Am so naughty!!

[aspen]

One example is below the question you asked for an example. Their are a couple other quotes from you in my last post.

[font="'Book Antiqua"]I am assuming that you are referring to the point I made about the book of Job? I am not sure what the problem is? Contrary to what you are claiming - that I am denying the sovereignty of God - I am clearly not doing so. In fact, I clearly stated that the story of Job is about God's sovereignty exclusively. It is not about God's character or ethics. If it was, we would be called to serve an unethical god. It is not ethical to allow terrible this to happen to a pet, let alone to a human creation.
[/font]
Are you saying you don't believe the OT? Looks like you claim to have a better understanding of Gods character than Moses. So tell me just how much of the OT should we disregard as fictitious? Heres your words.

[font="'Book Antiqua"]How so? Did Moses provide a commentary on the Pentateuch? Actually, writing was not invented when Moses was alive - the OT was written down in 500 BC during the Babylonian captivity. I do not claim any special or secret understanding of the Bible - on the contrary, I share much of my understanding from the Church Fathers and contemporary authors, like CS Lewis. [/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]
[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]Since I have been down this path countless times:[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]
[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]1. People claiming that I do not believe the OT - which requires them to deny statements I have made about the OT like "every word in the OT is supposed to be there."[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]2. I must be claiming to have a better understanding of Moses or Jesus or Paul or God the Father.[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]3. If one part of the OT is false in suggests that the whole OT is false or at least unreliable.[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]
[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]I have a few questions for you[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]
[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]1. Since when does every word of a document have to have a clearly concrete interpretation in order to be considered valid?[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]2. Since when is interpreting the Bible through the lenses of love and the correct character of God equated with claiming to have a better understanding than Moses and God?[/font]
[font="'Book Antiqua"]3. Why can't truth be communicated in stories rather than factual events?[/font]

I think I understand your position now. The bible is in error so you pick and choose verses then apply your own reasoning.

[font="'Book Antiqua"]This is how it always ends, right? Any interpretation that deviates from what the conservative, concrete guy believes is rejected as he dusts off his feet at the door.[/font]

I think you need to spend some time reflecting on whether you are born of God or not. Its clear you have issues with the God that reveled Himself to Abraham and Moses or the Bible.

[font="'Book Antiqua"]As the dust is being knock off the feet - the parting words "if you do not share my understanding of the Bible, you are probably not a Christian because the Bible is clear and you are clearly rejecting it."[/font]


So was Jesus teaching fairy tails when He quoted from the books of Moses as well?


[font="'Book Antiqua"]As GK Chesterton once said - of course Christianity is another fairytale, it just happens to be the only one that is true.[/font]

I don't remember reading about him confessing the Torah was fictional or a misrepresentation of the Fathers character. In the end I think you will find your the one mistaken. Many of your statements could even be considered blasphemous by many Christians.

[font="'Book Antiqua"]I do not remember mentioning the Torah. I have no problem with making mistakes - what if I am wrong? I will not be surprised. But who cares? I always lean on the side of God's mercy and love. Doctrine doesn't save - Christ's justification and sanctification save. I guess Christians who mix up the Bible with God could rightly believe I am blasphemous - I do not make that mistake.[/font]

Why do you even bother to call yourself a christian? Why identify yourself with something you so venomly disagree with?

[font="'Book Antiqua"]I am a follower of Christ.[/font]

 

[Duckybill]

Why do you even bother to call yourself a christian? Why identify yourself with something you so venomly disagree with?

A lot of folks believe you can be a Christian even to the point of hating God's Word, the Bible. I have clearly seen such display. They try to mold God into their own images. I guess it makes them feel good about themselves.

 

[aspen]

If your god isn't the God of the Bible then who is he? The God of the Bible is ALWAYS right in what He does, including drowning everyone on Earth but 8. Who is your god? Do you know?

Personal Creed

1. I believe in the Trinity, the infallibility of the written and oral word, the incarnation of Christ, and the justification and sanctification of the soul.

2.I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

3.I have a personal, participatory, justified and sanctifying relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ.

4.I am called to carry out God’s will by loving God, loving myself (recognizing God’s love for me and knowing who I am), and loving my neighbor through service.

5.I believe we are called to root out personal sin by working with Jesus in the sanctification process, which teaches our heart to love and results in perfection after death and resurrection.

6.My primary concern is to store up my treasure in Heaven by promoting a saving relationship in Christ, through the process of creating and participating in deep, loving relationships with my neighbors.

7.The ability to recognize the tragedy of personal sin in my neighbor serves a twofold purpose: to act as a mirror for my own sin, thereby aiding in my personal sanctification; to teach me perspective taking skills, empathy, radical love, acceptance of my neighbor, and the highest form of love; forgiveness.

8.I believe the existence of pain in the world is to teach us to trust, love and forgive through the pain; gain perspective on Christ’s sacrifice and God’s pain, loss and triumph; reveal Christ’s love for His children through service.

9.I believe the main subject in the OT is the omnipotence of God and the full array of human response to this truth. The main point of the NT is God’s response to His own omnipotence, which is love and forgiveness embodied in the man-God Jesus Christ, our ultimate example and only salvation.

10. All truth is God’s truth; therefore all religions, academia, and laws contain varying degrees of truth and are profitable for the development of our mind and relationships with others.

Peace

 

[Duckybill]

I am a follower of Christ.

Are you sure? Jesus believed in the Genesis Flood.

Luke 17:26-27 (NKJV)
[sup]26 [/sup]And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: [sup]27 [/sup]They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

 

[aspen]

Are you sure? Jesus believed in the Genesis Flood.

Luke 17:26-27 (NKJV)
[sup]26 [/sup]And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: [sup]27 [/sup]They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Does it frighten you that I can still be a Christian and not believe in a literal account of the Flood story? For the record, I really have no idea if the Flood story is a real event - it is not required for salvation. Also,are you sure Jesus believed the flood actually happened? Or was He simply using the story to make a point?

I don't see much that can be gained from this conversation. In my opinion aspen is simply being blasphemous in more than one instance.

I hold a higher standard for God than the writers of the OT and that makes me blasphemous? I recommend that you adopt a higher view of Him, as well. I am not sure He enjoys being misrepresented as unethical by His creation.

 

[jacobtaylor]

One example is below the question you asked for an example. Their are a couple other quotes from you in my last post.

I am assuming that you are referring to the point I made about the book of Job? I am not sure what the problem is? Contrary to what you are claiming - that I am denying the sovereignty of God - I am clearly not doing so. In fact, I clearly stated that the story of Job is about God's sovereignty exclusively. It is not about God's character or ethics. If it was, we would be called to serve an unethical god. It is not ethical to allow terrible this to happen to a pet, let alone to a human creation.

Are you saying you don't believe the OT? Looks like you claim to have a better understanding of Gods character than Moses. So tell me just how much of the OT should we disregard as fictitious? Heres your words.

How so? Did Moses provide a commentary on the Pentateuch? Actually, writing was not invented when Moses was alive - the OT was written down in 500 BC during the Babylonian captivity. I do not claim any special or secret understanding of the Bible - on the contrary, I share much of my understanding from the Church Fathers and contemporary authors, like CS Lewis.


Since I have been down this path countless times:


1. People claiming that I do not believe the OT - which requires them to deny statements I have made about the OT like "every word in the OT is supposed to be there."
2. I must be claiming to have a better understanding of Moses or Jesus or Paul or God the Father.
3. If one part of the OT is false in suggests that the whole OT is false or at least unreliable.


I have a few questions for you


1. Since when does every word of a document have to have a clearly concrete interpretation in order to be considered valid?
2. Since when is interpreting the Bible through the lenses of love and the correct character of God equated with claiming to have a better understanding than Moses and God?
3. Why can't truth be communicated in stories rather than factual events?

I think I understand your position now. The bible is in error so you pick and choose verses then apply your own reasoning.

This is how it always ends, right? Any interpretation that deviates from what the conservative, concrete guy believes is rejected as he dusts off his feet at the door.

I think you need to spend some time reflecting on whether you are born of God or not. Its clear you have issues with the God that reveled Himself to Abraham and Moses or the Bible.

As the dust is being knock off the feet - the parting words "if you do not share my understanding of the Bible, you are probably not a Christian because the Bible is clear and you are clearly rejecting it."


So was Jesus teaching fairy tails when He quoted from the books of Moses as well?


As GK Chesterton once said - of course Christianity is another fairytale, it just happens to be the only one that is true.

I don't remember reading about him confessing the Torah was fictional or a misrepresentation of the Fathers character. In the end I think you will find your the one mistaken. Many of your statements could even be considered blasphemous by many Christians.

I do not remember mentioning the Torah. I have no problem with making mistakes - what if I am wrong? I will not be surprised. But who cares? I always lean on the side of God's mercy and love. Doctrine doesn't save - Christ's justification and sanctification save. I guess Christians who mix up the Bible with God could rightly believe I am blasphemous - I do not make that mistake.

Why do you even bother to call yourself a christian? Why identify yourself with something you so venomly disagree with?

I am a follower of Christ.

Thats quite a trick you can two step with the best. You make statements then deny you made those same statements. Which am I to believe is you. You can't serve two masters. Nether does fresh and salt water flow from the same spring.
Funny still is your admiration for GK Chesterton along side your disrespect to the writers of the bible. Truly a man for all occasions.

 

[aspen]

Thats quite a trick you can two step with the best. You make statements then deny you made those same statements. Which am I to believe is you. You can't serve two masters. Nether does fresh and salt water flow from the same spring.
Funny still is your admiration for GK Chesterton along side your disrespect to the writers of the bible. Truly a man for all occasions.

If you were more interested in understanding me than accusing me of heresy' you might do a better job of interpreting what I am writing. The writers of the Bible were inspired, but they were also products of their time period.

How am I tricking you? What statements have I denied making?

 

[jacobtaylor]

I hold a higher standard for God than the writers of the OT and that makes me blasphemous? I recommend that you adopt a higher view of Him, as well. I am not sure He enjoys being misrepresented as unethical by His creation.

Does your church or religious preference hold this view about the OT or is this your own? Maybe theirs some antisemitism involved as well. You surly think yourself better than the OT writers.

I hold a higher standard for God than the writers of the OT

I hope you don't own land in Guyana.

 

[Duckybill]

Does it frighten you that I can still be a Christian and not believe in a literal account of the Flood story?

Why would that frighten anyone?

For the record, I really have no idea if the Flood story is a real event - it is not required for salvation. Also,are you sure Jesus believed the flood actually happened? Or was He simply using the story to make a point?

It's a matter of believing Jesus perfectly clear statement. And it is confirmation of the Genesis account. Yes, Christians believe it to be a literal account. It is a warning that MANY religious folks choose to ignore.

2 Peter 2:5-6 (NKJV)
[sup]5 [/sup]and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; [sup]6 [/sup]and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, MAKING THEM AN EXAMPLE to those who afterward would live ungodly;

I hold a higher standard for God than the writers of the OT and that makes me blasphemous? I recommend that you adopt a higher view of Him, as well. I am not sure He enjoys being misrepresented as unethical by His creation.

The NT is based upon the OT. You have real problems with the God of the Bible.

Hebrews 10:31 (NKJV)
[sup]31 [/sup]It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[jacobtaylor]

If you were more interested in understanding me than accusing me of heresy' you might do a better job of interpreting what I am writing. The writers of the Bible were inspired, but they were also products of their time period.

How am I tricking you? What statements have I denied making?

Its real simple if you don't accept the OT writers how can you accept the NT. Disrespect for the word and writers of the bible is simple disrespect for Gods choice. I would rather use the word blasphemy rather than heresy. Heresy is speaking against a sect, blasphemy is in opposition to the HS or God.
I'm done speaking about it, I've read topics you've been involved in, there is no end. So I'll just end it for the two of us. I'll bet you believe the bible contradicts its self as well, and thanks for the introduction, I'll keep it in mind when reading your post.

 

[aspen]

Why would that frighten anyone?

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me; any viewpoint that deviates from the most conservative / fundamental view point is seen as a threat. Either the people holding the viewpoint is forced to give it up or he is thrown out himself.

It's a matter of believing Jesus perfectly clear statement. And it is confirmation of the Genesis account. Yes, Christians believe it to be a literal account. It is a warning that MANY religious folks choose to ignore.

Really? So Jesus couldn't have been telling a story from antiquity to make a moral point? Yeah - Jesus never told morality tales.....

2 Peter 2:5-6 (NKJV)
[sup]5 [/sup]and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; [sup]6 [/sup]and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, MAKING THEM AN EXAMPLE to those who afterward would live ungodly;

Yep - according to the flood account that is true. It is also true that the little piggy went wee, wee, wee all the way home, according to another story I have heard.

The NT is based upon the OT. You have real problems with the God of the Bible.


I have real problems with how fundamentalists portray the God of the Bible.

Hebrews 10:31 (NKJV)
[sup]31 [/sup]It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Fear, meaning 'awe' or 'wonder' for Christians and terror for the unredeemed (good thing God created Hell for the unredeemed to seek refuge)

 

[Duckybill]

Your problem is the God of the Bible Aspen. And that's BAD.

 

[aspen]

Your problem is the God of the Bible Aspen. And that's BAD.

I think you need to go read my personal creed that I posted above. My beliefs are orthodox. Are you claiming that I must believe in a literal Flood account to be saved?

 

[Duckybill]

I think you need to go read my personal creed that I posted above. My beliefs are orthodox. Are you claiming that I must believe in a literal Flood account to be saved?

If you don't believe in the literal Genesis Flood you are calling Jesus a liar.

 

[aspen]

If you don't believe in the literal Genesis Flood you are calling Jesus a liar.

And thankfully, you are not the person who makes that decision in my life.

Although, I will caution you - adding extra requirements to salvation is warned against. His yoke is easy and His burden is lite.

 

[Duckybill]

And thankfully, you are not the person who makes that decision in my life.

Although, I will caution you - adding extra requirements to salvation is warned against. His yoke is easy and His burden is lite.

Stark naked unbelief Aspen. Do you believe anything in the Bible?

2 Peter 2:5 (NKJV)
[sup]5 [/sup]and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

And thankfully, you are not the person who makes that decision in my life.

Although, I will caution you - adding extra requirements to salvation is warned against. His yoke is easy and His burden is lite.

Mt 7 Narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it. How many were saved from the Flood?

 

[aspen]

Stark naked unbelief Aspen. Do you believe anything in the Bible?

2 Peter 2:5 (NKJV)
[sup]5 [/sup]and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;






Mt 7 Narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it. How many were saved from the Flood?

Your problem is that you do not value stories that are not literally true. I do. The Flood story is important, whether it literally happened or not..

I believe everything in the Bible is there for a reason and is important.

You seem upset by my opinion, why?

 

[Duckybill]

Your problem is that you do not value stories that are not literally true. I do. The Flood story is important, whether it literally happened or not..

It did happen. Moses, Jesus, Peter ... What more proof could you want?

I believe everything in the Bible is there for a reason and is important.

But that doesn't mean you believe it.

You seem upset by my opinion, why?

I'm not. But it seems odd that many religious folks take salvation literally but not much else in the Bible. That won't work.

 

[aspen]

It did happen. Moses, Jesus, Peter ... What more proof could you want?

Some proof would be nice. None of the three people you mention verified if it actually happen or not. They simply made reference to the story.

But that doesn't mean you believe it.

I believe we are supposed to learn from it - it is valuable. I think sitting around wondering if it actually happened or not and place value on it depending on how sure you are it did happen (sort of like the Jesus Seminar folks) is not only a waste of time, it misses the point.

I'm not. But it seems odd that many religious folks take salvation literally but not much else in the Bible. That won't work.

I take quite a few things literally, but my salvation doesn't hinge on my faith in the Bible. I am not going to be surprised if there are not more than a few Calvinists that will want to argue doctrine with Jesus.

 

[Duckybill]

Some proof would be nice. None of the three people you mention verified if it actually happen or not. They simply made reference to the story.

They all "verified" the Genesis Flood. You just don't believe it. The Bible calls it an "evil heart of unbelief".

Hebrews 3:12 (NKJV)
[sup]12 [/sup]Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

I believe we are supposed to learn from it - it is valuable. I think sitting around wondering if it actually happened or not and place value on it depending on how sure you are it did happen (sort of like the Jesus Seminar folks) is not only a waste of time, it misses the point.

Then it is a waste of time for you. But we who believe it know that similar future events are about to happen.

I take quite a few things literally, but my salvation doesn't hinge on my faith in the Bible. I am not going to be surprised if there are not more than a few Calvinists that will want to argue doctrine with Jesus.

If you don't believe the Bible you don't have salvation. You have been deceived. Satan has stolen God's Word from your heart. But I'm sure you don't believe that either because it's Bible.