It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am a

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I had the occasion to study religion. I subscribe to no religion, a human pastime I consider to be...man made and while the practice has a long history, not all of it bad for humans, it appears to be totally without merit. Yet, I have faith.

I have faith that the math of E=MC² is valid. I believe this because this math has been subjected to constant testing in peer review and the assumption is born out without fail.
Therefore, I believe and I accept this on faith.

I believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is 300 thousand Km/sec, even though this calculation was made in the 19th century every measurement since then has born out the assumption.. I accept this on faith.

I believe that if the character Jesus actually existed and if Jesus were actually, “born of a virgin” that Jesus was a female. I believe this because I accept the definition of “haploid” and appear to understand it. I believe that if the English who wrote the KJV in the 17th century had known enough biology they would not have attempted to make up the virgin birth scenario. I accept this on faith.

I accept that the Calculus invented by Sir Isaac would have been more accurate if his product had contained differential equations (like that invented by Kepler) and if Sir Ike had discovered this, his formulae would have been more accurate. I accept this on faith.

I accept these things on faith because I cannot do the mathematics to prove them. I accept the existence of Gambia not because I have witnessed Gambia with my own senses but because sufficient empirical evidence exist that Gambia’s existence is not subject to opinion to the contrary.

I have faith. Religion, poppycock, as relates to evidence but useful to us humans for the purpose of interaction. I just wish we did not infuse religion so completely with ignorance, hatred and gratuitous violence.

I do not blame religion for the overwhelming amount of violence associated with and therefore excused by it. I hold humans responsible for every act of violence involving religion and for that matter any other application where violence is employed and the examples both in and out of religion are countless and these acts of violence are supported by disturbed minds deluding themselves as necessary to express pathological assumptions…each one by humans.

The bottom line is…how critical are we before we decide to glom on to something and…believe it? What personal standards do we have for ourselves?
Are our standards high enough that we might arrive at a defensible position?
In most cases, probably NOT!
Thus: the use of faith to believe almost anything, no matter how ridiculous, while common…has no merit whatever. The next time someone suggests you accept something on “faith” you might be a bit suspicious.




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Faith and truth is relative to what you believe. People have faith in Christianity or other religions, which you denouce as "poppycock" but infact you subscribe to another religion: The Religion of Science.

You have faith in math, and what science learns, but many theories of science request there be blind faith to believe (Like Quantum THeory and the string theory.)

Its all relative.

Because of its relativity, factuality is also relative. It all comes down to what you believe. As such, you really have no right to put down religion, if you raise another, science, upon a pedestal.

Just a though.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Why is it that being "critical", "investigative", and other such words, like "skeptical" are thought to show that we are intelligent above the average?

Having faith in something one cannot see except indirectly through eyes of faith, and in viewing nature, is likewise seen, apparently, as ignorance.

Why is it that the Bible shows so clearly that great wisdom is to be found in faith, that believing having not seen is blessed, and, that without faith, one cannot please God, Who even many agnostics/atheists would agree that 'SHOULD' He exist, He'd be the most intelligent being in the universe?

Where do we get these upside down views if not from the one that wants even the Cross upside down?

In one place, God says to humanity, "Come, let us reason together"....but apparently, most of the human race would prefer to "reason with" themselves over another man's written works than to open the Bible and see what it has to say. And we dare call that "intelligence"?

Do I hear angels laughing?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
No--I hear them laughing, too.


Laughing in derision mixed with a bit of pity, yet there is an element of joy hidden there, because they know all things will be revealed.

And they know God is and know what He can do...

I think He is laughing, too...


Originally posted by sayswho
I believe that if the character Jesus actually existed and if Jesus were actually, “born of a virgin” that Jesus was a female.


Me, too. Because that is what science has shown us and so that would be the only way.

But the bible doesn't even say 'virgin,' it says 'maiden.' Jesus wasn't born of a virgin--that's a crock of you-know-what. That would also wipe Him out as the christian's savior because he'd have no true claim to the throne of David, since his father would not be Joseph and Mary would have been an adulteress, making Jesus, under Jewish law, a bastard!!! Sex is not, in itself, a sin--God equipped us for it in the first place! Craziness.

They defeat themselves with their delusions which contradict science and make God into something 'supernatural.' How can 'supernatural' exist within a natural world?!?!?! Or maybe I should say 'observed.' Either way, it's utter nonsense.

Not logical. God is not illogical. He's surely more like Spock, Einstein, and Yoda than the the Pope. Besides that, God doesn't wear RED shoes!!!



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
An error is made about the nature of faith, originally by organized religions, but the error is passed on to atheists and skeptics and so the truth is doubly buried.

Sayswho, the things you mentioned, which you believe on the testimony of experts without being able to verify them yourself, do not indicate "faith." I understand the comparison between your belief in mathematical and scientific statements that you cannot personally verify, and a religious believer's acceptance of doctrinal authority, but neither one of those has anything to do with "faith."

Contrary to what WolfofWar says, there is no religion of science. Religion and science serve wholly different purposes. The purpose of science is to intellectually understand the universe, as analyzed into component processes, each process treated separately. The purpose of religion is to emotionally, spiritually and morally connect with the universe, taken as a whole rather than analyzed into parts.

Yet, while your list of beliefs do not indicate faith, something else about you does: the fact that you wake up and face the day each morning. Faith is not a belief that. Faith is a belief in. To say "I believe in God" is a way of saying "I believe in the benignity of the universe." And as there is no real factual evidence of that benignity and much evidence to the contrary, this is truly a belief without support -- yet it is necessary if we are to go on stepping forward into uncertainty.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity

Having faith in something one cannot see except indirectly through eyes of faith, and in viewing nature, is likewise seen, apparently, as ignorance.

Why is it that the Bible shows so clearly that great wisdom is to be found in faith, that believing having not seen is blessed, and, that without faith, one cannot please God, Who even many agnostics/atheists would agree that 'SHOULD' He exist, He'd be the most intelligent being in the universe?

Where do we get these upside down views if not from the one that wants even the Cross upside down?



I think it comes from the fact that true belief and faith in God is something that is spiritually received(1 Cor 2:14).It is foolishness to those who are perishing(1Cor 1:18) but the power of God to those who believe.

Only those who truly seek will find and those who reject the message will spend eternity wishing they had listened.


Sad but true.

Peace,

LS



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
queen annie, your posts worry at me. There are parts that I can heartily amen and others that just go off (to my mind) on tracks like these:


Originally posted by sayswho
I believe that if the character Jesus actually existed and if Jesus were actually, “born of a virgin” that Jesus was a female.



originally posted by queenannieMe, too. Because that is what science has shown us and so that would be the only way.... But the bible doesn't even say 'virgin,' it says 'maiden.'


Let's just see about that. First, how does science show us that anyone born of a virgin would be a female?

Also, about the virgin or "maiden" thing, Mt 1:23 says "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon says the word used there is: "Parthenos" (transliterated) and means: 1. a virgin
1. a marriageable maiden
2. a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
3. one's marriageable daughter
2. a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
1. one who has never had intercourse with women

In Luke 1:27, which reads "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.", the same word and same definition is used.

The Matthew reference is a quote from Isaiah 7:14 which reads, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Since this reference is in Hebrew, the word used for virgin according to the The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon is "`almah" (transliterated word) and the definition is "virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married

There is this addtional caveat on the KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon that
"There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. "

Now, where did you get your information that it doesn't mean "virgin" but "maiden", even remembering that back in the day virginity was lost only at great peril to all concerned, including stoning to death, so that the designation of "virgin" was vastly important?

Her husband-to-be must have had the idea that she'd been unfaithful, since Scripture says in Matthew 1:18-20 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

verse 20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. .

Two angelic appearances, an overshadowing by the Holy Spirit, and a virgin is impregnated, who gives birth to the "Lamb of God, Who taketh away the sin of the world".

Amazing but so gratefully received by those who are being saved.

My prayer for you, queenannie, is that you will give up these sidetracks and get down to business with the Savior.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Curiosity:

The only way known to science that a virgin could bear a child is if the child was a clone, and a clone of the mother is always going to be genetically identical to the mother (like an identical twin), hence female.

One of the core flaws of Christianity is to get so hung up on belief that, when the important part is belief in. Does it really matter whether Jesus was literally virgin-born? If so, why?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. I SHATTER YOUR FAITH!

The problem with putting your faith in science is that even science doesn't (or shouldn't) put it's faith in science. In science, EVERYTHING must be questioned, and updated constantly. All your examples are in very real danger of being radically changed in the coming years.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Curiosity: The only way known to science that a virgin could bear a child is if the child was a clone, and a clone of the mother is always going to be genetically identical to the mother (like an identical twin), hence female.

One of the core flaws of Christianity is to get so hung up on belief that, when the important part is belief in. Does it really matter whether Jesus was literally virgin-born? If so, why?


While I appreciate you taking up the cause of queenannie's statement in her behalf, the "only way known to science" is an unimportant factoid since it is only lack of knowledge that makes it the current "only way".

Now if I'd said the only way to God is by Jesus, which it is, you'd have asked me to clarify and prove that statement, right? (Or at least probably have disagreed.) So, prove to me that the only way known to science for a virgin to bear a child is to "clone" someone.

But then, you'd also have to show that cloning of humans has actually been done, since "proof" is required and that might have serious repercussions in the "proof" department, mighten it?

Actually, "science", that great man-made deity, says that the blood of the child comes from the father, so is that "virgin" who clones herself going to produce a bloodless replica, or will it have the blood of HER father? OOPS, that means the clone would be a product of incest, or ersatz incest, at least. And is well known to "science", incest leads to serious birth defects, not a Savior.

Now you're asking for why it matters whether Mary was a virgin or not? How about this?: His Father's blood is what made His sacrifice valid. If Joseph's blood would have sufficed for Him to sacrifice once for all, then why would God have gone to the trouble of sending an angel to tell her and then overshadowing a virgin to bring forth a pure-blood Who did not share in Adam's blood? :bnghd:



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity


Now if I'd said the only way to God is by Jesus, which it is,


Thats relative to what religion you are, and whaty ou believe, ofcourse.


you'd have asked me to clarify and prove that statement, right? (Or at least probably have disagreed.) So, prove to me that the only way known to science for a virgin to bear a child is to "clone" someone.


They already did by describing to you the natural cloning process of animals. And how if she was a virgin, and birthed her own child, it would be genetically identical to mary, therefore female.

Ofcourse then again maybe it was aliens?

Or added in later like many many other things in the bible that were added much later into the book. Who knows




[edit on 6-21-2006 by WolfofWar]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
Now you're asking for why it matters whether Mary was a virgin or not? How about this?: His Father's blood is what made His sacrifice valid.


As I understand the Christian theological concept of the divine sacrifice, Jesus' death on the cross remitted the sins of mankind because Jesus was at once man and God. The presence of God in Jesus made it not merely the sacrifice of a man, but the sacrifice of Man -- all human beings -- God being the All -- and so atonement was made, not merely for Jesus, but for everone.

I really don't see how that concept is in any way dependent on the circumstances of Jesus' birth. In any case, as I hinted earlier, belief in the virgin birth is not a belief in but a belief that: a claim of fact about the observable, objective world. It really has nothing to do with faith.

Christianity offers, as a genuine statement of faith, this promise: God loves you (i.e., the universe is benign) because He sacrificed Himself for the evil in your soul, and you may become one with Him, despite that evil, for it has already been purged. One may accept this as a mythic truth and live by it -- believing IN -- without believing THAT Jesus was literally born of a virgin. Many Christians do.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by curiousity
Now you're asking for why it matters whether Mary was a virgin or not? How about this?: His Father's blood is what made His sacrifice valid.



Originally posted by Two Steps ForwardAs I understand the Christian theological concept of the divine sacrifice, Jesus' death on the cross remitted the sins of mankind because Jesus was at once man and God.


Nicely wrapped piece of personal understanding, but incorrect in its essence. His sacrifice remitted not the sins of "mankind", but the sins of those "'whosoevers' who believe in Him (who then) would not perish (because of that faith) but have everlasting life". (John 3:16 with my insertions in () to bring out the strongest possible understanding of the verse)


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward The presence of God in Jesus made it not merely the sacrifice of a man, but the sacrifice of Man -- all human beings -- God being the All -- and so atonement was made, not merely for Jesus, but for everone......I really don't see how that concept is in any way dependent on the circumstances of Jesus' birth. In any case, as I hinted earlier, belief in the virgin birth is not a belief in but a belief that: a claim of fact about the observable, objective world. It really has nothing to do with faith.


God was still in Heaven, see Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." It was the Spirit of God in heaven that descended on and filled Jesus at His baptism. It was only after His resurrection that the Son was reunited with the Father.

As for the sacrifice of Man, that is clearly not compatible with Scripture. If man were able to produce a sacrifice that remains efficacious to this day, why didn't one do it before Jesus? It was the Spirit of God in and on Jesus and the miraculous manner in which the pure blood of His Father flowed through His veins from the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit that produced a worthy sacrifice for all mankind, as you say, yet still only predicated on one's belief in His blood being so worthy, so that not all mankind was saved at the moment of Jesus' death. Let's be clear about that. By the way, since Spirit has neither body nor blood, it was required that the Savior be born of a woman.


Originally posted by Two Steps ForwardChristianity offers, as a genuine statement of faith, this promise: God loves you (i.e., the universe is benign) because He sacrificed Himself for the evil in your soul, and you may become one with Him, despite that evil, for it has already been purged. One may accept this as a mythic truth and live by it -- believing IN -- without believing THAT Jesus was literally born of a virgin. Many Christians do.


He doesn't "love you" because He sacrificed Himself, but sent Jesus to do that because He does love what He created, and NO ONE can approach God without going thru the Christ Jesus He sent for that very purpose. And there is your "mythic truth" exposed. It is belief in Christ that 'saves' one, and not "despite evil" but because His blood washes away the "evil" of sin in those who would believe in Him and who ask forgiveness for their sin of Him.

It would do no good to believe "IN", if He was not born of a virgin, who was overshadowed by the Father of Jesus, God, for had He been born of a man and woman, and therefore having the blood of Adam, He would have been worthless as a sacrifice. It is the pure blood of Jesus that came from His Father that made His sacrifice possible and efficacious.

I don't know precisely on what you base your beliefs but for sure it is obvious that is not based on the only account of Jesus that God has given us Himself.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
His sacrifice remitted not the sins of "mankind", but the sins of those "'whosoevers' who believe in Him (who then) would not perish (because of that faith) but have everlasting life".


Ah, but there we have that phrase "believe in" again. My whole point here is that too many Christians misinterpret that phrase to mean some form of "believe that."

To "believe in him" is not to believe "that" this, that, or the other; it is to open one's heart to the presence of God -- regardless of what name one uses for God. And his sacrifice DID remit the sins of mankind -- but those who do not "believe in" (accept and open themselves to) him (by whatever name) are not availing themselves of that situation.

I realize that many Christian churches have, over the centuries, interpreted this concept differently, but one must recognize that in doing so they were serving their own quite mundane and worldly interests. There is no spiritual truth in the confusion of the belief THAT Christian doctrine is accurate, with belief IN the benevolence of the universe.



God was still in Heaven


So, for you, God is a limited being? You do not conceive God to be omnipresent? God and Jesus are two completely separate beings? There is no unity implied?



As for the sacrifice of Man, that is clearly not compatible with Scripture. If man were able to produce a sacrifice that remains efficacious to this day, why didn't one do it before Jesus?


Because the sacrifice needed to be not A man, but MAN -- ALL of Man -- and that required the unity of Man and God represented (in Christian theology anyway) by Jesus.



He doesn't "love you" because He sacrificed Himself, but sent Jesus to do that


Again, you seem to be speaking of Jesus and God as if they are two completely separate beings. Is that what you believe?



NO ONE can approach God without going thru the Christ Jesus


All right, let me pose you this question. Let's say Jesus is standing, as he is said to have said he would, at the door of the heart and knocking. And let's say someone hears the knock and answers, "Coming, Shiva," and heads for the door. Is Jesus going to say to himself, "Hmm, must have the wrong house," and go elsewhere? Or is he going to say, "Oh, yes, that's one of the names Hindus have for me," and be there when the door is opened?

Do not confuse Jesus with the Christian religion, or Christian doctrine, or even the name and image of Jesus in your mind. One may believe in Jesus without ever having heard the name.



I don't know precisely on what you base your beliefs but for sure it is obvious that is not based on the only account of Jesus that God has given us Himself.


You are mistaken. It is indeed based on the only account that God gives to anyone: the understanding of the heart, beyond the ability of any human language to convey.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps ForwardYou are mistaken. It is indeed based on the only account that God gives to anyone: the understanding of the heart, beyond the ability of any human language to convey.


Such dogmatic statements from such an "openminded" poster!? "The only account that God gives to anyone" by your definition excludes what, the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, what else?

LOL, you've just succeeded in making 1/2 the religions in the world's sacred texts of no account.

Nevertheless it is as Jesus says in Mt 22:29, "...... Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.".

edited to remove what might have been perceived as an insulting statement

[edit on 21-6-2006 by curiousity]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
queen annie, your posts worry at me. There are parts that I can heartily amen and others that just go off (to my mind) on tracks like these

What seems to you as 'going off on tracks like these' is the path that lay ahead of me, and at the present time, it appears free of obstacles. I know because my posts don't worry me, nor do anyone else's. If you are worried, then it isn't about me, but about you. Concerning what, exactly, how am I to know? But I do know that my heart doesn't convict me so I don't fret.


Let's just see about that. First, how does science show us that anyone born of a virgin would be a female?

Because the male is the donor of the 'Y' chromosome. 2 X's make a girl and 1X and 1Y make a boy. All babies start out as female and if the Y chromosome is present, at some point after the neural tube is formed, it begins to differentiate and create the male gender characteristics in the fetus.


In Luke 1:27, which reads "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.", the same word and same definition is used.

These were Hebrews, writing in Greek. Koine Greek, to be specific, which only exists in this venue because it basically is Greek words told in the Hebrew style, idioms and other distinctly Hebraic literary traditions included.


Since this reference is in Hebrew, the word used for virgin according to the The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon is "`almah" (transliterated word) and the definition is "virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married

There is this addtional caveat on the KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon that
"There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. "

Right. I've read that, too. But why add that if there is no other possibility? Obviously they were expecting a potential question of this definition, and thusly headed it off in advance.


Now, where did you get your information that it doesn't mean "virgin" but "maiden"

From my knowledge of the Hebrew language beyond the use of a Lexicon, as well as knowing what the marriage traditions of that time were, as far as betrothal and marriage. Betrothal meant that a contract had been entered mutally by both parties--either sealed by money (or ring), sexual consummation, or written contract.

A true virgin is called a bethulah (#H1330) in the Hebrew because it means 'separate' and an almah means one who is veiled (such as a bride). It really doesn't make sense to assume virginity at the time that the veil is worn, simply because fertility was equally as important as virginity and the issue of adultery and bloodlines. From the Talmud:


The Talmud (Shabbath 31a) explains that in olam haba, the world to come, the first three questions asked of a person are: “Were you honest in your business dealings? Did you have a set time for Torah study? Did you raise a family?


To fulfill the commandment of procreation (in the Torah: 'be fruitful and multiply'), a Jew must bring at least one male and female child into the world.

For this reason, more so in the times of Jesus than now, Jewish weddings comprise two separate parts--the first being the betrothal ceremony and the second part was the actual wedding ceremony (usually just a feast before they official move in to their new family home). These two ceremonies usually took place about a year apart--but now they are usually at the same time.

Mary would have been stoned to death if she had been divorced by Joseph.

God made these rules for the Sanhedrin, related to adultery--do you think He would go to all the trouble of spiritual insemination only to put such stress on the ones He favored with such a task? Not to mention setting them both up with the additional dilemna of possibly having to lie (bear false witness--another serious crime)?


Amazing but so gratefully received by those who are being saved.


But totally illogical either way one looks at it--from the science or the faith POV. I trust God not to put people He chooses for important tasks in such potentially hazardous situations--especially if they didn't ask to serve!!!

