Scripture.

 

I guess this is what I’m questioning in that it seems to me there is a clear distinction between the laws of the Old Testament (which are very lengthy and explicit) and the New Testament where there aren’t such comprehensive lists. To put it succinctly, the Old Testament seems rife with lists of “don’ts” while Jesus’ words tend toward commands to be righteous, which is a distinct difference to me. My personal interpretation and beliefs are that, as saved persons, we are freed from sin, i.e. we aren’t required to live our lives walking on eggshells trying not to sin. I think it’s this obsession with sin that holds a lot of people back from what I consider the crux of the belief: loving others.

 

The reason I say this is that in the absence of a comprehensive list of “don’ts” from Jesus, it seems to me many so-called sins are subjective to each of us. (This is along the lines of Jim’s point about sexual immorality. What we find perfectly normal today might have been outright scandalous to the readers of Paul’s letters. Since the letters are not explicitly specific, who is right?) There are many societal mores I think Christians try to enforce through their religion as well as many societal mores many Christians accept that might conflict with Biblical teachings.

 

I bring this up in a thread about homosexuality because it is something society has for a very long time not accepted, Christian or not. Christians have little trouble in rectifying their beliefs with admonitions against homosexuality, whether that being under the rubric of “sexual immorality” or some other verse.

 

On the other hand, Jesus warns against greed and wealth (Luke 12: 13-21; Mathew 6: 19-24) and the New Testament generally warns against it as well (Timothy 6:9-12; Ephesians 5:5). Our society generally does not agree with these as wealth and its pursuit are celebrated. It also brings up the subjective nature of these admonitions. What is the greed Jesus warns against? Is it living a life beyond the bare necessities? Is it a life of excess (and in excess of what)? How many Christians admonish people for becoming lawyers or CEOs, for buying a Lexus instead of a Kia, for taking a trip to the Bahamas instead of donating the money to charity?

 

Similarly, Jesus warns against an “eye for an eye” and advises his followers to “turn the other cheek.” This, again, is not generally accepted by society. Our instinctual reaction seems to be toward revenge and pride. But, how many Christians admonish people for not offering a thief their jacket as well? For violence?

 

My point is that I think there is considerable subjectivity in interpretation. One person might feel he’s obliged to live like the Amish, another might feel he’s obliged to live like a king so long as he still finds time for church. Similarly, I wonder how much the admonition of homosexuality fits into this. Is there a universal interpretation of sexual immorality, or is it how each of us perceive it?

Habib, if you don't mind my reply, I think that we often want to cast the old testament out with the trash and Christ didn't do that at all. He discussed the 10 commandments when the teachers of the law confronted him on it. When he was tempted by satan, he always replied "it is written". But I agree with you that it's a difficult question to answer. As for the sexual immorality Paul warned about, considering he was as educated in the old testament as anyone of his time, do you think that he had an abbreviated list of "don'ts" vs. what he knew from scripture that he'd learned from a child?

Habib, you posted my thoughts to a tee. Much more eloquently put, I might add. :thumb:

I guess this is what I’m questioning in that it seems to me there is a clear distinction between the laws of the Old Testament (which are very lengthy and explicit) and the New Testament where there aren’t such comprehensive lists. To put it succinctly, the Old Testament seems rife with lists of “don’ts” while Jesus’ words tend toward commands to be righteous, which is a distinct difference to me. My personal interpretation and beliefs are that, as saved persons, we are freed from sin, i.e. we aren’t required to live our lives walking on eggshells trying not to sin. I think it’s this obsession with sin that holds a lot of people back from what I consider the crux of the belief: loving others.

 

The reason I say this is that in the absence of a comprehensive list of “don’ts” from Jesus, it seems to me many so-called sins are subjective to each of us. (This is along the lines of Jim’s point about sexual immorality. What we find perfectly normal today might have been outright scandalous to the readers of Paul’s letters. Since the letters are not explicitly specific, who is right?) There are many societal mores I think Christians try to enforce through their religion as well as many societal mores many Christians accept that might conflict with Biblical teachings.

 

I bring this up in a thread about homosexuality because it is something society has for a very long time not accepted, Christian or not. Christians have little trouble in rectifying their beliefs with admonitions against homosexuality, whether that being under the rubric of “sexual immorality” or some other verse.

 

On the other hand, Jesus warns against greed and wealth (Luke 12: 13-21; Mathew 6: 19-24) and the New Testament generally warns against it as well (Timothy 6:9-12; Ephesians 5:5). Our society generally does not agree with these as wealth and its pursuit are celebrated. It also brings up the subjective nature of these admonitions. What is the greed Jesus warns against? Is it living a life beyond the bare necessities? Is it a life of excess (and in excess of what)? How many Christians admonish people for becoming lawyers or CEOs, for buying a Lexus instead of a Kia, for taking a trip to the Bahamas instead of donating the money to charity?

 

Similarly, Jesus warns against an “eye for an eye” and advises his followers to “turn the other cheek.” This, again, is not generally accepted by society. Our instinctual reaction seems to be toward revenge and pride. But, how many Christians admonish people for not offering a thief their jacket as well? For violence?

 

My point is that I think there is considerable subjectivity in interpretation. One person might feel he’s obliged to live like the Amish, another might feel he’s obliged to live like a king so long as he still finds time for church. Similarly, I wonder how much the admonition of homosexuality fits into this. Is there a universal interpretation of sexual immorality, or is it how each of us perceive it?

 

There is a lot to answer here & also a lot that I agree with.

 

Doc touched on some of it...Jesus did repeat much of Old Testament law, albeit in a more succinct, abbreviated way. For example, he summed up the entire law when he gave the two greatest commandments (Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul & mind...Love your neighbor as yourself). In Matthew chapters 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus repeatedly uses the phrase, "You have heard it was said...but I tell you). So he would say, "You've heard it was said, 'Do no commit adultery' but I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." So Jesus, as I mentioned earlier, actually raises the bar of expectation from the Old Testament in a number of instances.

 

Jesus also negated some of the Old Testament regulations & laws--specifically concerning food (see Mark 7:19 where he deems all foods to be "clean"). But the crux of the Old Testament Law (Ten Commandments) are in fact repeated & could be viewed as being made more strict by Jesus. He repeats "Do not murder" but elevates it to "Don't be angry with your brother" because it's that uncontrolled anger that leads to an act like murder. Jesus basically takes the visible part of sin (murder, adultery, etc.) & then zooms in on the heart of the matter (hate that leads to murder, lust that leads to adultery, etc.).

 

The New Testament, as you accurately stated, warns against greed & wealth on a repeated basis. However, there is no New Testament passage that equates wealth with sin. It's given as a stern & repeated warning because people tend to look at wealth as a means of security, when God wants us to find our security & trust in Him. The story of the Rich Young Ruler is a perfect example of how wealth can inhibit one's devotion to Christ.

 

But in general, I think you make good points about subjectivity in interpretation. There are certainly issues where I feel like different interpretations are valid & expected. There are others, such as sexual immorality, where I see great consistency in the New Testament. Jesus referenced Genesis 2, when Adam and Eve were brought together in marriage, and he held that up as the ideal. New Testament letters (specifically 1 Corinthians) deal quite a bit with sexual immorality. In that specific instance, there was a man in the Corinthian church who was sleeping with his stepmother & the church had no problem with it. Paul wrote them, in part, to say they should have a problem with it & that the man should be expelled from their assembly until he changed his ways. He then speaks quite a bit about sexual immorality & also quotes the Genesis 2 passage, where God's original ideal was put forth.

 

So yes, I agree that there is plenty of room for disagreement on some issues. I don't see, though, how there can be differences in interpretation on the issue of sexual immorality. The New Testament is consistent in holding up the original standard of one husband & one wife within a marriage relationship. And to homosexuality, the New Testament is also consistent for including it as being behavior outside of God's will.

 

I think in the Old Testament, you pretty well know where to go if you're looking for law. The thirty-nine Old Testament books are arranged by genre, not by chronology. The first five books are called "books of Law" so you know that's where you'll find most of what God expected from His people. In the New Testament, it's not ordered in the same manner & can be a bit more difficult to find.

 

Finally, there is a verse in the New Testament that speaks to understanding "the whole counsel of God." It's easy to isolate a verse or two & then build one's entire theology around that one verse or that handful of verses. But the challenge is to absorb God's word in its entirety, so that one can formulate a complete picture of His will. Christians are often accused (and rightly so in many cases) of picking and choosing what verses cater to their whims. But I am of the opinion that people who don't hold to Scripture's ultimate authority are guilty of just the same--quick to point out the "Don't judge" statements without reading the rest of what is said in those passages.

 

I feel like I just rambled with this post, so I apologize in advance if it comes across that way.

Randy, couldn't you argue that if Jesus tells you to do something (i.e. turn the other cheek), that not doing so is in fact a sin?

 

I guess my whole issue is why to so many Christians feel the need to immediately quote scripture and talk about sin, etc. whenever the topic of homosexuality is brought up, but remain very quite when sins they consistently partake in are brought up (Greed, envy, sloth, lust, etc)?

 

From my experience on this board, when someone is called out on the inconsistency, they reply in a manner such as "no one is perfect, we all sin, but I know I'm saved because of my faith in Jesus." So why isn't the same true with regards to the preceived sin (and I call it such, because it's highly debatable IMO if it is in fact a sin) of homosexuality?

Randy, couldn't you argue that if Jesus tells you to do something (i.e. turn the other cheek), that not doing so is in fact a sin?

 

I guess my whole issue is why to so many Christians feel the need to immediately quote scripture and talk about sin, etc. whenever the topic of homosexuality is brought up, but remain very quite when sins they consistently partake in are brought up (Greed, envy, sloth, lust, etc)?

 

From my experience on this board, when someone is called out on the inconsistency, they reply in a manner such as "no one is perfect, we all sin, but I know I'm saved because of my faith in Jesus." So why isn't the same true with regards to the preceived sin (and I call it such, because it's highly debatable IMO if it is in fact a sin) of homosexuality?

 

To your first question, absolutely yes. The New Testament (I think James) says that if anyone knows the good that he ought to do & doesn't do it? He sins. For me personally, as a Christian, I believe I commit most of my sins in this way--by not doing something Jesus tells me to do.

 

To your second question, I can't answer for everyone, but the reason I personally reference Scripture when homosexuality comes up is because that's my only basis for saying it goes contrary to God's will. If I didn't have a Biblical worldview, I don't see how I would come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. Conversely, I don't think I need the Bible to see how greed or sloth could be wrong. Greed just looks wrong, if that makes sense.

 

On your third question, those people are right when they say that none of us are perfect, but we're saved because of Christ. And I think a person who struggles with homosexuality can also say the same thing. The difference is whether a person is going to live how they want, regardless of what Scripture says; or whether a person strives for a life that honors God & yet finds himself/herself still sinning.

 

There's a passage in Hebrews that uses a phrase "deliberately keep on sinning." It doesn't say if you sin. It doesn't even say if you deliberately sin. It says "deliberately keep on sinning." In other words, you willfully choose to live a life of sin.

 

King David had an affair with the woman next door, but God didn't banish him to hell for eternity because of that. It was sin & it was deliberate sin. But that wasn't David's lifestyle.

 

When Jesus made the ever popular "you who are without sin cast the first stone" comment, he later told the woman who was an adulteress, "Go now and leave your life of sin." He didn't say, "Go and don't ever sin again." Again, big difference there IMO.

The bible defines sexual immorality. I'm sure you know the verses. Did the immorality change with new covenant we have in Christ? I think the answer is no. I've not been personal or barbed in my opinion. I simply think that bible is God's inherent truth and choose to believe it cover to cover. It's my opinion that you either believe it all or none. I know it's difficult for you to hear the things I say. Your lifestyle is sin according to God's word. In the past I had a problem with pornography, a sin of sexual immorality also. I'm sure on this site we have adulterers and other issues with sexual immorality. But to choose to believe something because you "can't believe God thinks that way" just isn't scriptural. God says what he means. There's not room for interpretation. But there is room for application. As a Christian, I see our country waiver, our leaders waiver, our preachers waiver. They soften their stance with ear tickling speech. They leave the very foundation of our faith by mollycoddling those around us with mind numbing acceptance of sin as the norm. I am not opposed to tolerance, but am also not afraid to call sin what it is, sin. UKMF asked about old testament issues with meat. The meat was part of the sacrifice for he atonement of sin, yet the new covenant we have in Christ who is the penultimate sacrifice for our sins does away with the customs and tenets of the old testament with regard to eating pork, for instance. The hierarchy of the home, man is the head of the household, is that not still covered in the new testament? You see, what I see from this point of view is people plucking scripture out, often using it out of context to fit their agenda or angle. I'm tired of it to be quite honest. We should all hold our lives up to God's word and see how we stack up. Does the holy spirit convict us of our sin? Do we even walk close enough to know or are we all numb and hard hearted to the spirit to even discern? God's word is confounding. And he even warns that knowledge will be increased in the end times as Daniel prophecies. I'm not sure if that means about knowledge of Gods word or knowledge in general. Seems to me the latter. I'm sure you aren't pleased either with my stance on the genetic aspects of homosexuality. But scientifically speaking it's indisputable. I'm also tired of Christians being painted as judgemental with scriptures about the splinter and the plank and who am I to judge. Again, Christ warns not to judge, lest you be judged by the same measure. Well, we are all judged by the same measure. If we aren't supposed to judge, how are we ever to learn how to discern? How do we teach our children? Again, sin creeps in to our lives, we pluck that scripture and warn others not to judge us because Christ says so, when in fact, the whole passage doesn't say that remotely.

