A General discussion on the Christian faith and message

I'm not the least bit sure how I'm taking Matthew 7:7 out of context. Was I not the one who quoted the context here?

You were taking my comments out of context. YOu took them from a specific context (asking God specifically about truth needed to follow His will), and are trying to apply it to a much wider context.

It seems to me that that's more about emotion than reason, particularly since the translation is from a 19th-century American and not (I believe) from a culture whose metaphors include this idea that reason arises from within the heart.

Bubba, the word ponder means "to weigh in the mind with thoroughness and care." You have to remember that in ancient cultures (including in the Bible), they often treated the heart as the center of the soul. Pondering, by its very nature, requires reason.

As I addressed in the Mormonism thread, the Book of Mormon is closer to a word-for-word translation than a phrase-by-phrase or idea-by-idea translation. You can see this in many of the grammatical structures used in it that are similar to those in semitic languages.

But it does not follow that, if a person asks God a specific question in order to get guidance, that God will always answer that question in an explicit way.

It may be that the question is unimportant from God's point of view -- that there are either "bigger fish to fry" or that God has actually left us free to make the decision on our own. (It's possible that God doesn't care which shoe we put on first, for instance.)

It may be that the specific question has already been answered with a more general principle. The question, "should I have sex with this person?" has already been answered more generally: yes, if y'all are married; no in all other circumstances.

Matthew 7:9 helps make it clear. It is basically saying that if a child (us) is asking for something that he really needs, God isn't going to just turn him away or give him something else. In order to follow God's will and truth, we need to know what it is.

To use the analogy in the scriptures, if we are hungry for truth, and we ask our father (God) for it, is he going to give us a stone (something false), or let us go hungry?

It's a very simple and clear chain of logic and reason.

Kimball Kinnison

 

To continue the analogy, what if a child of God is hungry for truth but already surrounded by bread?

I don't think God needs to explicitly and specifically answer the question of whether the Book of Mormon is the truth by providing the gift of enlightenment through the Holy Spirit if He has already given us the gift of reason and the answer can be derived from that gift.

 

To continue the analogy, what if a child of God is hungry for truth but already surrounded by bread?

Then, wouldn't He instead point the child in the right direction? Would a parent just sit there while a child is asking for bread, and not tell the child that he is surrounded by it?

Prayers can be answered in more ways than a direct answer. I have personally had prayers answered through the Senate Floor, where someone made a statement that directly answered one of my prayers.

However, any further discussion of this as it relates to the Book of Mormon is off-topic for this thread. I upped the Mormonism thread for you, if you want to continue that train of thought.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Then, wouldn't He instead point the child in the right direction? Would a parent just sit there while a child is asking for bread, and not tell the child that he is surrounded by it?

And what if, after He told the child about the bread, he refused to pick it up and kept asking for bread? Wouldn't He put the bread in the child's hand instead of letting him starve to death?

And what if the child refused to put it in his mouth? Wouldn't He open the child's mouth and put the bread in for him?

And what if the child refused to chew and swallow?


And what if we're not dealing with a child who's not three months old and doesn't have, um, special needs?

At some point, we have to recall the old saying about leading a horse to water. Humans aren't horses, but I believe God respects human free will. Some people may truly ought to know already whether the Book of Mormon is trustworthy, but if they're not willing to heed the answer already given through reason, I'm not sure God would necessarily answer through His Holy Spirit.


Anyway, I saw your post in the Mormonism thread, and I just posted a reply.

 

I want to go back for a moment, KK, and talk about what you said about certain books of the Bible not being inspired.

Question: If there is considerable possibility that Song of Solomon is not inspired, then what reason do we have to not think the same of Genesis or John or Romans or the entire Bible?

 

Question: If there is considerable possibility that Song of Solomon is not inspired, then what reason do we have to not think the same of Genesis or John or Romans or the entire Bible?

Quite honestly? None whatsoever.

