No Gospel without Law, no Mercy without Wrath

Faith, I understand completely what you are saying.But I completely disagree.I've thouht about this subject a lot over the past several years. I've started to really read the Bible, rather than simply being preached to by clergy. I've examined some of the past doctrines of my faith, and the conflicts and horrors that have resulted over simple theological disagreements.My conclusion is that God doesn't care about our specific theology - all He cares about is our hearts, and out intentions and willingness to help others.When it comes down to it, when you really think about it, the Bible doesn't have to be literally true. It doesn't have to be true at all, in fact. Even as 100% allegory and symbolism, it still acts as a basic guide that can lead us to God, and it's root message of forgiveness, mercy, and love stand even without the actual events described in the Bible.I've determined that the way Jesus told us to live, by loving out neighbor, helping others, forgiving our enemies, and trying to do good, is the way I want to live. I believe He did exist, but if I find out tomorrow that He didn't, that's still the way I want to live my life. Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant - true or not, the lessons tought are valid.I've looked at the evidence for the accuracy of various Biblical stories - things like the Exodus, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gammorah. No physical evidence supports these accounts. God would have had to deliberately cover up any evidence that these events ever happened - and I don't believe God would be so deliberately misleading and deceitful.Next we have people like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson. We have "Christian" ministers today who will claim that every natural disaster is a punishment from God, that the 9/11 terrorism attacks were a punishment from God, that AIDS is a plague from God to punish gays. Some of these "men" even actively support the murder of gays.Given that we have such misguided people invoking God's name today, I think it would be foolish to assume that such people did not exist a few thousand years ago.The destruction of Sodom and Gammorah could easily have been a story told by a bigotted man to support his preconceived notion that homosexuality is evil - and have no basis as the actual Will of God.The murder of every last man, woman and child by the Hebrews invading another nation was attributed to a command from God - but did they actually receive such a command? Perhaps the soldiers were simply overzealous and did some pretty evil things. Perhaps, as the victors, they simply wrote that God had commanded it as justification.After all, who would question the Will of God?I understand where you are coming from Faith, I really do. I respect the fact that you are able to believe so strongly in the literal truth of the Bible despite observable evidence to the contrary. But I resent the notion that I am somehow "rejecting God." My faith is based on personal experience and a personal relationship with God. The Bible is the guide that led me to Him, but I worship God, not a book written by men about God. Men misunderstand, exaggerate, and lie all the time.As you so eloquently put it in another thread: I, and those who believe as I do, do not reject God, Faith. We simply have a different understanding of Him than you do. While I will debate against you about personal beliefs and the inerrancy of the Bible, I respect the strength of your faith, and I repect your right to beleive however you wish. I'd like to ask you to do the same. I don't do this, and I haven't seen anyone else on the board do this either. Some of us believe differently than you do, Faith. I simply don't believe that God ever made those condemnations.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I know what you mean, Faith - I disagree just as strongly with most of the things you say, yourself. We definitely have to agree to disagree. Oh, I think there's plenty left to discuss. Not so much what the differences are, becasue that's fairly apparent. But we can discuss why we believe so differently, given the same source (the Bible).

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

That's not an analogy I would use, but I suppose it fits - the entirety of the Law (the sacrifices and dietary laws, for instance) would certainly count as "hoops."The fact is, reading from the Bible made me wonder if there is a God. I don't accept it as literally true because some parts are provably false, and the other reasons I posted earlier. But it still led me to question, and personal experience and prayer have made me believe in His existance, as well as given me guidance in understanding Him. I believe that the Bible is a starting point, not the only starting point. If all of the doors lead to the same room, what's the difference? I opened one door, the one that worked for me, and it led me to find God. Someone else may well use another door and come to the same place.I hate to use a movie quote, but I think it fits. In The Matrix, Morpheus tells Neo that "there is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path." Yeah, it's just a movie, but I think those words have some truth to them. I believe a person can do God's Will without knowing it. I believe people can be saved without knowing about Jesus. I strongly disagree. The root message to me is that we all do bad things, and no one is perfect - yes, we all deserve punishment. If you try to be good, and are good in your heart, you will be forgiven for whatever evil you do. Likewise, you should love your fellow man and try to forgive them for any wrongs they do to you.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

That's exactly my position. This is what "mainstream" Christianity believes, with excelent Biblical support. THose who do not follow a denomination's particular brand of Christianity are believed by that denomination to be going to Hell, regardless of how "good" a person was in life, how much they believed in God, or if they had even ever had the chance to hear about Christianity.It doesn't seem like the plan of an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely loving God to purposefully create beings whose express reason for existance is to be damned to Hell for simply never hearing about Jesus.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

That's just the thing, Faith.I don't have to take any of the Bible literally in my belief system. What's important to me is the message I have interpreted from it, not that the events described therein actually occurred. I beleive in the accuracy of some Biblical accounts, but if they were shown to be totally untrue to me tomorrow (like certain parts already have), my belief system would remain unaltered.Even if Jesus never existed, do His teachings have any less truth? I would want to be a follower of His teachings even if He had never lived, and the Bible was pure fairy tale.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Here you have a point, Faith. But my opinions have been formed by contemplation, prayer, and study. I believe that I feel God's presence, and have a personal relationship with Him. I base my faith on that, rather than an old book written about Him.The message I interpret from the Bible stands with or without literal inerrancy.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If I am angry at a loved one, I don't have to have any intention of punishment or execution to forgive them. If I am betrayed by a good friend, I can forgive without any intent of wrath.Just because you forgive someone doesn't mean that you would do something evil to them if you hadn't forgiven them. Even if they "deserved" it.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Ah, finally.I've been dying to ask you this since I started posting here, Faith.Why?Why do you beleive the Bible to be inerrantly true? I understand that you were not always a believer - what convinced you? Why are you willing to blatantly ignore evidence presented and call black white and up down if the Bible says it is so, and assume that your senses and the senses of others must be wrong?Why believe in the inerrant truth of an old book translated and cobbled together over a few thousand years with all of the conflict and political BS that has produced the Bible we know today?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I think I see most of where you're coming from here. I just disagree very strongly with your claim that there is an irreconcilable difference between religions, that God is somehow taking a direct hand in maintaining the Bible, and that Judeo-Christian theology has remained constant throughout the centuries.Many of the worlds most successful religions have teachings that are nearly identical to the message of Jesus, and seem to me to lead people to the same destination. I think the "all unbelievers are going to Hell" bit was added to keep the religion growning and gain converts out of fear, rather than any truth.If God is taking a direct hand in ensuring that the Bible is consistant and His direct Word, then why do many religions succesfully alter it? My understanding is that the King James version is significantly modified from previous versions. The Mormons have added a massive structure of their own theology (one I believe to be based entirely on fraud, I might add). Jehovah's Witnesses have a significantly different version of the Bible from more "mainstream" denominations. How can these other versions exist if God is directly controlling the contents of the Bible?Christianity's theological consistancy was nonexistant before the formation of the Catholic Church and the formation of the Bible from its constituent books. Various splinter groups of Christianity, including the Gnostics, thrived until that point. After the Catholic Church gained supremacy, theological consistancy was more a matter of burning at the stake anyone who disagreed. The Inquisition and various other atrocities kept the "faithful" in line by force and fear of force. We also know full well that the Catholics were not so consistant, either. Tithing, male-only celibate clergy, indulgances (where the Church would sell "relics" to people in echange for the promise of less time in Purgatory for themselves or loved ones), all of these thing came about when the Church needed