My Beliefs- GDR

I don't see it as being outside time. Time is how we experience change, and from what I'm read time is one of those things that we use but have virtually no real understanding of. It is still an enigma to us. As I mentioned in the OP I speculate that if we had multiple time dimensions that we could move around infinitely in time in the same way that we can move infinitely around in space. That would allow for an eternal existence.I'm wondering why you would think that the Biblical authors would think of eternal only lasting for any specific period of time. I know we often exaggerate and say that it took an eternity for something to happen but I don't believe that is what the Biblical authors would be thinking. It seems to me that they are pretty clear that God always was and always will be.AbE What do you mean by "deep time"? I've never heard that term before.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

I took the time in two posts to tell you what I think it means and how it was that Jesus fulfilled that. How about you tell me how you understand it.

I think religion does matter. In a sense what you are saying is right if all that matters is what happens to me after I die. The Christian religion informs us that this is a teleological world, which means that what we do isn't all about me but that we are working for a purpose that involves all of creation. It isn't all about "me".Also, I think that behaving decently does have a lot to do with Christ. I agree that if someone truly turns to having a desire to follow Christ when necessarily make them behave more decently that their next door neighbour. I do believe however that if someone becomes a follower of Christ, they will with the help of God's Spirit become a person who behaves more decently than they had before. I have had personal experience of that.Also, Jesus in the Bible calls for us to join together as His followers so that we can serve Him through communities that gather in His name. For example our little church works together with a church in the US to support a home for young women with no other place to go in Kampala Uganda. On our own we wouldn't be able to do that.Occam tells us that we should look to the simplest solution. Firstly we would probably differ on what the simplest solution is and secondly the simplest solution isn't necessary the correct solution anyway.

It seems to me that they are pretty clear that God always was and always will be.[/qs]This is the Oxford definition of eternal:

quote:

---

lasting or existing forever; without end:

---

I used the term always to mean eternal. The Bible uses the term eternal for both God and His Kingdom in the Bible. They are talking about an existence with no beginning and no end. I'm not saying that is proof of what they have written I am only saying that there really isn't any doubt about how it was meant to be understood.

I think you missed my point. As I understood you, you had suggested that if we can be right with God by being a decent person then why bother with religion. What I was trying to point out is that if the only point of organized religion was to get individuals right with God then I agree with your point, however that makes the point of connecting with a religion all about me and my salvation. The point of religion is to bring together into community God minded people in order to serve God by bringing His love to the world in ways that communities can that individuals can’t. I gave you an example of our little church doing that in Uganda.qs=Tangle And I and a few billion Muslims, Buddists, Jews, Hindus, and Pagans don't, so where does that get us?[/q s]
You have responded out of context. I was only talking about the influence of Christ in terms of Christians. I wasn’t implying that others can’t be moral, decent people without accepting Christianity. Obviously different ideologies differ. That doesn’t mean that we allow our differences to make enemies of one another. (Unfortunately as humans we haven’t had much of a history of actually putting that into practice. ) In our church we pray to be forgiven for the wrong thing we’ve done and for the right things we’ve left undone. I think that we are called to more than just being a moral person in our day to day affairs. I think that we are called to make this a better world for all.

Message 26 Message 33I agree that it is only because of God that we can do any good works at all. As a matter of fact, it is my contention that we can only have any idea of the term good works because of God. However it doesn’t take any particular theological belief to perform good works.Yes, I agree that if we truly give our hearts over to Christ that somehow through the Spirit we are made more aware of the right choices that we should make. It is all about changing our hearts to be more loving and more in tune with God’s desire and that we take on board His love for His creation. It is about having a heart that desires what God desires. (Read Psalm 37). If we genuinely do this then yes we have salvation. However, the main point is not that we are made right with God and have salvation but that we are saved in order to become part of God’s Kingdom to be God’s agents of love in the world.In your posts you make personal salvation the central focus of becoming a Christian. That is not the central Gospel message, and like I have said several times it puts the focus on the self instead of where it is supposed to be. The underlying message in that is if you decide that you believe this specific theology you get to live forever. The Gospel message is a Kingdom of God message. It is a message that if you accept this you have the opportunity to become part of the Kingdom established by God through Jesus in order to serve — not to be served. Making personal salvation the main focus of Evangelism is not the message that we read in the Gospels.The Gospels are also very clear that it is having hearts that desire what God wants us to desire, such as love of neighbour, and that we not be self-focused. It isn’t our theological beliefs that make us right with God. Christians aren’t the only ones that have hearts that love selflessly, and as Matthew points out in 7:21 there are many Christians who don’t have hearts that love selflessly.

I have never claimed that and have often stated just the opposite. Yes, I believe that it is only because of God’s love that we can do good works, or even understand the idea that works can be good, but I don’t suggest that only manifests itself in religious people. That’s great. That’s one of the reasons that I have a problem with Faith’s form of Christianity. If it is primarily about me and my salvation then there is the risk that when I do a good work that I may have it in the back of my mind that God owes me one. Our good works shouldn’t be so that what we do is about either getting a reward from God, praise from others or to assuage guilt. It should be because that is where we find our joy, peace and contentment regardless of reward. I can only speak as a Christian but I do contend that Christianity may not be required but it will enhance both of those benefits. Also, truth matters and if Christ was resurrected then what He had to teach us is extremely important. If Jesus was not resurrected then I agree with you completely.

My point would be that you have the cart before the horse. If someone becomes a Christian because it means that they get to live forever, (ie be saved as that's what that means to people), then they are becoming a Christian for selfish reasons. Christianity is about unselfishness.The Christian God that we see incarnate in Jesus is a loving, forgiving and just God, and if that is who we choose to serve then yes, He will be with us in having our hearts softened so that we truly love what He loves, which will show up in how we live our lives. If we simply say the sinner's prayer, get baptised and go to church without opening out heart up to God to change, then nothing has changed no matter how much we believe the Bible. There is the sense that one can just carry on as they were before knowing that they are forgiven so what they do doesn't really matter. That is why, I contend that trying to bring people to Christianity in order to be saved makes being a Christian on that basis a selfish thing and a non-Biblical thing as well.God's spirit speaks to everyone and we choose how it is we respond. Some as Paul writes in Romans 2:

quote:

---

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

---

As Paul writes the requirements are written on the hearts of all and in the end it is their hearts that makes them right with God. Your idea is a Pharisaical view that requires having the right theology in order to do the right thing. Frankly, what your view does is to turn faith into a work.

Good post and in a lot of ways I don't disagree. By cherry picking a verse I can even find scriptural support for that. This is from Matthew 9:

quote:

---

Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

---

That is repeated again in Mark 2 and in Luke 5, so we can be confident that they have accurately reported what Jesus actually said. However there are verses in Paul's epistles that have a different take on it.First off as a point on interest it is a repudiation of the Jewish sacrificial laws and by extension a repudiation of the idea that we can but our way into His good books by sacrificial giving whether it by by money, goods or time, or more specific to that particular audience the keeping of the laws.Jesus is saying is that He wants merciful hearts and that it is those that don't have merciful hearts that He is calling to repentance.However, I'd suggest that if someone is hedging their bets because God just might exist and go to the food bank once a week and don't run around on their spouse, then I don't think that would constitute having a merciful heart.At any rate I won't look down on people that don't wear glasses if they won't look down on me.

....and your mind isn't made up. - interesting in that I quoted scripture and then you say that isn't what scripture says.

I thought of something I would add to that. Just because the Reformers, many of who had just got their hands on the Bible for the first time after centuries of having it denied to them came up with their theology. Why are we to assume that they got it exactly right anyway?Today Christian scholars and theologians have access to far more material, (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls etc) than ever before. With the additional data they are able to translate the Bible more accurately, but even more important they have a better understanding of the culture in which Jesus taught than ever before.It seems to me that maybe instead of dismissing current scholarship out of hand because it doesn't fit with our pre-determined beliefs is a big mistake. After all, it is truth that we are supposed to be seeking and we should be open to the idea that maybe there is a better understanding to be had.Edited by GDR, : Typos made in haste

In spit of the fact that I am now of an age that I'm sitting here with reading glasses, I did pick up on what you were saying.

I think the wisdom was always there, it is just that we have acquired more of it. I think that we have a lot of acquiring left to go.

You are probably right but I do know that I have refined what it is I believe over the years.I have one question. How is it that you or anybody decided that the Bible should be read as the inerrant Word of God.If the Bible in its entirety is inerrant then that has to be the starting point for what we believe about the nature of God and how that should impact our lives.However, we are Christians. It seems to me that as Christians our starting point should be the Christ. I understand that the only real reference we have for learning about Jesus is in the Bible. However the Bible is not one book but a collection of books. As Christians what reason is there to give for example the author of Deuteronomy the same credibility as the book of John.The basis of Christianity is that God confirmed to mankind by the resurrection of Jesus that we can trust what it was that Jesus had to tell us. He didn't do that for any other prophet or Biblical author. John says this at the end of his Gospel.

quote:

---

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

---

Here we have a man, (although it could be someone else writing from what John had to say), who had intimate contact with Jesus who embodied the Word of God. As I say, what is it that makes you believe that the words of the author of the book of Deuteronomy should carry the same weight as the words of John.It is my contention that we should start with Jesus and understand the rest of the Bible in that light. So, I would be very curious to know on what basis, other than that others have believed it in the past, do you believe that we should understand the Bible as being inerrant. What is the reason that you came to that conclusion?

Yes, I agree that I find it too incredulous to believe that this world where we experience life with intelligence and morality that we should have evolved from a non-intelligent first cause. Yes, I agree that I find it too incredulous to believe that a living cell could have evolved from a chance combination of mindless particles without an intelligent first cause.That part of my belief is an argument from incredulity.Atheists keep bringing up Occam’s Razor with the claim that the simplest answer is going to be the right one and that adding a god(s) to the equation violates that principle. In other words the idea of a god(s) is too incredulous to be believed.That is an argument from incredulity.That is not a tu quoque fallacy and if you think it is I’d be interested in knowing why you think it is. Yes the Gospels are the claim. It is the same as any other historical document. For instance we can read Josephus and know that he had a particular take on things, and come to a conclusion about what we believe about what he wrote. All historical documents are evidence of some aspect of human history, but none of it is objective in the scientific sense. Well that’s certainly one kind of evidence and from a scientific point of view you are correct. It is the type of evidence on which you can come to an objective conclusion. There is the kind of evidence however, such as emotional evidence, or as I just pointed out, historical documents that will only allow us subjective conclusions. I agree that my beliefs are unfalsifiable but I don’t see that my beliefs are any more dogmatic than yours. Yes, I have strongly held beliefs but I also acknowledge that I may be wrong.