

Not being confused should not be mistaken for being right.

right back at ya 

[Airyaman]

Certainly. I know no more of the intentions of the various bible book writers than you  do. That is the entire point.

[QuestionMark]

And I think, just maybe......   that we would all be better off if the bible had been lost to the sands of time.  I think, maybe, if we were concentrating on our own story, instead of everyone else's.... that maybe we would have found a better path by now.

I know you all better than you know yourselves.

[davdi]

A thread about "poetry" turns into a thread about "prose". 

Thanks for your thoughtful OP Shawna. 

No wonder Eliot gives Kevin headaches. 

I have been very sympathetic to your "poetry" Shawna.  Now maybe I can go back to church. 

As for the discussions about the Bible, I am less puritanical about it.  The message is ..... Jesus.  My favorite SS ditty is "Jesus bids us shine with a pure clear light, like a little candle burning in the night ......  you in your small corner and I in mine." 

[kevin]

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.

[Shawna]

A thread about "poetry" turns into a thread about "prose". 

Funny how that works, isn't it?   

It's ok.  I learned something important.  People don't even know that they have put the bible in the place where God should be.  It's been interesting.

"If the lost word is lost, if the spent word is spent
If the unheard, unspoken
Word is unspoken, unheard;
Still is the unspoken word, the Word unheard,
The Word without a word, the Word within
The world and for the world;
And the light shone in darkness and
Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
About the centre of the silent Word."

So someday we go back to church.

[kevin]

Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.

[Shawna]

"This is the time of tension between dying and birth
The place of solitude where three dreams cross
Between blue rocks
But when the voices shaken from the yew-tree drift away
Let the other yew be shaken and reply."

[davdi]

Polyphiloprogenitive
The sapient sutlers of the Lord
Drift across the window-panes.
In the beginning was the Word.

In the beginning was the Word.
Superfetation of [Greek text inserted here],
And at the mensual turn of time
Produced enervate Origen.

A painter of the Umbrian school
Designed upon a gesso ground
The nimbus of the Baptized God.
The wilderness is cracked and browned

But through the water pale and thin
Still shine the unoffending feet
And there above the painter set
The Father and the Paraclete.

The sable presbyters approach
The avenue of penitence;
The young are red and pustular
Clutching piaculative pence.



At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is,
But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity,
Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards,
Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.
I can only say, there we have been: but I cannot say where.
And I cannot say, how long, for that is to place it in time.
The inner freedom from the practical desire,
The release from action and suffering, release from the inner
And the outer compulsion, yet surrounded

[davdi]

I'm not sure whatnthevthunder says, Kevin.  To me it talks of cooling and refreshing, of Grace poured gently from heaven.  Of temporary loss and the disruptions that may our say more commonplace.

YOU?

[kevin]

the orthodox interpretation is that the thunder spoke to men, to the demons, and to god. ive not read the upanishads

they're on the list.