There is no amount of proof that I or anyone else can give you that would prove that one book is inspired while another is not. For example, I know, without any doubt that the Book of Mormon is true, but I cannot prove it to you. A Christian knows that the New Testament is true, but there is no way that he can prove that to a Jew.

Ultimately, the only way you can know whether something comes from God or not is to have built a personal relationship with God yourself, and be directed by Him. Nothing else will or can convince anyone.

Spiritual things cannot be proven through historical or academic proof. They require spiritual proof, and that is a personal thing.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I agree that you cannot "prove" Christianity or come at from a purely academic standpoint. However, (and this comes a lot easier if you read C.S. Lewis) I have been really astounded, especially in recent months, how much I can observe some Biblical truths all around me. You can learn an awful lot about the world and human nature through the Bible. That gives at least some weight to it's veracity.

 

Just dropped in to see how things were going. Damn. It looks like I'm going to have a lot of catching up to do when I have the free time to actually sit down and read all that.

 

I agree that you cannot "prove" Christianity or come at from a purely academic standpoint. However, (and this comes a lot easier if you read C.S. Lewis) I have been really astounded, especially in recent months, how much I can observe some Biblical truths all around me. You can learn an awful lot about the world and human nature through the Bible. That gives at least some weight to it's veracity.

I agree. Please don't misinterpret what I say to mean that I think that the Bible is not true. I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. My core point is the only way to really know that is through personal spiritual proof rather than any hostorical or other academic proof. If a person doesn't get that witness for himself, no amount of arguing with him will convince him. The only way to help someone gain that spiritual proof is to create an environment where they can build a closer relationship with God for themselves.

Where you say that you can observe some Biblical truths all around you, I agree. I also see truths from the Book of Mormon everywhere, and many other simple truths. You can even find many of those same truths in the Koran, the writings of Sun Tzu, or many other places. If your heart is open to the Spirit, you can learn those truths from almost any source.

This is a hard truth for some people to accept, but the Bible is not necessary to a person's salvation. It is a tool to help someone on his way, but it is not a requirement. The Christians of the first century didn't have the Bible. Consider Stephen, who was stoned in Acts 7. Virtually none of the New Testament had been written yet, and yet considering his vision as he was stoned, I doubt many people would contest his salvation.

Ultimately, what is most important for our salvation is that we search out God's truth, try to learn it, and then follow it once we find it. The only way to really learn it is through the Spirit.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'm with VoijaRisa. Sheesh, it takes so much time to read and type responses anymore!

 

Actually, Kimball, most of the people from the New Testament were well versed in the Old Testament Scriptures. They lived by them.

But I agree with you in that our salvation depends only on being "born from above", becoming a new creature in Jesus.

 

KK, I agree with you to some extent. However, I think that your exmaple is something of a misrepresentation.

While Stephen didn't have the same Bible we had today, he did have the entire Old Testament at his disposal. In that sense, he was operating with as much of God's Word as he had available to him at the time.

In general, I feel that while you are correct that you establish a relationship with God thorugh the Holy Spiirt, that the foundation of this connection is ultimately in that fact that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

On a related note, even if it were theoretically possible to achieve salvation entirely independent of the Bible, it is hard to imagine that someone seeking to genuinely learn about God and have a relationship with him would never look into God's word.

 

I'm not saying that the scriptures are not important. They are extremely important.

However, the scriptures themselves should not be treated as anything other than what they really are: tools to help us come closer to God.

Additionally, it is not enough to simply follow something because it is in the Bible, or because someone said you should. You need to actually learn for yourself whether it is true or not, and for that you need to have that personal relationship with God.

Consider, for example, physics. In order to really learn physics, it is not enough to simply read a physics book. You also have to actually do the experiments in order to observe for yourself that the physics principles are true.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: Essentially, what I am saying is that there are many ways that a person can learn the truths that they need to follow. One is by reading the scriptures. Another is through a personal experience (i.e. Moses and the burning bush). A third is through hearing the words of a teacher (i.e. a prophet or other individual who knows the path). Each of these is a different tool that can be used by itself or with others to bring a person closer to God.

Consider the early Church. All they really had (that we know of) were the Apostles and their epistles. It wasn't until years later that the Gospels were likely finished and distributed, and yet they still had the promise of salvation equal to anyone who has read the Gospels. Therefore, it is clear that the Gospels themselves are not necessary for salvation (although they can help you on the path). The same can be said for any other work of scripture.

 

Very well said Kimball... I agree.

To add my own input... Because God knows us better than we know ourselves, I think it is important for us to do things for the right reason. If we are doing something simply because "It is in the Bible" or because "We were told to", etc... we are not doing what God put us here for.

Because God can see through our masks, and our deception and hidden intentions... Of course He will know why you are being Righteous. By no means am I saying that God will punish you for doing the right things for not the right reason.

But look at it this way... if a young man, trying to impress a girl, or his peers, acts within the laws of Christ. He performs them clearly and wonderfully. However, he doesn't really believe in all of them truly. Would this man recieve the same blessings as somebody who is performing the tasks and trials BECAUSE he believes in them? I think not.

More importantly I would like to emphasize what KK has said about knowing Truth. When I read the Bible, I do not read it as though everything it says is a law... I read it as though it were me in the situation. And I think about how I feel about it. If I feel that it is right and True, than I accept it. If I feel it is not, than I do not. I am not suggesting to get rid of the things in the Bible you do not like... But the things that you HONESTLY feel are incorrect, or at least not completely right. Because if you feel something is wrong in the Bible and you do it anyway... You aren't being true to yourself, or (more importantly) to God.

Just a few thoughts.

JMA

 

KK

I am finding less and less people want to believe the bible is inspired by God because it is in conflict with there personal belief structure.

Now if they won't believe the bible how can you ever expect them to believe the Book of Mormon? Which was made what in the 1800's sometime?

 

Here's a question I'd like to pose:

What percentage of people do you think actively study Christianity and/or Judaism from an academic point of view, rather than entirely or mainly from a faith-based perspective?

Academic study of it seems almost anathema to some, and seems almost discouraged by many.

 

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothey 3:16

I believe that all books are God-inspired and they all have some usefulness to a believer.

On the topic of is the bible historically accurate, I would recomment that if you are serious you can do some serious reasearch of your own rather than trusting on your own beliefs or what others have told you. One book that is good to start with is Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". This book goes into the apologetics of the bible and Jesus and is a good starting point.

Tahiri_Rose

 

Wow, this topic came back. I'd meant to respond to it a long time ago, but was too busy and then forgot. I guess I'll do it now.

I agree with Tahiri-Rose, first off.

As for KnightWriter, someone would actually have to do a statistically sound survey in order to find that out. Your best bet would be . . .Pew Research, or something, I belived there called. They do a lot of polls of Christians in the US, on various topics, so they might've done something similar in the past. Personally, I feel that approaching things academically can be helpful, but its not necessary. Further it can cause harm (in the form of just confusing someone) if they're not capable of understanding what they dove into. For instance, while it might be good to learn a few principles of money management to help you run your household, you'd probably just end up confusing yourself if you started out this learning trying to read Harvard's economic forecast for the coming year. Alternatively, I don't think it should be done if it's just a matter of pride/image. As in, if the person who does the research wants to use it as evidence of how intellectual they are, and then look down on everyone else that hasn't done similar research. That's counter-productive too. But outside of that, research is great, and often very helpful.

Blue_Jedi, I agree with the first part of your post. As to the second, I don't quite follow (or, alternatively, agree). Any sense of believability the Bible may gain for having "stood the test of time" is negated in most people's minds by the fact that "record-keeping was less thorough in ancient times" etc. So I don't see why either book would be more or less believable than the other.

JMA, I have to take issue with you there. I think that doing something "just because it is in the Bible" is a perfectly legitimate reason to do something. Now, we should take great care to ensure that what we think we're reading is actually what is meant, but assuming we are interpreting correctly, doing something just because that's what the Bible said is perfectly acceptable, even if we have some personal qualms over it. This seems, to me, to be the essence of statements like "I believe, but help me with my unbelief." Or again, consider Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac. I don't imagine he was thrilled about killing his only son. He probably had very serious doubts about it. Yet, he was ready to do it, believing by faith the word of God. In the same way, when we are confronted with an issue in the Bible that seems difficult or counter-intuitive to us, and yet still obey it, it seems to me that we are leaning on our faith that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that God is always just and right, so that even though we don't necessarily have a full understanding of why we should be doing what we are, we're stil doing it because of our belief in God. This seems both genuine and legitimate to me, and worthy of a full reward.

As for the second part of your post, how can you tell the difference? Aren't you more likely to conclude that something that you disagree with genuinely doesn't belong than something you agree with? Also, if you believe something is wrong/incorrect that would imply that either that passage was fradulently added, or that God could be wrong/incorrect. In the first case, it seems like that would only be justifiable if you had significant and historically sound evidence, and then you'd still need to find the correct version, and obey it. In the second case. . .I don't see how you'd believe that and still claim to be Christian. So yeah, I find the second half of your post dubious.

KK, this is rather difficult, but I still must disagree. While I agree that a personal relationship with God is most important, I object to the "multiple paths to God" equivocations that, in my opinion, lower the status of the Bible.

To use your example, it's true that you can't really learn physics without doing the experiments. But it's equally (if not more) true that you can't really learn physics w

 

KK, this is rather difficult, but I still must disagree. While I agree that a personal relationship with God is most important, I object to the "multiple paths to God" equivocations that, in my opinion, lower the status of the Bible.

I never said that there are "multiple paths to God", only that there are multiple "tools" that we can use to learn about God. All of them are equally as important. The Bible is useless unless you learn for yourself that its teachings are true, and that's something that you can only do through a personal relationship with God. Both are tools to bring you closer to God.

Basically, my contention is that the true believer should utilize every path to God available to him simultaneously. Thus, he reads, prays, listens to preachers/prophets/teachers, and seeks personal encounters with God all at once. While he can have one he favors, in order to maximize his knowledge of God and relationship with God, he should be utilizing all that are available.

And I never said otherwise. However, there are too many people who focus only on what the Bible says and do nothing to help people gain a testimony that the Bible itself is true. Most discussions like this start from the assumption that the Bible is true, and do not do anything to prove it.

However, you can't prove that the Bible is true through simple debate. No amount of historical or logical proof can irrefutably prove the Bible. Ultimately, the only proof comes, as Christ said, through personal experience (see John 7:16-17).

The Bible says that all scripture comes from God, but every other book of professed scripture also claims to come from God. Only through a personal relationship with God can you really learn to differentiate between scripture and other writings.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Up.


Thanks to 44 for unlocking this.


Hopefully the topic discussion can be renewed.

 

Even growing up in an evangelical Christian home, I feel I cannot relate to born-again Christians.

I am no biblical scholar, yet I find many matters of the holy texts doubtful.

One of my biggest greivances has to do with the seeming cop-out of Christians when they justify Old Testament atrocities as being under another law.

In one breath you'll have those who feel the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God challenging moral relativism than in the next saying laws changed.

How can Christians argue morality is absolute and fixed when the Sermon on the Mount is placed juxtaposed to Yahweh's practices?

The so-called End Times and Revelations angle is wracked with questionable parts, too.

Conservative Christians have pinned their hopes of deliverance on a metaphorical political book that railed against the Romans.

There is no evidence that John's Revelation speaks of the End of Days except conjecture!

And no, I am not bitter towards Christianity. On the contrary Jesus was a man of exceptional character.

I simply can't relate to those at churches who get all bubbly because they feel God is doing this or doing that, or making them feel good.

Religion is lackluster and insipid to me.

I have never, not once felt God's "presence." That is so vague and open to personal perception that I don't feel others who say so are valid.

I mean, if you think you've felt God's presence isn't that the same and just as well as actually feeling it?

I tend towards agosticism because I feel it is the most reasonable and defensable position. Whether or not there is a God is unknowable.

If we could know there is a God, I feel the religious sects would not be so manifold.

I believe in doing good for goodness sake and not violating man's natural rights.

You don't need a cosmic arbiter to tell you that if I plant a radish on my property I have either a right to eat it myself or sell it.

You don't need a cosmic arbiter to tell you you'll live a more enriching life if you extend a hand to someone who has fallen.

<[-]> Saber

 

Pope says all other christians churches are wrong

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/?GT1=10150

Well what do you think about that?

I think this Pope, is making himself out to be a fool really. I feel so sorry for Catholics.

Do a little researth into what the Catholic church did during the second world war(can't go into more details, because of a certain rule) and you will see they strayed away from the teachings of the bible and Jesus more than any other religion. And then there is all the child abuse cases, that were hushed up by moving Preists to a different Perish's. Since I had relatives that were nuns and preists, I know about this stuff. Thankfully my Grandmother got out, when a Preist told her not to read the bible stay home and make babies and clean house and let the clergy look after everything. As an intelligent woman (she was a school teacher), she didn't listen them. And I am happy she made that choice

He better remove the rafter from his own church, before he tries to pick out the straw out of other churches, that don't have record of evil deeds. See Matthew 7:1-5

 

At first, I was shocked and disgusted by what the Pope had to say. Saying everyone else was wrong? Of all the pigheaded, undiplomatic things to say! Way to promote universal peace and tolerance!Way to continue the legacy of John Paul II! Needless to say, I was seriously not impressed.

And then, I thought about it. And I realized something that should have been obvious: this isn't like a country saying all other governments are wrong, this isn't some pop star or athlete flavor of the month declaring himself or herself the greatest, no, this is something entirely different. This, this is religion. And the Pope's business is to ensure that as many people can be saved as possible. That's his job here on earth, to Sheppard the flock that is the human race. He does not answer to public opinion polls or political correctness: when he's saying there's only one true church, it's because he believes that the Roman Catholic church is the best past to salvation.

If he were to say anything else, it'd be politic, but it'd be untrue. And so: I disagree with his opinion about what's necessary for salvation, I dislike the belligerency with which the statement seems to be delivered, but I applaud him for being willing to make such statement.

 

The big thing that a lot of people forget is that tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, nor is it the same as equivocation. Tolerating someone else's beliefs doesn't mean that you think yours are any less correct, nor does it mean that you think that their beliefs are (or even could be) right. All that tolerance means is that you recognize and respect others' beliefs.

I would never expect the Catholic Church to say that any other church (with the possible exception of the Eastern Orthodox churches) has any validity when it comes to doctrinal authority. One of the bedrocks of the Catholic Church is that is claims apostolic succession, and so they claim to derive their authority directly from Christ as passed down through Peter to the line of Popes. (The Eastern Orthodox churches claim a similar line of succession through other apostles, IIRC.) Because of that, no other churches have the legitimate authority to perform any saving ordinances (such as baptism). (Remember that the Catholic Church excommunicated the founders of the various Protestant churches, stripping them of any such authority that they might have had in the eyes of the Catholic Church.)

Similarly, the LDS Church (of which I am a member) claims without equivocation that it is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth". At the same time, one of our Articles of Faith clearly states:

While we claim to be the only true church, we also respect the rights of others to believe what they will and worship how, where, and what they want to. It is a tolerant approach, and yet it also boldly asserts that others' beliefs are lacking in truth. (We don't claim to be the only ones with truth, only that we are the only ones with all the truth.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

Agreed.