the need for a bible

[the sleep of reason]

That is nice. I would just say they are wrong. I could state a better informed council, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), in fact affirmed that an Old Earth is in fact compatible with an inerrant reading of Scripture.

ah. but my point is valid: how does one know what doctrines are vital to salvation and what are not? if so many leaders disagree, how can we know we are right? you said it's up to philosophers, and is not necessarily important to salvation. but many leaders delcare such issues ARE vital. my point (to reiderate) is that christianity (or any religion for that reason) puts THESE men and their doctrines and semantics between you and God. i propose perhaps a person doesnt need a coduit between them and God, circumventing all the mumbo-jumbo and dissimenation of dogmas. that perhaps God can actually just judge him AS him, not for how much he knows of what OTHER men believe (or tell him to believe.) why isnt that possible?

Getting back to Christianity, The Christian message is very simple. Do you admit you have done wrong? If you answered, "yes" that you have done wrong as I myself did, then we are guilty not even by God judging us, but by our own admittance. So how can you question that it would be unfair for God who is sovereign over us all to punish any one of us? It is only unfair if we are innocent, but from our (?) own admittance we are not innocent.

hang on, define wrong? you have to have a universality of right and wrong first, which for me is the fundamental proof of a loving God. that is, you can only admit "i have done wrong" according to your understanding of God's laws, without which there is no 'wrong."
if nothing was illegal, no one could be a criminal.

that being said, i think it's strange that almost every inclination that make us human also makes us a sinner. our impulses are sinful, or will is sinful, our hearts are sinful. we are lustful, greedy, selfish monsters. our mere existence is sinful; so to eve EXIST in the realm of humanity is to admit to being wrong.

so. if being anything BUT wrong is an existential impossibility, doesnt God HAVE to be a bit merciful? we're not even given a chance to be anyhting but wrong. it's a decision none of us get to make.

Firstly, it is not 3 Gods are 1 God, or that three persons are one person. Rather that three persons share one essence. It is a common JW misunderstanding which says that the Trinity is a doctrine of three gods being one god. It seems from your words further below that you may also have this misunderstanding

i dont think i misunderstand it. i see the trinity the same way i see water--it can be ice, liquid, or gas, depending on the need. i see the holy spirit as the vaporous steam, Jesus as solid tangible matter (ice) and the Father as the oh so necessary life giving liquid water.

but i still call it water. i mean, i need water. when i thirst, i ask for water, i dont try to breathe vapors or eat ice. it is the liquid water that brings me life, tho the other forms are not without purpose. i just think the Father God is enough, so i pray "father God." i guess that, in and of itself is admission i accept some form of trinitarianism, since i DO talk to Father God. it's just i heard my whole life christians saying "dear Jesus," in all their prayers. i've actually been asked to pray outloud for someone (laying on of hands/anoitment with oil/blessings) and have been told afterwards by church leaders i ought to ask for Jesus rather than father God, as we can only reach the Father through Jesus.

Now regarding the Trinity, we had a discussion on this board a while ago, and it seemed to be the consensus opinion of most here was that belief in the Trinity is not required to accept Christ and be saved. On the other hand, who Christ is was of importance to us in being saved.

i beg to differ. the acceptance of the trinity is vital to the preciousness of Jesus as our saviour. unless you accept jesus as God, he was just a guy. a profit. so i think that is fundamental to christianity.
sorry i missed the other discussion, i just dont see how it's possible to say christianity is the only way unless you accept christ as God.

Does it seem implausible to think that if an all-powerful God exists, that he could indeed take on the form of a man if God so willed to? If this isn't implausible, then whatever seemingly absurd or repulsive solutions are given by Christians to try explain this (i.e., the Trinity), it still remains that this is a real possibility despite one's inability to explain how God taking on humanity, and as such Christ being God, may exactly work.

i never meant to propose it's implausible, nor absurd, just difficult to comprehend, yet vital to salvation. you diminish it's vitality, i disagree, as noted above. i think moreover i was proposing the possiblity God the father always existed (however you want to define that) seperately from Jesus during jesus' tenure on earth. is that plausible?

We here have Jesus, who was in the very nature God, emptying Himself into human form. Christ appears to have given up His sovereign authority as God which is why He was submissive and obedient to the person we know as His Father, God the Father.

this directly confirms my speculation of a seperation of jesus and God. two wills, two levels of sovereignty.

do you believe Christ and God the father existed mutually exclusive, in heaven and on earth?

