Jesus died: we're all saved?

[Blue]

LunaMoth,
With due respect, you claim ritual is present in all the major movements through our lives, and, as you describe, you are right... but none of those are bizarre in the sense of the body and blood of Christ.
-------That is a) unnecessary, and b) irrational.
As your excellent quote re:myth, illustrates, the ones that matter are the ones where the relationship is with what IS.. what is rationally viewed. Such myths and rituals associated with them can be evidenced even across cultures.
The cycle of life and death is most important, but in that realistic sense the Eucharist is superfluous to all of that. It is a specific ritual embodied within a particular monotheistic religion which itself is based in a bloody sacrifice on a cross for our 'salvation'(?). Now that, I am claiming, is specifically bizarre... even for the time of Christ.
======
You say:
"...food is produced by human hands, through the miracle of photosynthesis and by the grace of thermodynamics. But sharing that food equitably, there it seems we need help from the Divine."

Is this not a mistake?
Show me any evidence that sharing food is of the 'Divine'? That is just a personal affective response.

I see food being shared by people of all religions and none. I see food being shared simply because someone is kind. Are you claiming 'Divine' providence for a kind feeling as opposed to an unkind feeling?

Rationally, something is wrong here.
May I suggest there is nothing - there is no evidence - that a Divine 'anything' has anything to do with feeding the needy.

There's greater evidence in times of privation or war of people not sharing food, through the concept of 'My family comes first!'. Where is the Divine influence ('feeling') then?
=====
I.N.A.N.E. I loved that!

[Sacredstar]

Dear Blue

Surely the brotherhood of man is about sharing and caring, yes?

So sharing food and all other things is divine man in action.

Blue what does GOD mean to you? Who is the creator to you?

This planet was created so that the sun shone on everyone and so it is with everything else, true justice is when all is shared equally.

being love

Sacredstar

[lunamoth]

Dear Blue,

First thank you for questions that provoke me to examine my beliefs at a deeper level. You do me a true service.

Originally Posted by Blue

...the body and blood of Christ.
-------That is a) unnecessary, and b) irrational.

yes. But do you want to live in a world that is completely rational and necessary? Would that be heaven or hell?

As your excellent quote re:myth, illustrates, the ones that matter are the ones where the relationship is with what IS.. what is rationally viewed. Such myths and rituals associated with them can be evidenced even across cultures.
The cycle of life and death is most important, but in that realistic sense the Eucharist is superfluous to all of that. It is a specific ritual embodied within a particular monotheistic religion which itself is based in a bloody sacrifice on a cross for our 'salvation'(?). Now that, I am claiming, is specifically bizarre... even for the time of Christ.

But it IS based in a relationship with what IS. Life and death and unavoidable suffering. It takes an extraordinary event like the unthinkable sacrifice of Christ (GOD!), ritualized and internalized, to help us live with such knowledge. It is bloody and bizarre and radical and inconcievable, just like our own death. Just like the suffering we see all around us and not only can't stop, but unavoidably contribute to. And it did not end with the sacrifice of Christ, but with Christ conquering death and reconciliation of humanity with God (by the way, with respect I, Brian's question, I think it means yes all humanity is reconciled). The cross takes misery and turns it into hope, suffering and turns it into ecstasy. But now I'm in over my theological waders.

======
You say:
"...food is produced by human hands, through the miracle of photosynthesis and by the grace of thermodynamics. But sharing that food equitably, there it seems we need help from the Divine."

Is this not a mistake?
Show me any evidence that sharing food is of the 'Divine'? That is just a personal affective response.

I see food being shared by people of all religions and none. I see food being shared simply because someone is kind. Are you claiming 'Divine' providence for a kind feeling as opposed to an unkind feeling?

Rationally, something is wrong here.
May I suggest there is nothing - there is no evidence - that a Divine 'anything' has anything to do with feeding the needy.

There's greater evidence in times of privation or war of people not sharing food, through the concept of 'My family comes first!'. Where is the Divine influence ('feeling') then?

I can't refute this. I think kindness is a Divinely inspired attribute, and unkindness is the absence of this. I think divine attributes are seeds within all of us and they need nurturing to flourish and exercise to gain strength (my plant metaphor breaks down quickly!). I think we choose virtue and get better at it out of habit. When we see kindess in times of strife or times of peace we see divine action. We live in a fallen world and things are not the way they should be. And yes, these are all metaphors from the monotheistic religion I've chosen.

But, empirically and personally, trusting in God makes it easier to choose virtue. After reading Ayn Rand I passed a begger on the street and I thought "why should I give this person anything--why doesn't he just work and earn his own way!"