Another point, as I mentioned, is the royal bloodline of David. If Joseph was truly of this bloodline, and God said the babe would be the anointed one, then surely there would have been concern about the invalidity of the bloodline of a stepfather applying to the Davidic lineage. This was a time when all of Judea were looking for the promised one, so that's another point not worth overlooking.

God creates order, not confusion, and never ever breaks His own laws!!! That would make Him a hypocrite, and that's something I'm not willing to be the cause of. If something doesn't make sense--contradicting observable and repeatable scientific knowledge, then obviously it is a flawed intepretation, since intepretation is subjective at all times. Science is the opposite -- it is objective in nature.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
His Father's blood is what made His sacrifice valid.

His Father didn't have any blood!! God the Father is pure Spirit.

Spirit is not flesh and blood.

Another illogical point! One more, even:

Sexual relations between man and wife (betrothed or wed) according to the context of cultural norms and mores of the time is not seen as sinful, in any way, from the viewpoint of the Jew! Their idea of 'original sin' has nothing to do with marital sex and they all were cleansed from that on Mt. Sinai, very soon after they arrived!

That is what Paul is referring to here:


Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (1 Corinthians 10:1-2 KJV)


Remember that God is the God of Israel and the Savior of the world, not the God of christianity alone nor the savior of christians before the Jews. Such things as virgin births are what Peter calls 'fables' and God knows the mind of all: Israel, Jews, christians, even atheists...



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity"The only account that God gives to anyone" by your definition excludes what, the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, what else?


All of them. Every last one.



LOL, you've just succeeded in making 1/2 the religions in the world's sacred texts of no account.


Nope, 100% of them. Even if the Bible (or Koran or whatever) actually represents God giving dictation to its human author who took it down word for word (which in fact is not the most common Christian interpretation of the process of "inspiration"), it would still not be able to communicate the Mysteries. This is not a shortcoming of God, but rather of the human languages in which all so-called sacred texts are written.

Actually, let me modify that. The world's sacred texts aren't "of no account." Many of them contain material that presents a good metaphor for the Mysteries. Provided one has experienced and been transformed by the Divine Presence, it's not hard to see this.

But in the sense of giving "the Truth" in a form easily comprehended by a person lacking deep spiritual experiences? No. None of them do that. None can. Ever.



Nevertheless it is as Jesus says in Mt 22:29, "...... Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.".


Ah, but the thing is, considering that Jesus was often addressing such remarks to learned Biblical scholars of the time (the Pharisees, for instance, and the Jewish Scribes), obviously in the simplistic, surface-meaning sense you intend by "knowing the scriptures," the people he was talking to DID know them.

So what did he mean? I would say he meant, "You err, not knowing the real meaning of the scriptures, BECAUSE you know not the power of God."

That is, after all, the kind of thing he often said to those sorts. "You think you're so wise/holy/virtuous, but you don't even know what wisdom/holiness/virtue are. You strain at gnats and swallow camels. You carefully wash the outside of the cup but leave the inside filthy. You are whitewashed tombs."

The same could be said to those who study scripture with untransformed minds, knowing in minute detail the surface (and almost always misleading) meaning, but failing to penetrate to the mysteries hidden inside. In fact, few Christians even understand what the metaphors expressed in quotes above mean.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
In fact, few Christians even understand what the metaphors expressed in quotes above mean.


But these are not really 'christians' except that they are Christ's (the anointed).

The anointed is the Holy One of Israel!

Those who God reveals this things to are babes not wisemen and their name is Israel because God named them, not men.....

Israel means 'who prevails with God.'



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
But these are not really 'christians'


You say they're not Christians because they don't understand. A lot of them would say you're not a Christian because of your unorthodox ideas.

I'd rather avoid the confusion altogether and say that anyone who wants to call himself a Christian is one. Or at least anyone for whom Jesus is their preferred God-form. Given the wide variety of Christian denominations and individual beliefs, trying to determine which of them is or isn't the "true" Christianity is beyond me, particularly since I'm NOT a Christian and so have no dog in that hunt.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join