 

So, to end this diatribe, I asked UKMF if he'd read the bible in it's entirety for my understanding of his point of view. You obviously thought I was being critical. I can say this with assurance, UKMF knows that we go back and forth quite often in threads about various subject, but I respect his stance and his opinion, regardless if I agree with him or him with me. And lastly, I have read every word of this thread, I don't see where Khalid was being contradictory or hypocritical at all. If I was I'd like you to let me know what I said, so that I might have a chance to clarify or defend. Otherwise, I don't see anything illogical about it. I can definitely see, however, why you may think the things I've said are annoying, with all due respect.

 

Spindoc,

 

My comment to you was in reference to your responses to UKMustangFan's response to Khalid. I wasn't really even concentrating on what Khalid said in my comments to you. I was concentrating on how you did what you could to avoid giving a logical response to UKMustangFan's logical comment. If you took it as a hit to Khalid, that was not my intention. It was to anyone in general that was contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical when quoting the Bible as a way to try to point out their interpretation of sins to others, and to you specifically for dancing around UKMustang's relevant thoughts with irrelevant thoughts in return to his comments.

 

The Bible is a tricky thing in our world. There are those that read it, study it, believe it, follow it, preach it, and make it the centerpiece to their lives. That's fine. They're entitled to. We're all entitled to follow some spiritual or philosophical pathway as we see fit for our lives. If the Bible works for you, that's cool.

 

I was exposed to the Bible almost daily while growing up with a Christian background. I have not studied like a scholar. I have not read it cover to cover. Just as much as I don't know all about it, I've also had significant amounts of exposure to it.

 

I have been a seeker in various ways in my life in quest of the truth. I believe there's much, as humans, we are limited in completely grasping as the ultimate truth, but have had personal breakthroughs that make me believe that there's more to life than our existence on planet earth. In arriving at that belief, I hope to, as I go along in life, gain even a better understanding of that which I feel significantly confident in what I already grasp.

 

Can I actually give my understandings a label and turn around and preach it? No. I'm not looking for a label, or to necessarily be confined by one. I'm content with letting my life experiences teach me things, and to stay open to others if I feel that they are too sharing with me learnings from life experiences as well. My filters will be active If I feel that what they are sharing with me is simply no more that what they've been indoctrinated to believe, and they are merely taking on faith.

 

We know that the Bible is a book written by many human authors over a long period of time, who at the time of their writings had no idea that their works would one day be included in what is known as "The Holy Bible". We know that humans compiled it with the intent to pass it along as the inspired writings of God. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't. Who really knows for sure? Some claim that it is, and that they know for sure, but do they really? Really, how could anyone know for sure? If someone wants to live by it, that's their choice, and perhaps it does wonders for their life. It's a bit delusional and self-righteous however for one to claim to know with complete certainty that it is all truthfully the word of God and to scorn others for either questioning it, or not having read as much of it as they have, or to perhaps not even believe in it at all.

 

Let's say hypothetically that I've read a book, and for the sake of giving this hypothetical book a name, we'll say that the title of this book is "The Ultimate Truth" Let's say that reading it was so moving to me that I became convinced that everything written in this book was truly the ultimate truth. Let's say I decide to let what I've read be the guide to my life and that it also makes me want to share it with others because I'm convinced that they too should read it as well. Let's say others have not read it. Should this give me any self-righteous rights to tell them that they are sadly mislead unless they've read it? Does this in good sense give be the position to claim that I now know the ultimate truth and that anyone else that doesn't follow this truth is wrong and misguided? I really don't think so. It would be downright short sighted, self-righteous and ignorant to think so. Can I live by the words of this book if I so choose? Sure, why not? Beyond that though I would be delusional to think that I'm completely certain that it is the truth, and to push it on to others and somehow pontificate that I'm certain that it is the truth, and that everyone else is living wrongly unless they too see it like I do.

