Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
80s said:Wrong, Melon. The Pharisees did NOT reject Jesus based on their scriptures. Their scrioptures in Isaiah and other places point to the man they condemned being the Messiah. They fought against Jesus because he did not fit "their" image of what a Messiah should be. He perfectly fit the scriptures' prophecies about the Messiah.
Or the gospels, in hyperbole form, posthumously described Jesus around the prophesies to get the fundamentalists of the time to accept Him. The apostles would have had personal, visual, and emotional reasons to accept Jesus as the Messiah, so, Bible or not, it would have been easy. However, to get Jewish converts, a little hyperbole might have been in order. They did reject Jesus on the basis of scripture, as He, constantly and repeatedly, flaunted the Mosaic Law. If you really don't believe that, then you really need to read a bit more closer and take off the proverbial conservative lenses obstructing your vision.
80s:Read the KJV, Melon. It specifically says "possessed with devils". Not only that, but how do you explain the episode in which the demons named "Legion" begged Jesus to send them into a herd of swine, and He did, and they dove off the cliff in their madness?
The KJV is an incredibly flawed text. King James had executed two of royal translators for putting things in that didn't exist in the source texts. He, however, didn't remove any of the contentious passages either, probably because he didn't know what to remove. Subsequent KJV revisions, unfortunately, maintain these same flaws. As such, especially since I'm not Protestant, I don't use the KJV and never will.
But let's get to history again. The people of this world had absolutely no understanding of science in medical matters. "Lepers" likely were anyone with skin diseases, not the literal leprosy. The "possessed" likely had severe mental illness. If possessions were such a common occurrence, then why don't we have more of them in the Western world?
80s: And I am to believe your sophomore year religion teacher, over this book of my faith?
I see this is going nowhere. We're talking apples and oranges it seems, or, better yet, Catholics and Protestants. I find it interesting, though. Catholics try and give more credence to the Bible by trying to uncover their cultural contexts. In other words, you shouldn't have to throw away all reason and intellect to be a Christian, nor should it be necessary to believe every obscure passage. Outsiders simply dismiss it as "picking and choosing," but, honestly, it isn't the case, as you learn through time to discern what are the key points and what are the important passages. I also find it interesting those who laugh at "Catholic guilt," but I've found much larger guilt complexes amongst various Protestant sects than in the modern Catholic Church. But I digress...
80s: You're right, this one is not about demons, but it definitely goes to show that the devil "entraps" people. And he does. How else do you explain Satanism or the occult?
Satanism is a ridiculous modern phenomena, populated mostly by atheists poking fun of religion. I've never understood why anyone would want to be in that subculture.
The "occult" isn't Satan worship. It is an outgrowth of ancient pagan religions, and, while I do not believe it myself, it cannot be called Satanic. I find this interesting, but if God demanded that everyone have been Jewish (like in the OT) and now everyone be Christian (like in the NT), why wouldn't it have been wider in origin? I'm quite content being Christian, so I have no complaints, but what about the areas that have little or no Christian contact?
80s:Nope, thsi does not contradict Paul at all. James does not claim that faith without works will lead you to hell. But faith without works IS dead. I agree with that, and so would Paul. The Holy Spirit is He who does the good works through a Christian. It has nothing to do with doing good works as a way to Heaven. You won't get an argument from me that good works need should accompany a Christian's faith. But the issue is - where do teh works come from? From a Christian's own power? No. From the power of the Holy Spirit. So, a Christian who does not let the spirit work through him is not effective. But that does NOT affect his eternal residence - Heaven, if he's truly saved.
Well, I like the St. Paul view better. It's easier to get into Heaven.
80s: Do you not think that the God who is powerful enough to make the universe, and to defeat Satan by dying on a cross, isn't powerful enough to keep his word (book) together and blemished by Satan all these years? He certainly is.
I believe God is challenging us, quite honestly. He has power to do anything. Gumdrops can fall down from the sky. The world can be a perpetual 70-degrees and sunny on His whim. Everyone could have been Christian on day 1 of man's arrival.
What is most interesting to me is not what God is capable of, but, rather, what He has chosen not to do. He could have, most certainly, brought the Bible down from Heaven, full and intact, but, in Biblical and scientific study, it's found that that is not the case. Luke 1:1-4 is a quite interesting passage indeed, perhaps the most direct and literal evidence in the Bible that this, indeed, was written by humans, lending to possible contradictions (they didn't exactly have news wire services back then) and errors. By "contradictions" and "errors," I'm not saying it's time to throw the entire book away as erroneous. There is much Truth present in the Bible, the reality of Jesus as the Messiah, the necessity for faith and love, the promise of salvation. I'm not disputing any of that. The fact that the world was created in 7 days, the fact that the entire world was covered in flood, the fact that, in Joshua, genocide is commanded by God with the punishment of immediate death for anyone who saves anyone or anything, the fact that St. Paul encourages slavery and commands the submission of women--all unimportant to the real message of the Bible. Does a God-inspired evolution somehow negate Jesus? Does allowing women to speak up in church and allowing women to go to church without hats (forbidden by St. Paul) somehow negate Jesus' teachings?
It's much easier to be a fundamentalist in regards to faith, but it doesn't mean it's correct.
80s: No, you never denied Satan's existence, but you did say he doesn't "trick" people. This verse right here shows you that he "deceived the whole world". What are tricks, but deceptions? And by the way, his "angels" became demons.
And how do you know you're not being tricked by Satan? An infinitely compassionate and loving God would take the faith of the individual in account over semantics. That's what I meant. Those that are hopeless, in my opinion, are those that freely mock and openly reject God. See a few boards outside of Interference.com, and you'll understand what I mean. Humanity, as a whole, is good, but misguided. By Satan? Perhaps.
80s: You can doubt that Satan entered into Judas all you want. But the Bible plainly says he did. Otherwise it would say simply "Judas believed the lies of the devil" or something like that. the passage says "entered into".
Well, if that's the case, I think everyone should give Judas' soul an apology for 2000 years of condemnation into hell. If Satan then indeed possessed Judas, then it was Satan who betrayed Jesus, not Judas.
Regardless, I do think it was Judas himself, and the writings above is fancy literature for temptation and fall. I mean, what treason is greatest than to have it at the hands of friends?
The Old Testament is great gigantic cauldron of hate, eh? Show it to me.
Read the first seven books of the Bible, and count the number of people "God commands" to be killed, the number of cities "God commands" to be destroyed, and the number of Israelites "God commands" to be killed.
I do not believe this is God speaking in these texts, but the texts of overzealous Jewish fanatics, wishing to reassert control over it's people by using the Lord's name. Who will question it? No one, because questioning it was punishable by stoning. Considering the timeline it is believed Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written, when the Jews were freed from their forced exile and dispersion around 500 B.C. where the Jewish leaders attempted to rebuild the same authority at all costs, it's no wonder the books are as bombastic as they they are.
And about Romans 13:8-10, yes that is about love. But i don't get your point here, or what that has to do with fundamentalist Christians.
My point is that, if you truly believe that
everything is true, then this passage sums up the point of the Bible, and anything in contradiction to that is not part of "the law."
When you see Christians reacting with hatred, they're not truly "fundamentalists", when teh obvious definition of "fundamentalist" is to believe in the fundamentals of something. A true fundamentalist Christian is one who believes fully in the fundamentals of the Bible, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
An admirable definition, but let's look at what "fundamental" actually means:
fun?da?men?tal (fnd-mntl) adj.
1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.
"Fundamentally," it doesn't mean to take everything in the Bible and try and justify every last detail. To have a "fundamental" view of the Bible would mean to analyze and look at what is important. What many have is not a "fundamental" view of the Bible, but an "essentialist" view of the Bible.
The detractors have equated the name "fundamentalist" to hatemonger, but that couldn't be further from the truth. If someone trashes a homosexual, he is not being a "fundamentalist Christian". He's not even acting liek a Christian at all. However, there is a line there. I can say that I believe homosexuality is wrong, but still not hate homosexuals.