It is not possible (or appropriate!) to convince another of God or Gods or the Ground of Being, especially on internet discussions! However, you can live the life and see what happens. And you can share your experiences and beliefs with others and we are all enriched by this.

peace!
=====

I.N.A.N.E. I loved that!

Relief. It was late and I'm not usually so pointy.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Something that perplexed myself a little today.

From the mainstream Christian perspective is it right that not only did Adam commited Original Sin - but that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for this Original Sin?

If so - then with regards to the Crucifictionm why does it matter if anybody "follows" Jesus or not? If the Original Sin is atoned for, then it doesn't matter if someone "believes in" Jesus or not - the deed is done and we're cleaned?

Or are we?

Discussion starter.

here's a link on salvation theology

http://www.stjohnadulted.org/The_05....20and%20Christ

[Ben57]

Hello Sacredstar,

Thank you for replying. I assume from the two texts you quote thatah you see a contradivtion. Isaiah says new heavens and new earth and Matt. does not mention such.

I am well aware of those texts. You seem to think the Bible is full of "mythology". Am I right in assuming thast from your comments?

I do not see the Bible as promoting "mindless people that live in fear of church or its doctrines". I see religion gone astray from the Bible as promotiong such things.

I am convinced there is no contradictions in the Bible, and that there is a logical expanation that causes no contradiction in those 2 texts.

yes i recommend you read the thread.

Another quote from Isaiah 65:17

"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

And it was written that the Son of Man would send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from one end of heaven to the other. and it was said ‘This generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled.’ The gospel goes on to say that ‘heaven and earth will pass away’ (Matt.XXiv31-35).

The more we learn about the mythology of the bible and its characters, the more new realities are being created. Heaven and earth is indeed passing away because our reality and our understanding of that reality is changing.

We are not mindless people that live in fear of church or its doctrines anymore, as Paul said Christ is within you, Jesus said 'did I not tell you that ye are GODS? Jesus who saved people by healing them also said 'you can do this even better then I'.

Onwards and upwards in oneness with the source.

Sacredstar

[Ben57]

Hello Sacredstar

yes i recommend you read the thread.

I just finished reading through the previous posts as you sugest. There is a lot of informnation that goes beyond this thread and several Bible texts quoted out of context, and, or, with out understanding of the original words and phrases used. (eg the ones that refered to "second death", and "You are Gods" )

Unfortunately reading these posts makes me sad to think that so much missinformation has been given out by those that have had the responsability to teach eg religous leaders.

Also unfortunately a lot of the ideas that the religous leaders sprout are from doctrins of men. It is these type of tales of hell fire and a God that forknew that some will go to hell when God created man that tends to lead people away from the Bible and turn away from God.

God in no way knows what each individual on earth will do. He does have the power to do so but does not use it for every day things but only when he wanted certain things to happen eg naming Cyrus as the one to capture Babylon 2 hundred years before his birth and the fortelling of events around the life of Jesus, the destruction of cities etc. things that were in line with his puproses only

We have free will. He gave Adan & Eve free will. They chose to listen to Satan and do their own thing thus giving us sin and death. Jesus ransom sacrifce attoned for that first sin for mankind. We have the freedom to chose wheter to do the Will of God or our own will.

Jesus death provided the way backto life on Earth not in heaven. It was never Gods will for mankind as a race to go to heaven. Gods will was for, and still is, for man to live on earth under his rulership.

Mankind as a whole do not wish to be ruled by someone they can not see and so chose to do things their own way.

The Bible fortells a time of great trouble for the earth before which mankind will have had to have chosen between God and themselves. Those that exerice faith in the ransom to life on earth those that do not to death. The second death some spoke about is the death from which there is no reserection (Not hell). As it stands now, those that have died will be resurected to have a chnce to determin if they want God rule of self rule.

God forknows the ultimate out come of these events as a whole but not on an individual basses. Thats our choice.

The Bible is in full harmony with itself. When we take the time to see the full picture this becomes very clear.

I understand that I have said a lot of things in this poat that most will not agree with. I would like to start a discution thread on any of these things.

[Sacredstar]

Dear Ben

As far as I am concerned the passages from Isaiah and Matthew support each other in prophecy beautifully, and this is related to the end times.

As far as the rest is concerned you have your beliefs, perceptions and interpretations that we do not share. My reality is very different to your own.

Every ending as a new beginning, a rebirth and recreation just like a flower that re-seeds itself. Alpha and Omega. Mythology hard to say there is little fact to substantiate anything literally, but yet we cannot ignore the power of some of the words and the hidden meanings that I find profound. Especially when taking into account the Christian Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Blue]

Hi Ben,
I am only here in this post referring to your last.