 

If you are in the state of mind that you're in, who am I to say that you can't be? It's your life. Self-righteous and delusional people can't see it when they are being as such. I realize that it's a pure waste of time that I've spent here trying to present a rational, and logical thought because self-righteous and delusional people such as yourself will understand none of it. Still just as much as you feel that you have the right to tell others that you are certain that you know the ultimate truth, I have the right to tell you that you are self-righteous and delusional and that you've got a lot of nerve in doing so.

 

Some may get what I'm saying. I'm not taking it to the bank that you will. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me if you do or you don't. I know who I am, and that's working out quite well enough for me for the time that I'm living in this not always so sane world. It takes all kinds I suppose?

One thing is obvious... I need to introduce some of you guys to some different Christians.

We know that the Bible is a book written by many human authors over a long period of time, who at the time of their writings had no idea that their works would one day be included in what is known as "The Holy Bible". We know that humans compiled it with the intent to pass it along as the inspired writings of God. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't. Who really knows for sure? Some claim that it is, and that they know for sure, but do they really? Really, how could anyone know for sure? If someone wants to live by it, that's their choice, and perhaps it does wonders for their life. It's a bit delusional and self-righteous however for one to claim to know with complete certainty that it is all truthfully the word of God and to scorn others for either questioning it, or not having read as much of it as they have, or to perhaps not even believe in it at all.

 

1. I look at Mark who says that "All scripture is God breathed" and I look at II Peter that says no prophecy came from man's interpretation because the holy spirit carried the man along as he was writing (paraphrase, that is why I didn't use quotation marks). Of course, I cannot be successful using the Bible in my argument if I am arguing with people who which the bible carries no weight with them.

2. There has to be an objective truth. My faith demands of me to tell others about the truth, even if it calls for rebuking. I do not always do it well, some times I am too strong and that is my fault. But I can't say "you live your life and I'll live mine and everything will be okay" because my life demands that I share the truth. I just need to learn how to do it better.

1. I look at Mark who says that "All scripture is God breathed" and I look at II Peter that says no prophecy came from man's interpretation because the holy spirit carried the man along as he was writing (paraphrase, that is why I didn't use quotation marks). Of course, I cannot be successful using the Bible in my argument if I am arguing with people who which the bible carries no weight with them.

2. There has to be an objective truth. My faith demands of me to tell others about the truth, even if it calls for rebuking. I do not always do it well, some times I am too strong and that is my fault. But I can't say "you live your life and I'll live mine and everything will be okay" because my life demands that I share the truth. I just need to learn how to do it better.

 

I have no idea if the Bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't have any problem with 'objectively' saying so. I'm limited as a human being in knowing. Christians say that it's the truth because, just as you are saying here, "IT IS WRITTEN". ... And then make the claim that IT IS, NO IF'S, AND'S, OR BUT'S.

 

If I were to write something and tell you I was inspired by God to write it, does that make it so just because I said that it was so, and would you just take me on my word? Probably not. What I say holds no weight with you.

 

How did something, that you can't objectively say with complete certainty was written as the word of God, just be taken as the word of God because whoever wrote it said that it was? How did that claim come to hold weight with you?

 

... And once you believed, that which you can't prove, and take on faith, tells you that you must pass the "truth" along to others... You don't see having to do that as a peculiar, cycular, locked-in, extended, strange, subjective by-product of quite a wild unprovable claim?

 

Actually, there's nothing about doing so that sounds objective. Sounds more cultish to me than anything. When folks' minds are deep in a cult, there's hardly ever anything anyone can say in an "objective manor" that will have an effect of them whatsoever.

 

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the Bible. I just don't get where people think they're being objective all the while pushing on to others an unprovable claim. That and objectivity do not reside on the same street. To think that it does, one has a grave misunderstanding of just what objectivity is.

To your first question, absolutely yes. The New Testament (I think James) says that if anyone knows the good that he ought to do & doesn't do it? He sins. For me personally, as a Christian, I believe I commit most of my sins in this way--by not doing something Jesus tells me to do.