I'm not judging you in the furthest, I hope you understand that, but that most fundamentalist and born-again Christians have unresolved psychological issues, whether it be a troubled family life, etc. It's not unpredictable that the last fundamentalist revivals took place under eras of great emotional turmoil. I mean, the current fundamentalist movement is about 25 years old now, and was a reaction to the messed up family life of the 1960s-early 1970s. And what was that a reaction to? The restrictiveness of religion and society from the 1940s-1950s. It's all pendulum swings, and I fear that the right-wing extremism regarding religion will swing back to the left within the next generation, as, already, there is discontent over the restrictive climate arising in this sub-culture from the youth. I do not think that the youth, inherently, wish to reject God, but they are clamoring for a way to assimilate the truth of Christ with the truth of science, which cannot be denied. Fundamentalism, while I cannot deny is well-intentioned, has only served to drive this wedge farther open, often forcing many to choose between Jesus and rationalism, although both can be reconciled if you let it. I'm perhaps one of the few Christians I have run into, whether in life or on the internet (apologies to those who think this is arrogant; not my intention), that I've found that has no problems believing in both God and science, as I believe the beauty of science is from God. Like the Judaism of the Biblical era, fundamentalism only drives people further from God, putting extreme requirements on the faithful (i.e., you must believe Adam and Eve, you must hate homosexuals, you cannot question the Bible, etc.) while exulting those who are a part of it as "the elect" or, in the case of Judaism, "the chosen people." The official doctrine might be that faith alone saves all, but there is a lot of implicit ritualistic requirements beyond just "faith in Jesus." And, like I'm saying, I'm not criticizing you, as much as I'm criticizing the whole, which has sizeable organization and political influence that you cannot deny.
80s: Melon, I am not saying that I doubt that some people who claim to be Christian preach a flase gospel. I know that happens. But your words were much stronger than that. you implied that the devil is strongly entrenched in Christian teaching, which it is not.
Let me clarify. I do not think Christianity is inherently Satanic. What I've studied has only given me more appreciation for the beauty of God and the beauty of His creation. I think that the
present state of Christianity is entrenched with Satan's influence. Like I've stated, I think that God will judge one on the basis of their personal conscience, rather than on the status of whether their faith was the result of Satan's trickery or not, but, currently, I see a Christianity entrenched in politics again, encouraging intolerance of difference, and making many peoples' lives miserable. I hate to admit it, but this is the reality! No, surely not all Christians are evil and misguided, but I think Satan is using his power to divert Christians not away from Christianity, but to contort Christianity back to it's same state of rituality and intolerance that Jesus Himself rejected. This, to me, is the greatest evil of all; one that is hidden and cloaked in goodness. Where does Satan have more power to deceive? The leader of a Satanic cult or the leader of a well-respected Jewish or Christian denomination? That is what I am telling people to be watchful for. Luke 1:1-4 shows evidence of human interaction in the creation of the Bible, and what evil could be worse than in tempting and deceiving the writers of the Bible as it was being written? I do not think that the Bible as a whole is bad; it is good, and is a testament to the resilience of God, but I think there are elements in it that lend to Satan's influence in some parts.
All true Christian teaching comes from God.
Yes, one of my overall points.
And this passage is very good for my point about aliens. People are so enamored an interested in "extra terrestial" activity. What a perfect ploy for Satan to use his disguises to get people interested in anything besides himself and God.
I have a feeling you're generalizing all those who believe in aliens to be those fanatical "abductee" types you see on "The X-Files." I also think it's incorrect to generalize that these people are not Christians. Of course, when they are being interviewed, they are going to talk all about their experiences in detail, but do they show these people in their private lives? They likely go to church and pray to God in the same capacity that the rest of us do. To say that they and anyone who believes in aliens are allowing themselves to be diverted from God is fallacious.
80s:You can't escape, from the Old OR New Testaments, that God does get angry - he is angered by sin. And he is vengeful, even in the new testament. But why should he not be? He offers us love, and we trade it for our own sinful desires.
Let's recap:
1) I don't think that "God" was part of much of the "Mosaic Law," but, rather, post-exilic Jewish leaders evoking the respected names of "God" and "Moses" to generate support for wars and other evil political motives. As these post-exilic leaders also had the power to add or detract from the Bible as they wish (who was going to question them?), they likely added these texts whenever the Old Testament canon was created, which wasn't as long ago as we would like to think.
2) The "God" of the gospels is not one of vengeance. The radical idea of the time was that God is love. Unfortunately, St. Paul often resurrected the Jewish angry God for his own bidding, who, in rejecting the ritualism of the Jews because of Jesus' sole commandment, "Love God and love one another," creates his own sets of rituals often in contrast to Jesus' own message.
3) As such, I believe it is important to read the Bible both critically and in social and historical context, both in the time the Bible was written, but also in the context of the history of it's translation up to today, which was a bumpy road indeed.
Also, I didn't label you "intolerant" because you seek love and compassion. I labeled you "intolerant" because of your incessant trashing of people who believe in the entire Bible.
Well, even I am not perfect, nor have ever claimed to be, despite your occasional mocking of me on the forums stating that. And don't think I haven't read them either. Just because I don't respond to them, it doesn't mean I haven't read them.
Melon
[This message has been edited by Whortense (edited 11-03-2001).]