Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

Perhaps you are right about the unity problem. I wish you and your community the best, really hope it's what you say it is. I'd like to be part of a solid Christian community myself, probably a smaller one. I do wonder why Rose Creek doesn't present itself as Christian on its first page, but only as an "intentional community" which could be anything, and talks about childbirth as if that were its greatest concern, and various artistic endeavors. What do I expect? I guess more direct display of Jesus Christ.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-14-2005 02:19 PM

Hello Faith,
Your objection is not valid. I have not told you one single time that your position is not your position. I have told your position is wrong. To that end I have given you evidence in the form of unanswerable questions that show your position is untennable.You are not facing up to the question.Let us try this one simple question at a time.Does god know all there is to know?Can god do anything he wants to do?Does god understand the ramifications of what he does?If the answer to these questions are yes, then this proves that god created us to be the way we are. He created us to fail him. He created Adam and Eve to eat that apple. He knew they would.It is like setting up an infant to fail then severely punishing him for failing. No,..., Wait,..., it's not "like", it IS setting up an infant to fail.(bkelly edited to remove offensive statement)This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-15-2005 06:49 PMThis message has been edited by bkelly, 12-15-2005 06:52 PM

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

wow. somehow i don't think that's on topic.

Hello truthlover, I do not see scientists as prophets at all. Scientists discover information about how things work and more important, why they work that way. (Lets consider photons, electrons, gamma rays and the like things for the moment) They make predictions about how physical entities will react under certain circumstances. They make no statement or preidictions at to any spiritual concepts. At least not when speaking or writing as a scientists, and not that I know of regarding reputable scientist.I am a bit surprised that no one else has commented on this. Maybe no one is reading this thread.

Hello again, We may not be agreeing on this. In order to show something is false, I sometimes begin with the assumption that it is true. From these asumptions we make logical defendable conclusions. If at the end we find an inescapable conflict, we have proved that the assumption is false. This is a well know method of making logical deductions.The assumption was that god is perfect. The evidence is that we cannot live up to the bible. Both we and the bible are his creation. Either he wanted us to fail, or his creations were imperfect. Either way, god is far from perfect.BTW, this also goes on the "assumption" that god exists, a working position and not necessarily a fact.If I have misinterpreted your position, I do apologize.

Hello brennakimi,RE: wow. somehow i don't think that's on topic.Yes, It is getting a bit thin there. But Faith is supporting her position on christianity with false statements. I have asked her these questions before and she cannot answer and continues makeing the same claims. As I read posts about Faith, I am far from the only one.Christianity is broke in part because the bible is broke. I hold that literal interpertation of the bible has cause more pain and grief in this world than any other single cause. (and maybe most put together)

yes, perhaps. but the questions you were asking would not assist in this.it's very complicated. you have to move in the direction of added understanding very carefully and you can't burst in on people like that. they kind of have to discover stuff like this themselves. wait for her to come asking. it's how i tell people of my faith and it's how you have to tell people how to leave theirs.

there was a rather interesting interview on npr today, with the head of chapel hill's religious studies department. he was talking about edits to the nt, and different christian traditions.the interviewer asked him about his faith towards the end. he mentioned that he was agnostic. he essentially went from fundamentalist to agnostic because he studied the bible and its history.i've heard this story countless times. clearly, the bible is the best weapon satan has.

---

אָרַח

It certainly is one of the biggest barriers between the individual and GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I heard that program (part of the fresh air series). It was quite interesting.I already expected that there would be copying problems. However, they are considerably more extensive than I had expected. Apparently the story of the woman adulterer was probably inserted in the 12th century, and the text on which the trinity theology is based may also be an insert. Or maybe literalism is the weapon for satan. That scripture has changed should not be a big problem for people who recognize that scripture is the work of men, perhaps highly inspired men. But it does undermine the assumptions of the literalist.

Your personal attack does not deserve an answer. And off topic too I believe. But if you can show its relevance and rewrite it with ordinary politeness you might get a response. That means you are to assume that I am honest in what I say whether you like my answser or not. That is mere civility.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-15-2005 10:47 AM

Way off-topic. I haven't read the whole thread. So don't take this as a statement you originated the off-topic discussion.

That's probably not the best way to deal with the tactic of misrepresentation. Although saying someone's statement is not honest is certainly not an attack on the person but clearly on the content of their post and message, it's usually simply better to say that they have misrepresented what you've said and then back that up with a demand that they point out where you made such a statement.

---

I actually got the idea of scientists as prophets from this board, so it's possible others understood what I meant, though it's okay that you didn't.I simply meant that scientists are the people that have the public's ear and trust. It's not a 100% trust, but prophets rarely had that, either. However, for the most part, if Time Magazine said that "scientists say" that cotton causes cancer, the sale of cotton clothing will plummet, and there will be a highly profitable synthetic "cotton ball" on the marke the next day. Well, in the sense you mean it, this is true. But science has most certainly influenced the spiritual beliefs of the western world.

quote:

---

I do not see scientists as prophets at all. Scientists discover information about how things work and more important, why they work that way. (Lets consider photons, electrons, gamma rays and the like things for the moment) They make predictions about how physical entities will react under certain circumstances. They make no statement or preidictions at to any spiritual concepts. At least not when speaking or writing as a scientists, and not that I know of regarding reputable scientist.

---

Strictly speaking a prophet is a spokesman or speaker. Aaron was a prophet for Moses (Exodus 7:1). In the story you will notice that Aaron spoke for Moses, he didn't predict. The prophets in the OT spoke for God. They supposedly said what God told them to say.IMO, what truthlover is saying (he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that scientists have become the speakers for our age. People listen to them because they can produce what they say they can produce. Christianity on the other hand does not seem to produce what it says it can produce. So people are no longer listening to them. It is not that scientists impart any spiritual concepts.Make sense?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton