Thinking about belief

[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?