[the sleep of reason]

If Christianity does not satisfy criticisms leveled against if by those of other positions whether secular or otherwise, then if fails at being as consistent. Now if someone sees Christianity failing to be consistent in many areas, people tend to automatically assume another position is correct by default. But no. Every position has to answer tough questions. If you think some other position, whether a secular philosophically naturalist perspective is default, then it has tough questions to answer, for example regarding life and truths we all appear to intuit. It also has tough questions about the complexities we see in life, the beginning of the cosmos, and the "design" everything appears to have (a word I hear so often in documentaries involving evolution). Now while no proof may prove Christianity outright, I see that Christianity to be a more coherent and consistent and many factors influence my Christianity including my mind, knowledge, own experiences, relationships, and perceptions.

well said, and fair enough.

Which is why I say divert your attention to Christ and what is accepted about Him historically and whether such supports the Christian faith.

ok, really big, really important question here:
all of this implicates other men in your salvation. so what of someone (however hypothetically it might be) that lived a life of complete solitude? christianity maintains he cannot ever find God on his own. i refuse to believe that, tho.

Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me
The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us, that rather than say we know God for what's in our hearts we should double check with other people's doctrines?

this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

Hasn't it been the case, friends, that you've felt absolutely certain about something that later turned out to be false? Of course you did. And the question is: How do we protect ourselves from that error? How do we represent the truth of Christianity to another person who may not be sharing our subjective certitude, or our subjective experience?

i guess you ask someone else, and that's how you know. i dont mean to be a smart-alleck but wow.

are you married? how did you know you love your spouse? have you redundancy checked every other subjective part of your humanity with other men, too? again, not trying to be a jerk or anything here but i'm really astounded by the implications of that statement. by that rationale, there is no truth unless another person(s) confirm it as such.

We must have some objective foundation. We must be able to point to more than just our feelings to prove the truthfulness of our faith and the legitimacy of our confidence that Jesus is in our lives.

but even still you're taking someone else's word for it. so your faith lies in their accuracy in historical context and transcription, rather than a faith in God.

[FFC]

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us, that rather than say we know God for what's in our hearts we should double check with other people's doctrines?

this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

If God's word is stable and consistant and our hearts are fickle and ever changing...in which would you put more trust? I don't know about you but I sure wouldn't want toleave my eternal destiny to my feelings. Would you?

[Gman]

i'm defining christianity as 1. accepting the bible as infallible and 2. accepting the trinity and 3. accepting Jesus IS God and that salvation is achieved only through the acceptance of these things.

So..? You could say these things a hundred times over... Is this all you think that makes someone a Christian?

likewise, to say anyone outside the acceptance of Christ as the only way is therefore unchristian. for example, to believe a rural african, however uneducated on the teachings of Christ will ONLY go to hell is christian, to believe God could somehow loophole them into salvation outside the teachings of christ is unchristian. black and white. God cannot have mercy on the ignorant if christ is the only way. like Kuri said, true can never be false, but also true can never be SOMETIMES true. it can only be ALWAYS true.

And what does it mean to be outside the acceptance of Christ? Black and white? To whom? You?

i think that's as uncomplex as it gets. CHRIST: yes. NOT CHRIST: no.

What does that mean? You still haven't defined what the message of Christ is.... I'm still waiting..

including those who just lived in the wrong place before westward catholocism spread. to believe native americans who lived here before christianity was spread went anywhere but hell is to be unchristian, by definition.

no?

No... Again I believe you have failed to understand what the message of Christ was.... The message of Christ has been with man since man first started out. It's ingrained in all man... Find out what the meaning of Christ was. You haven't convinced me yet you have...

[jenna]

. have you read "MEre CHristianity"?

I am reading it now actually, so far so good.

Very logical and well thought out.

I wish I could express myself in written word better than I do.

JC, you express yourself VERY well. You have made me question a few things, and give very good answers.

[zoegirl]

actually I was asking sleep specifically, but glad to know

As for expressing oneself, I agree with jen, you do fine. Although reading Lewis will certainly make anyone desire his eloquence.

[Kurieuo]

Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me
The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us,

this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

Just to respond to this as I have little time right now.

I guess you are right. It's like that Christian council you mentioned earlier, which had godly Christian men evaluating Old Earth Creationism who ruled that OEC is a matter salvation. So I guess this means anyone who holds to it (including myself) is accordingly not really Christian. And I guess the YEC interpretation may come more from listening to God's inward guidance rather than man's.

Perhaps this is where we differ, and why we would disagree that some other doctrines are necessary to be a Christian as well. That is, if I followed more of an inward pulling and drawing as guided by the Holy Spirit rather than using my mind to reason about and listening to the council of "OTHER MEN" as you put it, then perhaps what we see as necessary for being Christian would better align

If using reason and accepting an examining of the natural world we perceive around is putting faith in men rather than God, then I guess I am guilty of doing this.

[the sleep of reason]

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us, that rather than say we know God for what's in our hearts we should double check with other people's doctrines?

this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

If God's word is stable and consistant and our hearts are fickle and ever changing...in which would you put more trust? I don't know about you but I sure wouldn't want toleave my eternal destiny to my feelings. Would you?

so then i pose the question once more: by this rationale, a person living in solitude is unable to seek and/or find God or salvation. by this logic, the only people who can recieve absolution by God are those who have access to the dogmas of other men (ie what you call God's word.)

so, do you really think that someone without access to God's word is shunned, never to be saved, for simply not having access to God's word?

futhermore, do you yourself think YOU would have been banished to hell if you lived in a place where you never heard of the bible? even if you loved God and worshipped as you do now, just because you didnt read these ideas from a book?

does the bible not say no one knows man's heart but God? and that it is between him and HIM?

[the sleep of reason]

Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me
The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us,

this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

Just to respond to this as I have little time right now.

I guess you are right. It's like that Christian council you mentioned earlier, which had godly Christian men evaluating Old Earth Creationism who ruled that OEC is a matter salvation. So I guess this means anyone who holds to it (including myself) is accordingly not really Christian. And I guess the YEC interpretation may come more from listening to God's inward guidance rather than man's.

Perhaps this is where we differ, and why we would disagree that some other doctrines are necessary to be a Christian as well. That is, if I followed more of an inward pulling and drawing as guided by the Holy Spirit rather than using my mind to reason about and listening to the council of "OTHER MEN" as you put it, then perhaps what we see as necessary for being Christian would better align

If using reason and accepting an examining of the natural world we perceive around is putting faith in men rather than God, then I guess I am guilty of doing this.

that's fine. i'm still asking how you make any practical subjective decisions.
who do you redundancy check love with? to know you actually love and arent just wrong?

[the sleep of reason]

So..? You could say these things a hundred times over... Is this all you think that makes someone a Christian? [/quote]

here's an idea: why dont YOU tell ME what it means to be a christian. i already tried. your turn now.

And what does it mean to be outside the acceptance of Christ? Black and white? To whom? You?

to be outside the acceptance of christ is to NOT ACCEPT christ as GOD, which is the same as accepting another route to heaven OTHER than Christ. examples of this are: hindus, jews, muslims, unitarians, etc etc. also me, and also many christians who believe other people outside the realm of christianity will go to heaven (such as native americans or rural africans.)

What does that mean? You still haven't defined what the message of Christ is.... I'm still waiting..

yes, i have. to accept christ is to say through him and only him will one recieve salvation. acceptin christ means saying the words "jesus, i accept what you did for me, my sins are absolved through you and so is my eternal salvation." and, ideally, backing that up with loving, charitable actions, kindness, and godliness.

if you disagree, then tell me specifically how i'm wrong.

No... Again I believe you have failed to understand what the message of Christ was.... The message of Christ has been with man since man first started out. It's ingrained in all man... Find out what the meaning of Christ was. You haven't convinced me yet you have...

nor will i. it's not my job to convince you of anything, and frankly i couldnt care less what you think. you're not here offering anything to this conversation, you're just being contentious and contrary while offering no input or insight. all you can do is say "NO YOU'RE WRONG' but offer no counterpoint.

so, if you have something to offer, do that. otherwise what's the point?

[the sleep of reason]

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us, that rather than say we know God for what's in our hearts we should double check with other people's doctrines?

this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

If God's word is stable and consistant and our hearts are fickle and ever changing...in which would you put more trust? I don't know about you but I sure wouldn't want toleave my eternal destiny to my feelings. Would you?

so it's more logical to leave your destiny to the dogmas other men TELL you?

maybe if God came down and spoke directly to you. but He didnt. he talked to joe blow over there, who wrote the bible. and now your eternal soul rests in YOUR faith that THAT GUY got everything right. your faith is not in God, it's in man.
and the bible specifically says not to have faith in man.

[jenna]

I just wanted to give my opinion on one point, and then I'll leave. You say that Jesus' message was to repent and believe, so we could be saved, correct? Was this the ONLY message He came to tell? My belief is that He also came to tell of the coming Kingdom of God, which will happen in the very near future. (Ok, I said I'd leave, but I may change my mind).

[Gman]

here's an idea: why dont YOU tell ME what it means to be a christian. i already tried. your turn now.

I already did.... I told you it is something more greater than just facts, figures, the sciences, labels or what we say about ourselves. Christianity isn't just something you can put under a microscope and say here it is... It's a way of living...

to be outside the acceptance of christ is to NOT ACCEPT christ as GOD, which is the same as accepting another route to heaven OTHER than Christ. examples of this are: hindus, jews, muslims, unitarians, etc etc. also me, and also many christians who believe other people outside the realm of christianity will go to heaven (such as native americans or rural africans.)

Again, we've been down this road many times... Please review the article again on neverheard...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

yes, i have. to accept christ is to say through him and only him will one recieve salvation. acceptin christ means saying the words "jesus, i accept what you did for me, my sins are absolved through you and so is my eternal salvation." and, ideally, backing that up with loving, charitable actions, kindness, and godliness.
if you disagree, then tell me specifically how i'm wrong.

Yes, but the words mean nothing if they don't live in your heart... That's the trick. Also do you not think that hindus, jews, muslims, unitarians have loving, charitable actions, kindness, or acts of godliness? Who are we to judge others?

The message of Christ says that we are not to condemn others.... So why do you think we should? I'm not sure where you are getting this...

nor will i. it's not my job to convince you of anything, and frankly i couldnt care less what you think. you're not here offering anything to this conversation, you're just being contentious and contrary while offering no input or insight. all you can do is say "NO YOU'RE WRONG' but offer no counterpoint.

Really? And what about you? You go off, ask a lot of questions and when they don't conform to your way of thinking you automatically shoot them down stating absolutes when you really haven't analyzed the message of Christ. Again the message of Christ has been around since the beginning of time. Who are we to say someone lives it while someone else doesn't? By mere words? I think it is way more than that...

so, if you have something to offer, do that. otherwise what's the point?

So right... What's the point of all this? Do you simply have an ax to grind with us?

[the sleep of reason]

I just wanted to give my opinion on one point, and then I'll leave. You say that Jesus' message was to repent and believe, so we could be saved, correct? Was this the ONLY message He came to tell? My belief is that He also came to tell of the coming Kingdom of God, which will happen in the very near future. (Ok, I said I'd leave, but I may change my mind).

i dont understand your point. this discussiong was never intended to be an all-encompassing dissertation on the teachings of christ. the only reason anyone even started talking on the teaching of christs was to roughly give an outline of what christianity is.

so is the teaching of the second coming essential to salvation, or is it more tertiary? i'd say it's the latter.

[the sleep of reason]

Yes, but the words mean nothing if they don't live in your heart... That's the trick. Also do you not think that hindus, jews, muslims, unitarians have loving, charitable actions, kindness, or acts of godliness? Who are we to judge others?

The message of Christ says that we are not to condemn others.... So why do you think we should? I'm not sure where you are getting this...

go back to what kuri said. it's anti-christian to say there is but any way than christ. yes the bible says do not condemn but it aslo says there's no other way. everything you just said here is a contradiction within itself. either christ is the only way or it's not. again, go back to what kuri said.

Really? And what about you? You go off, ask a lot of questions and when they don't conform to your way of thinking you automatically shoot them down stating absolutes when you really haven't analyzed the message of Christ. Again the message of Christ has been around since the beginning of time. Who are we to say someone lives it while someone else doesn't? By mere words? I think it is way more than that...

i've explained my point over and over. to prove i'm not just contentious, i answer every question asked as throughouly as i can and try to rebutt with counterpoints and reasons. unlike you, i never make assumptions on how educated someone is nor do i tell anyone what they understand or question their faith.
you do--and that's fine. a lot of so called christians do this. it means nothing to me, other than demonstrated and closed, hardened heart. why are any of us here, if not do discuss items of potential discontent? its is, after all, a forum. a controversial one at that.

what i seek to reconcile is somethin that--since you are telling me what i do or do not understand--i will say YOU dont understand. which is that your idea of what 'christianity' means has been boiled down to something that's no longer christianity. if you propose a hindu or any other faith could find God on their path, you're not christian because that's saying there's another way than christ. the reason i cant say i'm christian is because i DO believe God is fair and just and perhaps DOES judge our individual hearts.

i think YOU actually agree with me, and i think actually you and me have exactly the same idea of what christianty means. however, if you'll read what kuri is saying and a few others here--they disagree with your 'more than mere words, more than the teachings' ideals. they maintain knowning in our hearts is not enough, that it's wrong, and our salvation is only 'true' if we cross check it with what other men think (i.e. the bible/church). furthermore they contend that anyone outside of hearing the word of the christian bible cannot be absolved.

you disagree with this.
as do i. i think we are totally of like-minds on the true nature of salvation.
as i understand, you think, tho, that perhaps i'ts not necessarily 'unchristian' to find God via other means. (no? isnt that what you mean by 'more than mere words/everpresence of christ's message?) if so, i agree. but that is clearly a contradiction of biblical dogmas and commandments.
kuri and others maintain this is not possible. a lot of christians to as well.
i guess i agree that it is anti-christian to believe what you and i believe. some how you dont see it as a disagreeing, but kuri and others here do.

that is why i feel like it's kind of a black and white issue. to believe christ's message and God's love transcends biblical commandments and strict christian ideals is anti-christian, so how can i call myself a christian without condeming all others to hell?