My Beliefs- GDR

That's not correct. He was addressing a large crowd. Here is how Matthew 5 starts.

quote:

---

1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them, saying:

---

It is pretty clear from this that he was addressing the corwds and not just the disciples that came to him. However, just to confirm that here is how Matthew 7 ends after Jesus finishes the sermon.

quote:

---

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

---

I've certainly known a lot of non-Christians who follow His command to love a lot more closely than many Christians I've known including myself. For that matter you might want to review the posts of some Christians on this forum that are anything but loving.

If you just label people as liberals then they are to be discounted. Interestingly enough there is a good chunk of Christendom that thinks I'm a conservative. I don't hold nasty opinions about fundamentalists, I just think they are mistaken. The only time I have a problem is when they misuse the Bible to justify bigotry or violence but I have a problem with anyone who holds those views. I don't disagree with that but I contend that you have understood it to mean something that Jesus never intended. You are very quick to ignore Paul's admonition that we aren't to judge others. Who are you to judge whether someone is self-righteous or not. Your point was that only adherents of your particular view of Christianity can obey His commands "rightly". I pointed out that many non-Christians follow His commandment to love better than many Christians, and then you say well of course some do. You seem to want it both ways.Look at what Jesus says in 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."

---

As Paul says 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.

---

However I imagine that these verses should be ignored because they are verses that liberals just love, along with the Sermon on the Mount and pretty much the whole NT. I have no idea what you mean by judging by the surface. The real essence of the Christian faith is God's call, through the incarnate Son that we are to love our neighbour as we do ourselves, and that is the actually the mild version. We are really called to emulate Jesus and put our neighbours ahead of ourselves. It's all in the Bible which is you claim is the inerrant word of God, except that only seems to hold for you when it agrees with what you have already decided is the truth.

I was thinking later about this statement of yours which left me somewhat astonished. Maybe Christians such as myself love the "Sermon on the Mount" as it is by far the most comprehensive communication that we have from Jesus. Jesus is the incarnate Word of God and here is that Word laid out for us.I am not ignoring the rest of the testimony of the Bible. I am simply saying that IMHO your view of what God has to tell us through the scriptures is some considerable distance from the views that you hold..The Word of God expressed by Jesus is a God who loves and cares for all life, a God who is merciful, a God who is forgiving, a God who is perfectly just and yet a God who gives us free will. This is the God who we are supposed to image to the world.You choose to dismiss the Sermon on the Mount as something that "liberals" love but you are quite prepared to believe that God would command that His followers commit acts of genocide and orders them to communally stone to death people for minor offences. IMHO, that strikes me as a very perverted view of the Christian faith.The faith is called Christianity because it is supposed to be Christ centred. Christ illuminated the truth that is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures while at the same time illuminating where the ancients got it all wrong.

Well you have just responded to one statement.Of course He is more than an illuminator of of truth and error but He is at least that and you discount that by insisting that the OT is inerrant. Yes He is Lord and yes He is saviour so then why do you reject what He is saying?If your brand of Christianity believes that God is capable of genocide and communal stoning then your faith is not Christ centred. Jesus is God's Word incarnate. You acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and Saviour but if you reject what He says and understand God to be capable of commanding genocide and public stoning then you aren't a Christ follower. It would be the equivalent of acknowledging that Obama is President but rejecting his policies.Acknowledging Obama as president does not make you an Obama follower. Acknowledging Christ as Lord and Saviour does not make you a Christ follower.

So your evidence is a fictional story written in the 20th century. What’s your point? Well Paul did pre-date television by a few years but aside from that when you read his letters it is obvious that he isn’t ambitious. If he had been ambitious he would stayed as he was. Firstly, the Romans were really good at killing people. Secondly Jesus had been brutally beaten and yet 3 days later He is completely rejuvenated. The claim ever was that Jesus had come back in the way that Lazarus did. Jesus came back with a different kind of physicality. In a sense there are two facets to Christianity. There is the moral side, but there is also the understanding of how God has reached out to us in the past, in the present and what His ultimate plan is for creation. Yes, you don’t have to be a Christian to be moral, and I have agreed before that many non-Christians are more loving, peaceful, forgiving etc than are many Christians.However, the Biblical message is that if someone really does accept Christ as Lord that they become a more moral person than they had been previously. It is faith, but I do believe that God does touch our hearts, minds and imaginations with His Spirit and when we give our lives over to that our conscience is somehow made more aware of our failings and is with us in having a will to overcome those failings. If you want to compare belief in the tooth fairy to Christianity feel free. If there is anybody else reading this thread they can decide for themselves as to which is a more subjectively believable.

Then if it is just for God then as we are His image bearers then it must be just for us. Why then aren’t we carpet bombing Islamic countries? Why aren’t we taking prostitutes out and stoning them to death? This is what your god would have us do.You are right; I’m opposed to the death penalty. Ultimately I trust God’s perfect judgement over our imperfect judgement. I also have another reason for opposing the death penalty. Jesus made it clear that what He wants from all of us is that we have compassionate hearts. Somebody has to carry out the execution on our behalf. That does nothing but harden that individual’s heart, and for that matter it hardens the hearts of the society in general as we all become participants in the execution.If we believe in a loving god who wants us to be loving people then how can we believe that loving god that would want to harden the hearts of the people that he loves by involving them in such atrocities? It absolutely boggles my mind that you can hold those two concepts of God together in your mind.It seems that you are prepared to worship a god regardless of how abhorrent his characteristics. Of course that is what the pagans did because that is where the power is, and that was the OT view of God. Thankfully we have Jesus to correct that distorted image of God. Hmmm. Spending eternity with a god who wants me involved in genocide and public stoning doesn't seem like such a great option. I think I'll take my chances.

So rather than Paul’s own account as well as Luke’s you choose to propose 20th century fiction. Of course we both give our opinions. Mine is based on the only accounts we have. I don’t claim that it is conclusive. They were the experts and they declared Him dead. So now you have a badly beaten man, erroneously declared dead, moving a heavy stone away from the tomb that was being guarded by Roman soldiers. Maybe you do believe in the tooth fairy after all. If you are an eye-witness of Jesus being alive after being dead, and appearing in a room that had been locked you might think that this is more than a scam. The whole account is written in a way that says — I know this sounds strange but this is what happened. The Christian message is essentially that what God did for Jesus 2000 years ago He will do for all creation at the end of time. In that sense Jesus is the prototype for what is to come when all things are renewed.By the way, I have no expectation of changing your mind as I am just trying to lay out my own beliefs as they had been taking another thread off track. Frankly I appreciate your posts because they make me think through just what it is I believe which is always a good thing. Anyway, this is just my way of saying thanks.

Of course we’re not equal to God but we are called to reflect His image into the world. None of us come even come close to doing it perfectly except of course for Jesus. Yes we are flawed beings but we God has high hopes for us. It isn’t a lie at all. I know that you certainly don’t think we should and I don’t know any fundamentalist that does. The reason for that is that even though you say you believe that the Bible is inerrant and is the literal Word of God you don’t actually believe it. If you actually believed what you say you believe then you would have to condone genocide and public stoning in the right circumstances, and frankly the world situation now isn’t very much different than when God supposedly commanded the ancient Jews to do just that. It may satisfy the need for revenge but it also makes the statement that God can’t deliver an ultimate just solution. Society can be protected by keeping offenders in custody. As far as the victims are concerned you might want to remember that we are called to pray to be forgiven as we gorgive, which is not to say that it isn’t often incredibly difficult. Here is a story of a man who was a close friend of my brother. Dale LangYou quote Genesis:This is exactly it. Who or what do you follow? Do you follow an inerrant Bible or an inerrant Jesus? Jesus tells us that we are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek etc. Is it going to be Biblianity or Christianity. Do you ever read what war does to our young people? Being involved in killing even in a just cause does tremendous damage to those involved. State execution is an unnecessary killing done to satisfy the need for vengeance when there is no belief in an ultimate justice. I would agree if I had done that. I was referring to the atrocities of genocide and public stoning in the OT. Sure murder is more abhorrent than the death penalty, but you don’t resolve a greater evil with a lesser evil. If you worship a god of perfect justice then why don’t you trust him to deliver perfect justice? I have not suggested letting murderers go free. It’s in the Bible. You do like labelling people as liberals and liars. Is it a lie to explain to you what I believe? I don’t think that you’re lying; I just think that you are badly mistaken. I realize that God does not want us involved in genocide because of Jesus. If I only had the OT to go on and I believed it to be inerrant I would have a different view of God.

You do like throwing that term lying around. Last time you accused me of lying about something else, and when I point out that you’re wrong, you just move the goal posts. Name calling doesn’t really enhance your argument, or for that matter your witness of the Christian faith.In terms of how people have understood the Bible you might consider this. You have no doubt heard numerous sermons on the Prodigal Son. If you had never heard the parable before you would probably think the sermon was about something that really happened. The point is that the parable is true in the message conveyed even though the story isn’t historical. The truth is to be found in the Bible without it all having to be literally true.As John tells us, the Word of God which has existed from the beginning was fully incarnate in Jesus, and as Christians it is with Jesus that we should begin instead of deciding that the entire Bible is equal or more accurate than what we see in His life and words.

I agree that to understand the whole NT that the historian’s POV is essential. My favourite Christian author, N T Wright is also a first century historian. I also agree that with items like the Dead Sea Scrolls our knowledge of the original language has also increased so our translations are more accurate and as Jesus was a Jew talking to Jews most of the time it is essential to have an understanding of the culture.Kazantzakis’s was intended as fiction whereas Paul’s writing wasn’t. It is a case of believing it, believing that he believed but was wrong or that he was lying. If you start with the premise that the resurrection is impossible then of course any explanation is better than what we see in the Gospels. If however you start from a theistic position then the resurrection, IMHO, is the most reasonable scenario. Here is a good book debating that very issue. Borg & Wright .....and you were probably right — but maybe not.

Frankly being told I’m a liar is more than just a little insulting. If you don’t mean it then don’t say it would be my suggestion. I wasn’t suggesting that you don’t understand what a parable is. My point is that I have not only heard sermons but have read whole books on the "Prodigal Son", where it is never mentioned that The Prodigal Son is a parable. It is simply assumed that is the case and everyone is fully aware of it. However, because of what there is that can be learned from the parable it is talked about as if it had really happened.All I’m saying is that when we read what people had to say 2000 years ago and they refer to stories from their scriptures it does not necessarily mean that they believed that the story they are quoting from was an actual historical event. First off I have shelves of books from a wide variety of Christian writers that I have read. I have delved into this pretty deeply without actually going to a seminary.I am fully aware that fundamentalists don’t support either genocide or public stoning. However, the OT does have God commanding both. If you are going to see the Bible as inerrant then you need a rationale why God called for it then, but doesn’t now. In many parts of the world the situation isn’t really any different now than it was then. There are Christian parts of the world that are very much under attack. I am not calling you a liar. I am simply saying that your understanding of scripture isn’t consistent. Suggesting that you are wrong is not calling you a liar. You are merely expressing your beliefs as am I. Again, I did not come to my conclusions on my own, and I have formed my conclusions by reading writers with a wide variety of views including the views that you hold. I remember having a discussion with you about C S Lewis where you had been a fan until I showed you some quotes of his which you immediately dismissed as they didn’t agree with your views. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have the impression that the only exegetes that you read are the ones that hold your views.

You aren't getting my point. Just because somebody refers back to the ancient scriptures to make a point does not mean they believe they literally happened. What you're saying essentially is that what I applied to Israel pre-Jesus is not the same as what applies now. The trouble is then that the pre-Jesus god is very different than the God we see incarnate in Jesus.I agree that in a sense the OT laws were a foreshadowing of what it was that God wanted. For example this is from Leviticus.

quote:

---

'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD.

---

Jesus essentially that was correct but they had it wrong. He says it isn't just your fellow Jew that is your neighbour. He then asked the question who is your neighbour and then answered it by telling the story of the good Samaritan.Jesus never confirmed the laws of genocide or public stoning.The problem as I see it is that if your understand the Bible the way you do then it is done at the expense of Christ's message. You also said:How do we know that was only for those particular incidents?You apparently believe that when God's people, namely the OT Jews, were in danger of losing their lands or of being influenced by their pagan neighbours that He ordered genocide. Many Christians in the world today face the same problem. If God believed it was justified then why isn't it justified now?God as you picture Him has gone from commanding His followers to commit atrocities against their neighbours, as well as brutal capital punishment for minor offences involving large numbers of His followers as executioners, to a God that calls us to love our enemies and that we should pray to be forgiven as we forgive. I have no idea how you can hold those two concepts of the one God in any coherent fashion.

IMHO it is very clear that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. Yes there is very likely some embellishment in some of the accounts that would have grown over time. I just don't see any reasonable argument that they didn't believe the essence of what they were writing about. I agree. Before you can accept the resurrection as possible you have to be willing to accept the possibility of theistic beliefs. Well for one thing the flood, young earth etc are verifiable. Also the stories of the resurrection were written from the accounts of eye witnesses at a time.I'm going to be away from my computer for a few days so I'll be slow in responding to any reply.

Certainly you can find people who will agree with you. If someone's exegesis is based on an inerrant Bible then there has to be a rationalization of the two very different understandings of the nature of God. I have read many Biblical scholars who very much disagree with your position.If the Bible is read as a narrative written by men inspired to write down their thoughts and experiences then we can get a coherent understanding of the nature of God, a rough understanding of the ultimate plan for creation, and an understanding of His desires for how we should conduct ourselves in this life. In reading the Bible that way we can get a picture of how over time our understanding of God has evolved so that mankind has gradually gained a more focused picture of the things I just mentioned. So the solution then was to kill them all including the babies while at the same time hardening the hearts of those who were supposed to bring His message of love to the world. Hmmmm... And this is the God of love and forgiveness that we see in Jesus? There sure must be a lot of sinners in Oklahoma City. Why would you want to worship a god like that? The idea is that God wants people to turn away from evil in this life and desire that which is good. You believe in a god that wants to take that away and slaughter them all now.As I mentioned to ringo I'll be away from the computer for a few days.

Firstly you apply your own definition of what it means to be a Bible believer. I'm a Bible believer but I certainly don't understand the Bible the way you do.Go through the NT and look at how many times that Jesus, His questioners and then later on Paul refer to the wirter of their scriptures as Moses. They don't say that God told us this in the scriptures. They simply say that Moses said..... Are you saying that Moses was also inerrant?It isn't a modernist position. Even Josephus writes that Moses wrote great metaphors.Your definition of heretic is someone who disagrees with you. I would suggest that a heretic is someone who believes that God ordered genocide as well as ordering His followers to get together and stone people to death for minor offences.