I am wondering if you have actually thought that your argument throughout is based in one simply premise?

That premise is that you know and affirm the existence of a God-entity outside of yourself, and that you 'know' what that God-entity requires of you, and that you are privy to what that entity thinks and feels.

Let us examine this.

Is it not true to say that what you say is entirely based in your sincere beliefs within your personally derived affective nurture/experiences, and your affective/subjective nature?

I think it rationally is... because you strive to present external evidence which is patently erroneous.

An example: "The Bible is in full harmony with itself. "
This is false, because the Bible is simply, in any version, a collection and collation of ancient texts from the Middle East done by human beings. They were written by human beings for obviously varying purposes... some can be plainly seen to be declared 'histories', others, are concerned with political/theocratic principles, and yet more as myths. Often not only do the myths contradict other myths, the political/theocratic intents also vary, even the histories seem to embody contradictions. This does not strke me as displaying "harmony" at all...only natural human discord. In fact, beginning with the Garden of Eden, it presents itself as a battle between 'Good' and 'Evil', Reason and Affection... a tense dualism that hardly represents harmony. If original sin is accepted,then the Bible is about the 'battle', with many and various intyerpreatations of how that is to be dealt with or resolved.

May I respectfully suggest that this, which you have sincerely written:

"God in no way knows what each individual on earth will do. He does have the power to do so but does not use it for every day things but only when he wanted certain things to happen eg naming Cyrus as the one to capture Babylon 2 hundred years before his birth and the fortelling of events around the life of Jesus, the destruction of cities etc. things that were in line with his puproses only"

is purely self validated, therefore personal and subjective opinion, which you are sharing with us.

HOW can you simply declare on a basis of personal feelings (not facts) that you know what a God thinks and feels?
You are simply asserting that you personally BELIEVE that a God has power and you know that he doesn't use it every day! HOW can you 'know' that as a fact outside of yourself?

Nothing logically gives a pure belief the necessity of truth. In this case, it cannot be demonstrated as 'truth' beyond your feelings about the matter. It is only dependent upon your affective nature and nurture.

You see, with due respect to your obviously sincere beliefs, nothing says they are actually 'true' beyond what you feel and think. The fact is, there is no evidence, and the evidence you mainly cite is not as you describe.

You cannot 'know' the mind of this monotheistic appreciation you hold within your affections/affective nature and nurture in any sense that is understandable beyond yourself. You are making the age-old mistake of thinking that because you declare it, it must be so for others too... and that is patently not the case, not even among other monotheistic religions/Faiths.

You cannot in all honesty do that.
Just because any of us DECLARE and AFFIRM a 'truth' does not make it 'true' beyond our own declaration and affirmation. That is irrational.

If you require the Faith to be rational,you have to provide evidence...and we, none of us, can do that for our individual spiritual faiths.

Faith does not require or necessitate 'rationality' OR external proofs.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking there actually is a proof of 'God', or Gods and Goddesses... THEY do not require it.
There is none, and all that remains is the personal faith of the believer, the affirmer.
Is that not enough for any sincere and honest 'believer'? I think it should be.
----------
Please do not be upset by anything I have said above, because I also have theistic spiritual appreciations.
It is not intended as derogatory and insulting. I respect all affirmations of spiritual faith as expressions of sincerely held affective feelings and nurture.

I simply plead for Rationality, and logical thinking.

[Sacredstar]

Dear Blue

Originally Posted by Blue

That is irrational.

Faith does not require or necessitate 'rationality' OR external proofs.

I simply plead for Rationality, and logical thinking.

Surely anything is only irrational if you believe it to be so.

Faith does not require proof but some people do, I certainly did need external proof and a lot of it, before I completely surrendered to GOD.

With respect in pleading for logical thinking, is this not in contradiction of you saying that you can only know GOD in your own heart?

For me logical thinking gets in the way of the heart of the soul, knowing and feeling what is truth. The mind creates perception and the lens of perception. One might see through rose tinted glasses another through dark glasses. But yet if we drop the mind we also drop any conflict and that which stands between us and the source of all that IS.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Kaspar]

Dear Sacredstar,
In my opinion
Rational thinking is how people arrive at a conclusion. If they think their thoughts are irrational they will no longer believe them.
About God.
My opinion is that God is a term for a unity of things.
This is my analogy.
We have the emotions; hate, love, saddness and anger. They are all seperate abstract things. Because they are abstract, we cannot prove they exist.