 

To your second question, I can't answer for everyone, but the reason I personally reference Scripture when homosexuality comes up is because that's my only basis for saying it goes contrary to God's will. If I didn't have a Biblical worldview, I don't see how I would come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. Conversely, I don't think I need the Bible to see how greed or sloth could be wrong. Greed just looks wrong, if that makes sense.

 

On your third question, those people are right when they say that none of us are perfect, but we're saved because of Christ. And I think a person who struggles with homosexuality can also say the same thing. The difference is whether a person is going to live how they want, regardless of what Scripture says; or whether a person strives for a life that honors God & yet finds himself/herself still sinning.

 

There's a passage in Hebrews that uses a phrase "deliberately keep on sinning." It doesn't say if you sin. It doesn't even say if you deliberately sin. It says "deliberately keep on sinning." In other words, you willfully choose to live a life of sin.

 

King David had an affair with the woman next door, but God didn't banish him to hell for eternity because of that. It was sin & it was deliberate sin. But that wasn't David's lifestyle.

 

When Jesus made the ever popular "you who are without sin cast the first stone" comment, he later told the woman who was an adulteress, "Go now and leave your life of sin." He didn't say, "Go and don't ever sin again." Again, big difference there IMO.

 

Errors of commission versus errors of omission.

Errors of commission versus errors of omission.

 

That's right.

Spindoc,

 

My comment to you was in reference to your responses to UKMustangFan's response to Khalid. I wasn't really even concentrating on what Khalid said in my comments to you. I was concentrating on how you did what you could to avoid giving a logical response to UKMustangFan's logical comment. If you took it as a hit to Khalid, that was not my intention. It was to anyone in general that was contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical when quoting the Bible as a way to try to point out their interpretation of sins to others, and to you specifically for dancing around UKMustang's relevant thoughts with irrelevant thoughts in return to his comments.

 

The Bible is a tricky thing in our world. There are those that read it, study it, believe it, follow it, preach it, and make it the centerpiece to their lives. That's fine. They're entitled to. We're all entitled to follow some spiritual or philosophical pathway as we see fit for our lives. If the Bible works for you, that's cool.

 

I was exposed to the Bible almost daily while growing up with a Christian background. I have not studied like a scholar. I have not read it cover to cover. Just as much as I don't know all about it, I've also had significant amounts of exposure to it.

 

I have been a seeker in various ways in my life in quest of the truth. I believe there's much, as humans, we are limited in completely grasping as the ultimate truth, but have had personal breakthroughs that make me believe that there's more to life than our existence on planet earth. In arriving at that belief, I hope to, as I go along in life, gain even a better understanding of that which I feel significantly confident in what I already grasp.

 

Can I actually give my understandings a label and turn around and preach it? No. I'm not looking for a label, or to necessarily be confined by one. I'm content with letting my life experiences teach me things, and to stay open to others if I feel that they are too sharing with me learnings from life experiences as well. My filters will be active If I feel that what they are sharing with me is simply no more that what they've been indoctrinated to believe, and they are merely taking on faith.

 

We know that the Bible is a book written by many human authors over a long period of time, who at the time of their writings had no idea that their works would one day be included in what is known as "The Holy Bible". We know that humans compiled it with the intent to pass it along as the inspired writings of God. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't. Who really knows for sure? Some claim that it is, and that they know for sure, but do they really? Really, how could anyone know for sure? If someone wants to live by it, that's their choice, and perhaps it does wonders for their life. It's a bit delusional and self-righteous however for one to claim to know with complete certainty that it is all truthfully the word of God and to scorn others for either questioning it, or not having read as much of it as they have, or to perhaps not even believe in it at all.

 

Let's say hypothetically that I've read a book, and for the sake of giving this hypothetical book a name, we'll say that the title of this book is "The Ultimate Truth" Let's say that reading it was so moving to me that I became convinced that everything written in this book was truly the ultimate truth. Let's say I decide to let what I've read be the guide to my life and that it also makes me want to share it with others because I'm convinced that they too should read it as well. Let's say others have not read it. Should this give me any self-righteous rights to tell them that they are sadly mislead unless they've read it? Does this in good sense give be the position to claim that I now know the ultimate truth and that anyone else that doesn't follow this truth is wrong and misguided? I really don't think so. It would be downright short sighted, self-righteous and ignorant to think so. Can I live by the words of this book if I so choose? Sure, why not? Beyond that though I would be delusional to think that I'm completely certain that it is the truth, and to push it on to others and somehow pontificate that I'm certain that it is the truth, and that everyone else is living wrongly unless they too see it like I do.

 

If you are in the state of mind that you're in, who am I to say that you can't be? It's your life. Self-righteous and delusional people can't see it when they are being as such. I realize that it's a pure waste of time that I've spent here trying to present a rational, and logical thought because self-righteous and delusional people such as yourself will understand none of it. Still just as much as you feel that you have the right to tell others that you are certain that you know the ultimate truth, I have the right to tell you that you are self-righteous and delusional and that you've got a lot of nerve in doing so.

 

Some may get what I'm saying. I'm not taking it to the bank that you will. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me if you do or you don't. I know who I am, and that's working out quite well enough for me for the time that I'm living in this not always so sane world. It takes all kinds I suppose?

I appreciate your reply. I believe God's word to be true. I believe that we are all going to be judged by it. I choose to try to measure up to it and it's teaching. I can see where you'd think I'm delusional if we don't start with the same foundation. And that's ok. You're right that it takes all kinds. My only aim is to get to heaven, and I stumble along that path. I don't have the same tender approach that Randy has. He has a gift for that, and he uses it very well. I don't want to come across as hard line because I don't think that is Christ-like. At the same time, He also got a little heated when he cleared the temple. I don't want to seem harsh at all, yet tact was never in my repertoire. The only thing I'll add is that in my recent devotion and study, I've been convicted to stand on what I know as truth. Far too much gray in the world's view of Christianity today. You may call it self-righteousness, but I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when I openly admitted to my own issues. But I'm not afraid to call my issues what they are, sin. That is diametrically opposed to the basic definition of self righteousness. On a personal note, it seems convenient to label me if you disagree with my opinion. And that seems common these days. I wonder if you feel labeled from time to time. And if that's true, how is it any different than you labeling someone with a different view than yours?

 

Bottomline, as Christians, we are all trying to get to heaven.

I appreciate your reply. I believe God's word to be true. I believe that we are all going to be judged by it. I choose to try to measure up to it and it's teaching. I can see where you'd think I'm delusional if we don't start with the same foundation. And that's ok. You're right that it takes all kinds. My only aim is to get to heaven, and I stumble along that path. I don't have the same tender approach that Randy has. He has a gift for that, and he uses it very well. I don't want to come across as hard line because I don't think that is Christ-like. At the same time, He also got a little heated when he cleared the temple. I don't want to seem harsh at all, yet tact was never in my repertoire. The only thing I'll add is that in my recent devotion and study, I've been convicted to stand on what I know as truth. Far too much gray in the world's view of Christianity today. You may call it self-righteousness, but I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when I openly admitted to my own issues. But I'm not afraid to call my issues what they are, sin. That is diametrically opposed to the basic definition of self righteousness. On a personal note, it seems convenient to label me if you disagree with my opinion. And that seems common these days. I wonder if you feel labeled from time to time. And if that's true, how is it any different than you labeling someone with a different view than yours?

 

Bottomline, as Christians, we are all trying to get to heaven.

 

I don't have a problem with people having different points of view. I find a world of difference between folks having and living by their point of view, and folks having and living by their point of view that makes them also think that it's ok to tell others who don't have the same point of view that they're wrong for not having the same point of view as them.

 

I'm not demonstrating an objection for people having different beliefs. I do however object when that belief system has some built-in factor to make those who believe it, think that it's also their place to spread it to others, while trying to convince others that if they don't follow their belief, they're living and believing wrongly.

 

That's the difference between me and you. I realize that when one is trying to offer someone else a concept, that they do better in admitting their own wrongs in order to gain trust in someone else that they're not trying to sound too perfect and that they too have issues, "But look what following this belief system has done for me, and it too can lead you to the right place if you allow me to lead you there". That's self-righteousness with an element of built in mind control technique.

 

Sorta sounds like a salesman working on commission. The more I sell this idea the better chance I have at getting to heaven, so I have to make others believe it too or else I may not score as many points as I ought to to make it beneficial for me.

 

You don't have to believe what I believe. This is no effort to make you do so. I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong in your beliefs. Just not too keen when your beliefs have you thinking that putting down the belief of others is acceptable. That's sorta what people do to help justify their beliefs, if they can cut down the beliefs of others, it makes them feel stronger in their own beliefs.

 

For me, it doesn't have to be that complicated. That's just me. I've had lots of exposure to the teachings of Jesus. I have no problem at all with what Jesus stands for. Sounds like his central message was love. In my own experiences with, let's say, supernatural episodes in my life, that central message of love is what stood out to me loud and clear. For me I don't have to crowd my thinking with the writings of multitudes of various humans to understand that central message of love or to have a common sense understanding between right and wrong. Again that's just me. I'm not saying that others have to see it like I do. It just seams that some people with their beliefs have the factor that makes them think others have to see it the way they do. There again is the difference between me and you.

 

With every cult that I've ever studied, this is the way they too operate or have operated. They separate themselves from humanity as being better than, then turn around and try to persuade others to enter into their belief system. The more members, all the better to strengthen their image to make it easier to add more members. Scientology recruited on purpose Hollywood stars to make their cult look more attractive. Look Tom Cruise is a member, oh then it must be great if Tom Cruise is a member.

 

I once entered a cult unknowingly and saw first hand how they operated. It was called Amway. At first, I thought that I was starting my own business. In no time I was observing all of their mind control cultish techniques. It half way worked on me. Aside from all the other typical cult techniques, part of their technique to keep people locked in was to hit people at their emotional level with tons of God and Country. Their weekend arena filled intensives turned into tons of mind control talk, pro-American rallies capped off with what looked completely similar to an evangelistic gathering all for the sake of selling more product and making the leaders in this operation richer. They were selling God, knowing that was acceptable to lots of people considering so many folks were raised Christian to begin with. For the Jews and Hindus etc... they were made to believe that Amway was acceptant to all religions, but also tried to make those who weren't Christian feel really out of the loop. My personal Direct in my business was a Jewish man all his life, and wouldn't you know it that through the business, he converted to Christianity. Hmm... Imagine that.

 

I was also raised in a cult. It was called Catholicism. I didn't realize for years that I was part of a cult because. Who does as a child? The line of thinking is that everyone else that has a large group of members is a cult, but certainly not my group. My group is the truth, therefore it can't be a cult. It's the truth. I remember being made to believe as a child that only Catholics could get to heaven. Other Christians although they believed in Christ, might not get there or could end up in a holding ground for quite sometime until they do. Catholics don't seem to believe this anymore, Thank God, but so many were raised with that stupid line of thinking. When the stupid line of thinking is happening in 2013, it's not so easy to see as is the "hindsight is 20/20" factor of looking back.

 

I'm left-handed. That too used to be viewed as the sign of the devil and people solidly believed it. Thank God again that we came to understand that as being stupid as well.

 

At the end of the day, I'm not here to tell anyone how to think and what to believe, as they have every right to, just as I do. When their belief makes them think that it's ok to tell me how to think and what to believe, that's where I draw the line. You might consider my words as doing so, but there again... that's the difference between me and you.

I have no idea if the Bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't have any problem with 'objectively' saying so. I'm limited as a human being in knowing. Christians say that it's the truth because, just as you are saying here, "IT IS WRITTEN". ... And then make the claim that IT IS, NO IF'S, AND'S, OR BUT'S.

 

If I were to write something and tell you I was inspired by God to write it, does that make it so just because I said that it was so, and would you just take me on my word? Probably not. What I say holds no weight with you.

 

How did something, that you can't objectively say with complete certainty was written as the word of God, just be taken as the word of God because whoever wrote it said that it was? How did that claim come to hold weight with you?

 

... And once you believed, that which you can't prove, and take on faith, tells you that you must pass the "truth" along to others... You don't see having to do that as a peculiar, cycular, locked-in, extended, strange, subjective by-product of quite a wild unprovable claim?

 

Actually, there's nothing about doing so that sounds objective. Sounds more cultish to me than anything. When folks' minds are deep in a cult, there's hardly ever anything anyone can say in an "objective manor" that will have an effect of them whatsoever.

 

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the Bible. I just don't get where people think they're being objective all the while pushing on to others an unprovable claim. That and objectivity do not reside on the same street. To think that it does, one has a grave misunderstanding of just what objectivity is.

 

 

That is exactly why study is the key and not just simple reading it like a newspaper. If you study the process by which the bible was put together you may be shocked to find out the high standards that multiple councils used when putting the collection together. The reason the gospels of Peter and Thomas as well as other early church letters were not included is because the church council, I forget the actual name, found them to be faulty or not 100% convincing that it was divinely inspired. There is a great book called "How We Go Our Bible" It is amazing material for study.