money. The Catholic Church was more than willing to use scripture to back up new policies with the intent of becoming more wealthy and keeping a stranglehold on any and all power.The "consistancy" of Christianity during the reign of exclusive Catholicism virtually disappeared after the Protestant Revolution - there are literally dozens of Protestant sects who each have different interpretations and teachings based on the Bible. Some differences are minor, while others are massively irreconcileable. Yes, Faith, you DO try to answer it. But in some cases, most notably the Flood, there is absolute contrary evidence that you and other literallists willfully ignore. A global Flodd is simply inconsistant with any of the physical evidence available today. There are other examples of Biblical accoutns proven to be flase or simply "not the way it happened," but the Flood is likely the easiest to disprove.You are correct that absence of evidence does not prove a thing does not exist. But evidence that something entirely different DID happen, along with a lack of any evidence that the Biblical account is correct, can indeed prove that the Biblical account is wrong. The FLood, as an example, is not disproven due to lack of supporting evidence - it is disproven becuase everything we see in the geological record directly conflicts with what we would see in the event of a global Flood.You are, in essence, calling black white, and ignoring observable fact with the claim that an old book trumps observable evidence. I respect the amount of blind faith that takes, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I apoligize - by "cobbled together" I didn't mean randomly selected from a hat, or any other such "willy-nilly" process. I meant that it was assembled from individual books written over thousands of years, while excluding others. The political BS I was referring to was more along the lines of the Catholic indulgences - the Church needed money, so they invented a doctrine out of thin air. Pay us money for "relics" of dubious origin, and you get a free ticket out of Purgatory. Another example would be the Catholic Church's banning of books, to the point that even reading one is supposed to damn one for eternity. Several writings banned by the Catholic Church would have specifically refuted various Church teachings and destroyed its political power - it's awfully suspiscious to ban such a book with the threat of damnation for even reading it when the book simply expands on the teachings of Jesus in a way that happens to refute existing Church doctrine. I still don't see how this could be the case, considering all of the different Biblical versions and translation in existance. Why have several of the faiths based on wildly different translations and doctrine thrived if God takes such an active role in determining the contents of the Bible? Why is the Gospel of Thomas (which seems to be the oldest and most direct account of the things Jesus actually said rather than yet another telling of His life story) not included in the Bible while the Book of Mormon (which seems to be entirely made up by a known con artist, and directly contradics many of the teachings of mainstream Christianity) is used by a very successful faith?It just doesn't make any sense at all to me that GOd is directing events so closely. How do you rationalize all of this, Faith, and come away with the conclusion that the Bible is the literal Word of God, and that none of the authors or CHurch Fathers or translators could have possibly misunderstood or misrepresented the truth?Your faith seems to depend entirely on the Bible being literally true in all aspects. My understanding of your beliefs is that you want to hold on to your faith so strongly that you will deny anything that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how strong the evidence, and say that the Bible trumps all.I just don't understand such a mindset. My faith is based on a personal relationship with God, and the Bible simply led me to Him. Because I don't have to take the Bible literally to maintain my faith, my belief system is far less rigid - I can be proven wrong, and can abandon false belief, without abandoning all of my faith in God.I simply cannot comprehend taking such a set-in-stone approach to the Bible and God - He is alive, after all, not made of stone. I cannot comprehend willfully ignoring evidence and saying that an old selction of books written thousands of years before we had the understanding of the natural world we do today somehow trumps anything that contradicts its account of events.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