If we put hate and anger together we can call them. Negativity or aggression.

And if we try to descibe them all together we call them emotions.

This is what my opinion is of what people think God is. They think that God is a term for lots of different Earthly things. Eg Earlier when someone said that a harvest is affected by weather patterns and the climate your could describe this as God. When some religions were created God is what people called these natural phenomenon.

When Ben argued...

God in no way knows what each individual on earth will do. He does have the power to do so but does not use it for every day things but only when he wanted certain things to happen eg naming Cyrus as the one to capture Babylon 2 hundred years before his birth and the fortelling of events around the life of Jesus, the destruction of cities etc. things that were in line with his puproses only

I argue that this is what Ben perceves God as. We can say that the destruction of Cities, noahs arc and the flooding, the fortelling of events around Jesus life can all be described scientificly. The flooding was due to weather patterns and natural disasters. The fortelling of events is due to the rise in storytelling as a whole, due to the new era of creativity and freedom of expression. (Thats all fabricated)
But the point is that we call these things GOD because we want to.
I can call all things that are compassionate, loving and kind acts GOD because that is what God means to me - In the case of Sacredstar. I can blame God for all the bad things that happen and ask why God didn't step in. It is up to the individual what their interpretation of the word GOD is.
Thats my point. So I am arguing against the enforced perception of God - which is a very Rational thing - that is enforced by some Christians.

Of course you can argue against my opinion and say that if we are to disscuss God at a international level - as we are doing - we need to have a internationally accepted perception of GOD.

With peace, love and a steam of conciousness.

Kaspar

[Sacredstar]

Dear Kaspar

I agree with much of what you say.

Originally Posted by Kaspar

I can blame God for all the bad things that happen and ask why God didn't step in.

Kaspar

IMV when people blame GOD they are not taking responsibility for co-creation.

Originally Posted by Kaspar

It is up to the individual what their interpretation of the word GOD is.

I agree

Kaspar[/quote]

So I am arguing against the enforced perception of God - which is a very Rational thing - that is enforced by some Christians.

[/quote]

I agree, through knowing the self one can then align with divine self, then one can commune with GOD. But too much thinking blocks the soul/divine self. Jesus said 'let those who have eyes to see, let them see, let those who have the ears to hear, let them hear, and the heart to embrace' he did not say one needed the mind to think! So to listen to our soul, to hear GOD and find GOD and the messages in our hearts. The heart being the place of wisdom and true intelligence.

Kaspar[/quote]
Of course you can argue against my opinion and say that if we are to disscuss God at a international level - as we are doing - we need to have a internationally accepted perception of GOD. With peace, love and a steam of conciousness.
[/quote]

I agree with you it is up to the individual to find GOD and their own interpretation, their own relationship and sacred union with GOD.

Sodality stream of love

Sacredstar

[Ben57]

Greetings from the land down under.

Thank you for responding. may I assure you I have not been upset by anything you have said. I also agree that our thinking should be rational and objective. It is very hard in a forum like this to present all information at one time so my last post was an overview only

I am wondering if you have actually thought that your argument throughout is based in one simply premise?

Yes I have actually thought through my arguments

[quote]
That premise is that you know and affirm the existence of a God-entity outside of yourself, and that you 'know' what that God-entity requires of you, and that you are privy to what that entity thinks and feels.[?QUOTE]

I have done enough reading into the natural world from a scientific point of view to come to a firm conclution that there is indeed a universal creator. Science has the ever changing theory of evolution. From the material I have read form physists etc that do not belive in a creator, their evidence they put forward proves an intelligent designer.

Partley because of the above and due to the internal harmony of the Bible, any one can become privy to what that entity thinks and feels. Thats the purpose of the Bible. Gods personality, likes and dislikes are there for us all to see.

As a Christian, I personlay believe the Bible to be the word of God and not just a collection of books from the middle east.

Is it not true to say that what you say is entirely based in your sincere beliefs within your personally derived affective nurture/experiences, and your affective/subjective nature?

Yes it is based on my belief system derived from my upbringing, experiences, and reading of scientific and refering to the ancient languages the Bible was written in.

An example: "The Bible is in full harmony with itself. "
This is false, because the Bible is simply, in any version, a collection and collation of ancient texts from the Middle East done by human beings. They were written by human beings for obviously varying purposes... some can be plainly seen to be declared 'histories', others, are concerned with political/theocratic principles, and yet more as myths. Often not only do the myths contradict other myths, the political/theocratic intents also vary, even the histories seem to embody contradictions. This does not strke me as displaying "harmony" at all...only natural human discord. In fact, beginning with the Garden of Eden, it presents itself as a battle between 'Good' and 'Evil', Reason and Affection... a tense dualism that hardly represents harmony. If original sin is accepted,then the Bible is about the 'battle', with many and various intyerpreatations of how that is to be dealt with or resolved.

First you assert strongly that the Bible is not in full harmony. Personally I must disagree with you. Perhaps you could chose a topic (you seem to touch on many) where you feel that it is not in harmony and start a new thread. I would love to see your reasonings as well as give a counter opinion.

Second you are partly right the Bible "presents itself as a battle between 'Good' and 'Evil', Reason and Affection". I understand that. But do you understand that is not what God intended when he created man. It was because of the gift of free will that one of his heavenly creations decided that God did not have the right to be the supreme ruler and fooled Eve into following her own ideas. We set boundries for our children. eg do not play with fire. Most children will not play with fire, occationally one will decide their parents do not have the right to tell them that and experiment with fire. That is free will. We can chose to follow the advice given or go against it. Parents know that fire can do a lot of damage. God knows what is best for mankind to live im harmony. Adam and Eve decided to ignor the advice and do their own thing before they could bring forth any offspring. Because they sined they passed that belmish onto to thir children.

May I respectfully suggest that this, which you have sincerely written:
"God in no way knows what each individual on earth will do. He does have the power to do so but does not use it for every day things but only when he wanted certain things to happen eg naming Cyrus as the one to capture Babylon 2 hundred years before his birth and the fortelling of events around the life of Jesus, the destruction of cities etc. things that were in line with his puproses only"

is purely self validated, therefore personal and subjective opinion, which you are sharing with us.

I refrained from quoting to much at the request of a moderator so I kept things brief. The information above is all recorded in the Bible. So it is a "personal and subjective opinion" based on a knowledge of the Bible.I can discuss any portion of that and it will be clear to anyone that accepts the Bibl;e as the written word of God. ( I am going to assume here, from what you have written that you have difficulty with that. )

HOW can you simply declare on a basis of personal feelings (not facts) that you know what a God thinks and feels?
You are simply asserting that you personally BELIEVE that a God has power and you know that he doesn't use it every day! HOW can you 'know' that as a fact outside of yourself?

From the things you have written above and in some of the things bellow I am again going to assume something on your behalf. Am I correct in saying you have difficulty accepting "that a God has power and ... that he doesn't use it every day" goes against a God of love otherwise why all the suffering, wars, starvation in the world today? Am I correct?

Nothing logically gives a pure belief the necessity of truth. In this case, it cannot be demonstrated as 'truth' beyond your feelings about the matter. It is only dependent upon your affective nature and nurture.

You see, with due respect to your obviously sincere beliefs, nothing says they are actually 'true' beyond what you feel and think. The fact is, there is no evidence, and the evidence you mainly cite is not as you describe.

You cannot 'know' the mind of this monotheistic appreciation you hold within your affections/affective nature and nurture in any sense that is understandable beyond yourself. You are making the age-old mistake of thinking that because you declare it, it must be so for others too... and that is patently not the case, not even among other monotheistic religions/Faiths.

You cannot in all honesty do that.
Just because any of us DECLARE and AFFIRM a 'truth' does not make it 'true' beyond our own declaration and affirmation. That is irrational.

If you require the Faith to be rational,you have to provide evidence...and we, none of us, can do that for our individual spiritual faiths.

Faith does not require or necessitate 'rationality' OR external proofs.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking there actually is a proof of 'God', or Gods and Goddesses... THEY do not require it.
There is none, and all that remains is the personal faith of the believer, the affirmer.
Is that not enough for any sincere and honest 'believer'? I think it should be.

Perhaps you are not aware of the Biblical meaning of faith. It is different to blind faith (which is what you have defined above). The Biblical definition of faith is "the assured expectation of realities thou not beheld". My faith is based on realities of history, science and the word of God the Bible.

Please think of a new topic along the lines of our discution and lets compare thoughts. The overview I have given was based on the original question of salvation for all. So lets leve that to this topic and enjoy a frank discution on one of your choice.

Ben

[Blue]

I leave it to yourself, Ben, to begin a new Thread, but in all honesty, especially in view of your honest and quiet responses concerning your understandings, I think the relevance is to this thread and what you have interjected.

I will attempt an equally honest assessment of two key points in your last post, as briefly as possible.
----------------
Firstly, the claims you make re: the Bible, which seem central to the evidence you claim for your personal validations.