In all fairness, Faith, the Conquistadors used a similar reasoning to yours when they killed thousands upon thousands of Native Americans and forced conversions. The early United States was no better, pushing the "heathens" off of their land becuase Manifest Destiny was, after all, "God's Will." The Inquisition was a period of unrivalled horror and abomination, and its rationale was that, if you save a soul from Hell, torture and murder are justified. After all, God's Wrath proves that heathens should die, right? And it says right in the GOod BOok that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."Christians have used literal interpretation and the same dogma you speak of to justify unequalled crimes against humanity.I've never heard an Atheist say that all Christians should die. I HAVE heard Christians say that Atheists don't deserve to live. The commandments to "love thy neighbor" and "love your enemy" have not prevented horrible actions by the Church in te past. It is not unreasonable to worry over the same happening again.But hopefully, most modern Christians, like you, understand that Jesus in no way advocated forced conversion or the murder of unbelievers.Nuggin, I think, was a bit overly paranoid in his post, but it's hardly unreasonable to worry that history could repeat itself. I know I certainly don't want Christianity to return to burning "heretics" at the stake, or torturing suspected witches into confession before burning them, too.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Um...you mean those who heard Jesus speak had never heard anyone else say the same things. That doesn't mean others with the same teachings didn't exist. Communication of ideas wasn't exactly at its peak in Jesus' time. Yes, I've seen bits of those threads. I'll investigate what was said there, but sources I have read show the KJV to have several inaccuracies. In any case, that's a topic for other threads, so I'll leave it at that. So where exactly is this "consistancy of theological doctrine" that helped convince you the Bible is inerrant? If the Church that was the solitary source of Christian teaching for over a thousand YEARS, which had total and absolute control over the contents of the Bible and the doctrines taught to beleivers, became itself "apostate and heretical," how is that in any way consistant? How does that describe God "preserving the truth?" Who decides what is heretical or true? You? Some group of church leaders?Were any of them around 2000 years ago to see the truth themselves? I wish you could post in the Science forums sometimes, Faith. You basically just said that the sky is pink with purple and yellow polka-dots. Every scrap of geological evidence, along with the laws of physics, prove that a Global Flood never happened by any stretch of the imagination. And you came to this conclusion, how? None of the Church Fathers were around to askJesus what He actually said. What makes you so sure that they actually eliminated "false doctrine," and that the books excluded from the Bible were false? I didn't say they were a big problem. Neither did I say that any of the methods of translation were invalid.I asked how, with so many different versions, some of which produce very different interpretations, you can possibly say that God is directing the contents of the Bible? The Mormons I know would take quite a bit of offense to that statement. As would Jehovah's Witnesses.But how do you know that your denomination is not a "heretical cult?" If God preserves His "true religion," what religion was true when the Catholic Church was "heretical and apostate," but before the Protestant Revolution? Perhaps a sect then called a "heretical cult" was correct? Have you even read the Gospel of Thomas? Most of it is duplicated within the accepted Gospels! It sounds exactly like the Jesus depicted in the other Gospels."The Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you. Not in houses of brick and stone. Split a peice of wood, and you will find me. Lift a stone, and I am there."Wouldn't an early Catholic Chirch want to try awfully hard to discredit such a book, since it basically says "that's not the way it's supposed to be?"It's also the oldest Gospel we know of - it very well could be a written list of things Jesus said. It certainly predates the doctrines that call it heretical. I trust Him, too. That's why I don't believe in Biblical inerrancy. Only God is inerrant - and men wrote the Biblical books and decided what would be included. We aren't here to convince each other, Faith. I just want to understand why you beleive the way you do. Not my intention, it's just the impression I am left with. I'm open to it - that's part of the reason I want to understand why you believe the way you do, Faith. But "because I said so," or "because this other group of guys a long time ago said so" doesn't cut it for me. Especially when the group of guys a long time ago had a vested interest in which books were included - the formation of the early Church set the stage for the domination of Europe for over a thousand years. I agree. But the Bible is not God. It's a book about God. Ancient people wrote books about various natural phenominon, like lightning and earthquakes, and the flat surface of the Earth. Men can be wrong, even about God. Surely one of us is wrong in our conception of God - if both of us were to write a book about Him, and people found them 3000 years from now, would they assume that our writings were inerrant and guided by the Hand of God? Should they?Should we assume that we know the truth based on a selection of books written thousands of years ago without questioning the wisdom and honesty of the Church Fathers, or other religious leaders since?The Bible says, after all, to beware false prophets and teachings, and the only way to know is to question everything. Well, nice of you to just give up. I can't wrap my head around your reasons, Faith, but that's why I want to talk to you about them. I don't like not understanding. You're an excellent writer - explain your reasons to me, and refute me when I question them. It's the only way I'll be able to understand.Whether I agree with you afterwards is doubtful (but still possible), but at least we'll understand each other better. We may even find some common ground. Isn't that a worthwhile goal?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I'm still not seeing this "theological consistancy" you spoke of. The Bible itself remained mostly unchanged (with the exception of retranslations), but the doctrines it spawned vere quite varied, and were not in any way consistant with Protestantism.Are you referring to the consistancy of what the Bible says, rather than the consistancy of theological doctrine and teachings? If so, the same could be said about literally any book. I'm aware of that. I was asking why we should trust their decisions without question. We've found more documents than they did, we have older versions of documents, and we have greater resources than they did. Why should we blindly accept their decisions as to what constitutes heresy? I don't like being told what I should believe - I'd rather find the truth myself, using others as possible guides. If you don't question, and follow blindly, you are more likely to be misled. You're right, I believe geological evidence despite the fact that nobody was around to see the formation of the geological record.My point was more that we aren't dealing with something that leaves evidence, like geological events. We are talking about what a man said and did, purely on the basis of what a few people wrote of Him 50 years or more after the fact. Then, 500 more years later, the Church Fathers determined what was "true doctrine" and what was heresy based on those writings. That's a very subjective decision, Faith. It's not based on something as concrete as an observable faultline, or simple physics calculations. It's based on the opinions and biases of a group of men determining what the rest of us should believe. We have seen the results of even religious power corrupting - the history of the Catholic Church is a testament to that. I would rather trust God and my own mind along with all of the texts than trust a bunch of men who had the potential to set themselves up as Popes and Cardinals. Often they do, but you refer to them as heresy. Oh, I certainly agree - but shoudln't God have struck down the false teachings if He is directly controlling Biblical teachings? How does the Book of Mormon or the Jehovah's Witness version of the Bible survive and thrive if God is controlling the purity of the Bible?

quote:

---

Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

---

Emphasis mine.I dunno, Luke seems to say some of the same things as Thomas. And Thomas, as I recall, is older than the Pauline texts. Says who? I've read it - it sounds a lot like the Jesus depicted in the other Gospels. It has some more cryptic quotes, as well, but those that are straightforeward are usually repeated in the accepted Gospels, like my example.Here's more:

quote:

---

13. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

​

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

---

quote:

---

Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine sheep and looked for that one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble, he said to the sheep, 'I care for you more than the ninety-nine.'"

---

These are nearly identical to verses in the accepted Gospel. Why is Thomas "bogus?" This assumes that God is, in fact, taking a direct hand in preserving the Bible, and that it is inerrant. Why assume? Why not test, to be sure?I put my faith in God and the answers He gives me. I don't think it's wise to trust the decisions made by men thousands of years ago writing, translating, and assembling the Bible as we know it. Very true, Faith, but the fact is, you are an excellent writer (when you aren't angry, anyway ). You typically get your point across much more effectively than most clergy I've spoken to, and you are willing to delve a little farther than "because that's what we believe, end of story." Your "inferior methods of discussion" are actually superior to all of the fundamentalists I have met in person.Plus, you tend to be pretty vocal about your beliefs here, so I figured you wouldn't mind me asking.As to my predjudices, I am simply trying to understand God better. The best way for me to do that is to examine other people's beliefs about Him. It would take some serious convincing, but I am willing to rewrite my entire belief system if I can be shown to be wrong. It's both, Faith. God inspired it - it's about Him, after all. But men wrote it. It's a pretty big leap to go from saying the Bible is inspired by God to saying that God directly controlls what goes in to it. Men, being fallable, can easily misunderstand or misrepresent events and God Himself. It certainly does matter to me, Faith. This is a debate forum, after all. We are here to talk about these sorts of things. Discussions like this are important to me becuase they force me to re-evaluate my own belief structure and hear other points of view. I like defending my beliefs like this, and debating with someone who believes differently.I'm glad we both agree that we each have the right to believe as we wish - that creates a far more civilized discussion, and is part of the reason you are so much of a better debate opponent than fundamentalists I have met. But can't we still debate each other about the issue, and both gain a better understanding of the opposing view? Understanding is always worthwhile.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Explain. This sounds a lot like saying "they were wrong and Paul was right, because Paul said so in his letters."

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You're the one who said thological teachings were consistant. Just give me some examples. But that's just it: I'm asking if the Bible is the direct Word of God. You believe it is, and I want to know why. I see so many inconsistancies between the Bible and hte natural world, and historical accounts of events, and books that weren't included that sound very similar, and a conflict of interest in the Catholic Church....well. I could go on for a while. Let's just say I have a ton of reasons to doubt the Bible is the literal Word of God, and I want to know the reasons you believe that it IS, and if any of them trump mine. This is certainly true, and the general consistancy of the Gospels with each other shows that their memories were likely pretty good. But there ARE some big differences between the Gospels, parts left out or added in relation to the others, different account sof events. Enough to put a bit of doubt on some of the more specific happenings and sayings. Not what I meant. Yes, the Church was growing even before the Church Fathers assembled the "modern" Bible. But the Fathers themselves were far removed from the actual events, and had to make very subjective decisions about the validity of the documents they were examining.I'm not saying they were charlatans, Faith. I'm saying they were men, and as such were fallable just like the rest of us. I'm saying they also had a lot to gain, and that their work directly caused the rise of the Catholic Church and its abuses of power.I'm not necessarily saying they were wrong, or that the abuses were their fault, or the result of their bias, but I AM saying there is plenty of reason to doubt their conclusions, especially after reading some of the "heretical texts" myself. But you defend the Church Fathers, whose initial doctrine resulted in Popes and Cardinals, did it not? Certainly Catholicism changed over time, but was the Pope not always part of the hierarchy? Was the Church not always the highest power in the land since its inception?Did the doctrine of the Church Fathers not directly cause the wealth and practices of Catholicism? And how do you know that you have recognized it? How do you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not correct, and they have instead recognized the true teachings? What are the guideposts that tell you you are on the right path? Now your just being obstinate. The "split a peice of wood" and "lift a stone" passage describes the Kingdom of God as omnipresent - it is everything and everywhere. It is simply not confined to a mansion of brick and stone. In other words, God is not only present in temples, and the temple is not his Kingdom. I don't see it as such. And yet you are willing to trust the human hearts of the CHurch Fathers and other religious leaders who may or may not be right.I trust God to lead me to the truth. I don't trust another man because another man will lie to me, or be wrong. Very true, and an excellent point, but we really don't have much else to go on other than the dating of the texts themselves.In any case, what makes one Gospel "true," and another heretical? How is the distinction made? Or is the Kingdom of God omnipresent, and not only in some distant future? Which is true, and how do you know? The same analogy is used in the Gospels.

quote:

---

Luk 15:4-7
What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
And when he hath found [it], he layeth [it] on his shoulders, rejoicing.
And when he cometh home, he calleth together [his] friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

---

It says exactly the same thing in Luke, Faith. The difference in the translation is significant, but small, and it's obviously the same saying. Why, if you read all of it? Doesn't it make more sense to see all of the peices of the puzzle, and find the whole picture, than to only look at a few peices you believe are true? Most preachers are more concerned with conversion than conversation. Those I've spoken with generally resort to "this is what we believe" rather than telling me why. You doa a fair bit better. All scripture? Including the scriptures not included in the modern Bible?If you read carefully, you'll nte that it doesn't say that scripture is literally true - only that it can teach good lessons, which I certainly don't dispute. I'm sorry to hear that, as you are perhaps the most well-spoken literallist here. It would be a shame to see you go, temper or no.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

That's all it takes to provide a "consistancy" in theological doctrine for you? The various denominations disagree on nearly everything else - the Catholics have always had some very major differences with modern Protestantism, including the dogma that an intermediary is necessary to gain forgiveness from God, and the near-divinity of Mary. Not to mention prayers to saints, and the near-divinity of saints and the Pope. Yes, the belief that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Trinity is the core belief, and is shared by nearly all denominations, but if that's all it takes to be "consistant," you have a much different definition than I do. My intimations of a conflict of interest are not founded solely on the fact that the Gnostic gospels were dismissed as heresy. I simply see that the theology of the Church Fathers gave rise to an institution whose power and wealth were unrivalled in the world for over a thousand years. I see that the theology of the CHurch Fathers gave rise to an institution that committed horrible atrocities like the Inquisition and forced conversion through torture and murder - as you say, direct violations of the Christian faith. Combined with the fact that I have an entirely different understanding of God given the same Bible and only a small amount of the "heretical" texts, it's enough to give me a reasonable doubt as to whether the Church Fathers were right. I'm not saying they werein't, just that I have good reason to question. Given that the differences in the Gospels were due to failings in memory and different focus on events, how can it be said that another Gospel, like, say, the Gospel of Thomas (just as an example), is not simply another version of the same events? Everyone has a bias based on preconceived feelings and goals - why are we to trust the truth to the bias of men 1500 years ago? If we used that same logic the Protestant revolution would never have happened. It's an appeal to tradition. The Church Fathers had all of that info and tradition to base their decision on, yes, but were those traditions and writings based on the truth? Just because people have done something for a couple hundred years doesn't mean they are right. It's still a subjective decision on the part of the Church Fathers when determining which traditions and testimonies to consider true vs heretical. And I'm not necessarily saying that every one of the Fathers had such a conflict of interest.Really what I'm saying is that it concerns me that the Church Fathers, along with Paul himself, seemed more concerned with starting a successful and dominant religion than actually propagating the truth. It's like a missionary who doesn't care if people's hearts are turned to God, so long as they say they believe. I'm saying nothing of the sort, and I agree that the Inquisition was an abomination by the standards set in the accepted Gospels. I AM saying that I see reason to doubt the Fathers' decision to exclude certain texts that still seem to be in step with the teachings of Jesus. I AM saying that the Fathers and Paul seemed to be more concerned with gaining converts than preaching the actual words of Christ. It'll take a bit of research to figure it out. All I was saying is that the Church Fathers' doctrines gave rise to the Catholic Church. I don't know if the Catholic CHurch was anything resembling what they intended, only that it's what they got. I'll see what I can dig up regarding the origins of the office of the Pope and the justifications used for the decadent wealth of Roman Catholicism. I wasn't talking about burgeoning Christianity, only the Catholic Church itself - the organized and structured body that came into existance after Constantine. From the moment Constantine made Christianity the Roman state religion, Catholicism was the de facto highest power in the Empire, and it spread even after the fall of Rome. All I know, Faith, is that the Catholic Church was the organized body that rose from the work of the Church Fathers. I don't know if Catholicism was their intent, with all of its pomp and wealth and ceremony, but it's what they got. It's enough to give me reasonable doubt as to their intentions and priorities. Not necessarily. Witnesses don't deny the divinity of Christ. Even Mormons don't really - they simply have a wildly different idea of the "origins" of God and His son. He is still of divine origin in their view, but I'll agree that they step more into polytheism rather than a belief in One God. They seperate the Trinity more than mainstream Christianity. Technically speaking, if He created everything in the universe and can break physical laws at a whim with no limits on his ability to affect reality or the free will of humans, then everything is His Kingdom. He DOES rule everything by that standard, and people just don't see it. I just don't see the difference that you do, I suppose. What was that passage about coming through the narrow gate? About many trying to enter, but few being called?Doesn't the Bible specifically say not to just "go with the flow" and believe just because everyone else does?

quote:

---

Matthew 7:14
Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

---

It doesn't sound to me like "because everybody else believes this way" is a good reason for placing unwavering faith in something. The Bible seems to agree with me. The problem is who decided they were heresy, and why. More importantly, were they right? I can't conceive of going along and believing just becuase other people do. "Becase 100,000 people say so" is not a great reason. Personal experience tells me people are gullible, stupid, and dishonest, and I don;t trust others to make such important decisions for me. I don't know much about the Gnostics themselves - I've simply read Thomas. I also believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God in human form, like an Avatar of sorts. I also believe He came as much for the lessons he taught as to die for the forgiveness of sin. One interpretation, yes. Another would be a realm in which the King has absolute control and authority, whether people admit it or not. That would pretty much describe reality if God exists, would it not? Difference in translation. It's the same saying, worded slightly differntly. It only takes a different meaning if you read it so strictly, or read it alone.This is part of the reason I don't like literallism - you can easily take something from the Bible and believe that it says something it was never intended to say. Language is not perfect for communicating ideas, and repeated translations certainly don't help the matter. Been there, done that. I was raised Christian, after all - I went through Confirmation and spent most of my life going to church every Sunday.Among the churches I attended (and there were several, my family moved a lot), most simply ignored the wrathful parts of the BIble. THose who didn't seemed to speak of a God who loves His on glory more than His children, and that didn't sit well with me. I can't worship a God who has the universe's biggest ego problem. There was no ancient Bible! It was a bunch of individual writings! Not all churches had the same ones - some had books not in the Bible, others had an incomplete set, etc. When that line was written, the Bible had not been assembled! The closest thing was the Torah. And I test this notion by comparing Biblical accoutns of events to provable, observable evidence. Since there are contradictions, the Bible must not be literally true, so it cannot be the literal Word of God.It is instead exactly what it seems to be - a really old collection of writings about God from various eras with different preconceived notions about the nature of God, complete with attempted explanations of the natural world through the supernatural. It's mythology, Faith, but mythology can and usually is based on fact, and can always teach a good lesson whether the account of past events is accurate or not.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.