This claim presupposes a supremity for Biblical texts in comparison with any others.
How is that assumption arrived at?
How can it be said in some external sense - beyond yourself - that this patently written, compiled and collated set of ancient Middle Eastern texts, produced by human beings, has a superior quality or nature beyond that of say the Koran...the Talmud, or further, Hindu writings, or any others?
Surely, this is just a personal affirmation of a presumption made by your heart (and soul?) in accord with your affective nature and nurture?
Its (claimed) superiority is just a personal value judgement made by yourself on the basis of no external evidence. Certainly, you do not cite any.
Also, these Biblical texts, whether or not you include such writings as the Thomas Gospel and similar works, or not, do not exhibit internal 'harmony'.
The 'God' itself is variously vengeful, angry, loving, tolerant, intolerant, weak, strong, etc., in fact, all the qualities which one might expect of human beings themselves, rather than some omnipotent and omniscient entity, and which I would maintain are all fancies of human beings at various times.
Then consider the matter of ethics... there again, no consistent spiritual base is displayed across most compilations called 'The Bible'. We are exhorted in various parts to kill our enemies, convert our fellows who disagree with us and refuse to believe, accept multiple wives, and exhorted elsewhere to keep to one only.
We are even asked to accept that this 'God' may even demand(?) the human sacrifice of our son, and a father should obey such a demand, whatever the consequence.

I am not enamoured of specific cases being discussed on these Forums, even though I have taken part in them all over the Internet, because they have come to me to seem so pointless.
All I am pointing out, as someone who first read the standard King James version from cover to cover at the age of around 14, is that there are not just a few, but many inconsistencies... that hardly promote a harmonious and consistent view of anything at all.
If there is a consistent and harmonious nature to the Bible, please define it, at least in general terms.
The fact remains that we have a collection and collation of disparate texts patently recorded for different purposes... some religious, some political, some avowedly simply recording 'histories', some patently mythological, and some sheer poetics and imagination - as in Revelations and the 'Songs'.
--------
Secondly, Faith.

Quite frankly, and in all honesty, I have never followed/understood this special status awarded 'Faith', mainly by monotheists to their 'faith'.

Faith in all dictionaries is given clearly, basically, the same denotation you have given it in a religious connection: ""the assured expectation of realities thou not beheld"

If they are 'not beheld', they are personally affirmed and validated in 'blindness' to realities beyond self. They are subjective self-conceptions one personally validates.

You say further, apparently my friend, in contradiction of this:

"My faith is based on realities of history, science and the word of God the Bible."

I reply, what "realities of History" are you refrring to that are not secondary or tertiary, or more, sources, in accord with modern historical methodologies?
Please cite at least one. I know of no primary sources. Do you? And if secondary... how is the reliability to be judged... historically?

Science is a poor choice, I think.
There is simply is no evidence in the 'Sciences' for a God, beyond one's personal affirmations.
The closest we get to it are personal affirmations by scientists and rationalists like Professor Flew, who simply affirms and asserts he feels there is 'intelligence' at work in the Universe, owing to its complexity. He would be the first to agree that there is no verifying evidence beyond feelings concerning the obvious complexity. Please look him up in Google. He does NOT claim a proof of 'God', as has been reported erroneously in much of the media!
Asserting something is NOT evidence. Producing validations based in empirical and objective research in such ways that they are repeatable is what is required and it simply does not exist in verifying the reality of a God or Gods.
It is my opinion that the latter are not amenable to proof (or disproof).

The Bible is your third citation in your conclusion. I think I have dealt with that:
a) it is only one collection and collation of ancient Middle Eastern texts that presents conflicting ethical views, opposing politcal and social views, and has claims regarding some ancient mythologies, and the purported life of Jesus of Nazareth and lots of prophesising/prohetic statements.
b) it is patently used as an argument and support for a Religion that is Monotheistic and is used to support notions of Theocracy alien to rationality.
No one in all seriousness can cite the 'Bible' as evidence for anything other than what is... a collection and collation of ancient middle eastern material on a variety of topics presented in a variety of ways.
To simply claim, as many do, it represents some kind of unified codification of a 'religion' is nonsense.
Some of 'it' supports earlier texts, those included in the Talmud, some in the Koran (but not in the latter in any chronological fashion). Are such collations and collections of any more or less value than say the King James collation?
To then cite that 'Bible' as evidence for something beyond personal affirmations, you surely agree, is not honest, nor is the claim that it carries and sustains the notion of 'ultimate' authority' behind it.

Please understand this short response only deals with two major points as I see them in your response.

Have a peaceful and happy Christmas day

(and remember that the Easter to come only appears in the Bible once (-erroneously as 'Oestre' replacing the term 'Passover'.) and Christmas is not the time of Jesus' birth and nor is it likely that it happened 2004 years ago. LOL ;-)... )

[Ben57]

Hello Blue,

To start, I want to get on a common ground. I agree with what you said…

(and remember that the Easter to come only appears in the Bible once (-erroneously as 'Oestre' replacing the term 'Passover'.) and Christmas is not the time of Jesus' birth and nor is it likely that it happened 2004 years ago. LOL ;-)... )

I just thought that I would let you know I do not celebrate Christmas or Easter. I put the birth of Jesus as Sep/October 2 bce I acknowledge the death of Jesus on Nisan 14 the Passover day and do not engage in any of the Easter “rituals”.

Now, I understand why people come to the sort of conclusions that you mention ….

“The 'God' itself is variously vengeful, angry, loving, tolerant, intolerant, weak, strong, etc., .... We are exhorted in various parts to kill our enemies, convert our fellows who disagree with us and refuse to believe, accept multiple wives, and exhorted elsewhere to keep to one only.

We are even asked to accept that this 'God' may even demand(?) the human sacrifice of our son, and a father should obey such a demand, whatever the consequence.”

Yes I do believe the Bible to be superior to other ancient books. No other book has had such an influence on mankind as this book. (yes, due to miss interpretation it has been used to cause a lot of trouble). It was written over a period of 1500 years by about 40 writers. Of the ancient texts written about that time in the middle east, only the Bible survives. (The Koran and the Talmud were written after the Time of Jesus but the Hindu writings were thought to have been competed about 6oo years BCE)

The Talmud was developed over several centuries from the oral traditions of the Jews. During the 150 years following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E., academies of rabbinic sages throughout Israel urgently sought a new basis for maintaining Jewish practice. They debated and consolidated various traditions of their oral law. Building on this foundation, they set new limits and requirements for Judaism, giving direction for a day-to-day life of holiness without a temple. This new spiritual framework was outlined in the Mishnah, compiled by Judah ha-Nasi by the beginning of the third century C.E. There were 2 different Talmud’s written one known as the Palistine Talmud and the other as the Babylonian Talmud. The later being more accepted by the Jews.

The Koran was written after the death of Mohammad during the rule of the first three caliphs, or Muslim leaders. His “visions” were passed on orally as no “paper” was available to those people. Parts of his works were written on the shoulders of camels, palm leaves, wood, and parchment. A lot of the accounts mirror the first five books of the Bible


The whole Bible is in full harmony with itself (you keep saying it is not, so please post an example for us to compare)

Only the Bible can satisfactorily answer…

1) WHY DO PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS?

2). WHY DO PEOPLE GET SICK AND EVENTUALLY DIE?

3). WHY HAS GOD PERMITTED WICKEDNESS FOR SO LONG?

4). IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR THE FUTURE?


Without going into a lot of detail at this time, when one considers the context of the various aspects of the Bible you mention above with the overall theme of the Bible, those “unsavory” aspects you mention have different meanings. I will prepare an explanation that hopefully will cover what you said.

At this time I want to briefly show why I feel “science” upholds the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible does not claim to be a science text book, (butis a book of prophecy, history, prayer, law, counsel, and knowledge about God), but, when ever it does touch on a matter of science it is correct. By science I refer to such modern defined fields as archeology, history, medical, astronomy with all the modern methods that they use.

Today, we know about the amazing water cycle eg. … it rain … rivers run to the sea … evaporation from the sea… clouds… it rains. This remarkable process, which makes life on dry land possible, was well described about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in the Bible: “All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The New English Bible

How about the Bible’s insight into the history of mountains. Here is what a textbook on geology says: “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.” (The Book of Popular Science (Grolier, Inc.), 1967, pp. 213, 214.) Compare this with the poetic language of the psalmist: “With a watery deep just like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plains proceeded to descend—to the place that you have founded for them.”—Psalm 104:6, 8.

For many centuries until after the time of Galileo it was believed the earth was flat. Some theories were that giant elephants held the earth another that the god Atlas held it up. At about 730 years before Jesus, Isaiah said that the earth was round, (40:22) and in about 1430 b.c. Job said that the earth was hanging upon nothing (26:7). These types of words were absolutely against the then known ideas of the day. They could write that only because of divine knowledge (inspired)

The order in which Genesis sets out the formation and appearance of the various life forms on earth is the same order science says the earth was formed. (by the way, I do not believe the earth to have been created in 7 literal 24 hour days, but in 7 periods of time of unknown length). The Bible supports a point in time when there was no “universe” and no earth and that at one point in time it started. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: “The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy”. (God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow, 1978, p. 14.)


Professor Paul Davies,a world leading physicist does not believe in a God but when reading his works one can not help but wonder why not. He supplies ample proof for a God by reason of the laws of physics, but he himself can not believe in an Almighty Creator (you can read some of his thoughts if you do a search of “The Big Questions - In the Beginning - ABC Science Online.htm”) The evidence he puts forward is in the precise nature of the laws of physics that hold the fabric of the universe together. He talks about great design and purpose (but no God).

The evidence of creation around us, our very lives, demonstrate an intelligence and purpose in our being. Man has a theory that every thing evolved. Unfortunately other fields of science disagree. There is no tangible with out doubt that evolution was involved. However if one is to read the many descriptions of the various forms of life and the way they co exist the only conclusion one can come to is a creator.

HISTORY

According to the book of Daniel, the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since there appeared to be no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. But during the 19th century, several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. They were found to include a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The name of this son was Belshazzar.

In the year 740 B.C.E., God allowed the rebellious northern kingdom of Israel to be destroyed by the Assyrians. (2 Kings 17:6-18) Speaking of the Bible account of this event, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon comments: “One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole.” But she adds: “The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record. . . . The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the [Bible] writer was not exaggerating.” (The Bible and Recent Archaeology, by Kathleen M. Kenyon, 1978, p. 97.)

The Bible tells us that Jerusalem under King Jehoiachin was besieged by the Babylonians and was defeated. This event is recorded on the Babylonian Chronicle, a cuneiform tablet discovered by archaeologists. On this, we read: “The king of Akkad [Babylon] . . . laid siege to the city of Judah (iahudu) and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru.” (Archaeology of the Bible: Book by Book, p. 177) Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon and imprisoned. But later, according to the Bible, he was released from prison and given an allowance of food. (2 Kings 24:8-15; 25:27-30) This is supported by administrative documents found in Babylon, which list the rations given to “Yaukîn, king of Judah.” (Archaeology of the Bible: Book by Book, p. 177.)

Bible prophecy for me is possible the strongest proof eg

In the Book of Daniel (6th century BCE) we read about the Greek nation under Alexander, how it would quickly conquer, and then, after Alexander’s death, his kingdom would be divided, by his four main Generals This prophetic view of history was fulfilled exactly. The Babylonian Empire was overthrown by Medo-Persia, which, 200 years later, gave way to the Greek world power. The Greek Empire was spearheaded by Alexander the Great, “the great horn.” However, after Alexander’s death, his generals fought among themselves for power, and eventually the far-flung empire broke into four smaller empires, “four kingdoms.”

Daniel also fortold the exact time when the Jews were to expect the messiah. This too was full filed in the life of Jesus.

Isaiah also for told and named Cyrus the Great 200 years befoe his birth that he would conquer Babylon.

The above is a very brief view of the accuracy of the Bible and why I am convinced that it is above all other books. The things mentioned above are unique to the Bible. I have not touched on medical aspects that are peculiar to the Bible (as an ancient text) and to modern medicine

Faith

Most people have a “blind faith” believing in something that there is no tangible proof for. My Software “Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus” defines faith as … “unquestioning belief that does not require proof of evidence” .

The Bibles view of faith is different “the assured expectation of realities thou not beheld". For example, each day we have faith the sun will rise, based on our past lifetime experience of seeing come up each day. So before we behold it coming again, we have faith that it will be here. The same can be said with the phases of the moon. Faith that they will appear when predicted is based on knowledge of past events. That is the kind of faith a Christian should develop, one based on knowledge of past events. The Bible is an accurate book of history written in advance. Salvation requires that we exercise our faith in the knowledge of what happened in the past to be ready for the future. SO the basis for my faith is in the knowledge that what God has had written in the Bible is inspired. That knowledge has been verified by modern fields of science.

Biblical faith has to be demonstrated by the things we do not just said. “Faith without works is dead”. Jesus said that there were many that would believe in him (with a measure of faith) but he will disown them because they do not demonstrate their faith by their way of life. (Matthew 7:22.25.)

Ben

[Sacredstar]

Dear Ben

Originally Posted by Ben57

Jesus said that there were many that would believe in him (with a measure of faith) but he will disown them because they do not demonstrate their faith by their way of life. (Matthew 7:22.25.)[/color]

Ben

Do you feel this will include Christian Fundamentalists?

Please share your medical references it would be interesting to see if they corresspond with my own.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar