Q for Followers of Jesus

[Avatar4321]

First, i want to apologize. im coming off to harshly. Its not the right tone or words a Servant of God should use. I am sorry.

Second, It doesnt matter to me how you interpret the Bible I dont care if you can read the Bible in pure Adamic. (Although i doubt there is a Bible written in that language unless its in heaven) You can intepret it however you will. I will follow the Spirit.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
You can intepret it however you will. I will follow the Spirit.

I don't interpret ANYTHING in the Bible. I believe it in what it says.

The letter and spirit of things written are both to be followed in scripture and law.

If you follow SPIRIT in the Bible, and not letter, you obviously think there are contradictions, or believe the Bible to let you pick and choose.

Since the Bible clearly dictates it is sin to add or take away from God's word, we can now clearly see which way your perspective leans.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Coming from you, I consider it a compliment.

Don't. While I don't begrudge you your views, I do pity your suffering from them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I don't interpret ANYTHING in the Bible. I believe it in what it says.

The letter and spirit of things written are both to be followed in scripture and law.

If you follow SPIRIT in the Bible, and not letter, you obviously think there are contradictions, or believe the Bible to let you pick and choose.

Since the Bible clearly dictates it is sin to add or take away from God's word, we can now clearly see which way your perspective leans.

I've got news for ya sonny...EVERYBODY interprets EVERYTHING in the Bible.

It is simply the nature of the human perceptual and cognitive mechanisms that leads us to interpret all of our experiences based upon our own experiences, memories, perceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions. And that mesh through which all of our experiences is unique to each of us...So no two people are going to see, or interpret, the same thing in the same way. While there may be general agreement on the generalities of a given experience, when we get down to the specifics, everyone will have a view unique to them. And, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

It is the disagreements as to these details that have led to the
schisms in all of the world's great religions. It is the disagreements over these details that have led to wars over the interpretation of these details. Violence in the name of that which is supposed to bring peace. And, until we stop bickering over these details and recognize that the disagreements over these details are the result of nothing more than human eqo, and understand the limitation of human perceptual and cognitive experience this violence in the name of peace will continue.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I've got news for ya sonny...EVERYBODY interprets EVERYTHING in the Bible.

It is simply the nature of the human perceptual and cognitive mechanisms that leads us to interpret all of our experiences based upon our own experiences, memories, perceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions. And that mesh through which all of our experiences is unique to each of us...So no two people are going to see, or interpret, the same thing in the same way. While there may be general agreement on the generalities of a given experience, when we get down to the specifics, everyone will have a view unique to them. And, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

It is the disagreements as to these details that have led to the
schisms in all of the world's great religions. It is the disagreements over these details that have led to wars over the interpretation of these details. Violence in the name of that which is supposed to bring peace. And, until we stop bickering over these details and recognize that the disagreements over these details are the result of nothing more than human eqo, and understand the limitation of human perceptual and cognitive experience this violence in the name of peace will continue.

With respect to your philisophical mental massaging with your garbage spewing about interpretation, when the Bible says "I am the way, the truth, the life, and no man comes to the Father, but through Me." and some idiot takes it OUT OF CONTEXT, then THAT is interpretation. Taking things IN context, means no interpretation is necessary. Unfortunately people like you want to say otherwise to run from the truth because that would open the door to allow a way to escape personal responsibility and taking a position.

Anyone who reads a verse such as this and claims that it is an interpretation because it COULD mean that He was supposed to be a link in a chain and we need to pray to many others who go then through Him, is simply changing context to fit their own agenda BY INTERPRETATION which context could never make possible.

You replace context with "interpretation", and THAT is an insult and a physical impossibility when determining truth. Since they are 2 options which are the only approaches when dealing with anything in print, and you choose to buy into one as always being fact, you have just proven the other, as normally considered a skill taught in elementary school, to be null and void.

Kind of makes the whole education process null and void too, doesn't it?

It must be difficult trying to prove your point after admitting that there can never be one.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I've got news for ya sonny...EVERYBODY interprets EVERYTHING in the Bible.

It is simply the nature of the human perceptual and cognitive mechanisms that leads us to interpret all of our experiences based upon our own experiences, memories, perceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions. And that mesh through which all of our experiences is unique to each of us...So no two people are going to see, or interpret, the same thing in the same way. While there may be general agreement on the generalities of a given experience, when we get down to the specifics, everyone will have a view unique to them. And, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

It is the disagreements as to these details that have led to the
schisms in all of the world's great religions. It is the disagreements over these details that have led to wars over the interpretation of these details. Violence in the name of that which is supposed to bring peace. And, until we stop bickering over these details and recognize that the disagreements over these details are the result of nothing more than human eqo, and understand the limitation of human perceptual and cognitive experience this violence in the name of peace will continue.

Do hindu's interpret everything from the bible?

Reading a solid, respected translation of the Bible, issues are fairly clear. There are few who debate what I call the 'essentials'.

The essentials are (in no particular order):

1. Christ is the 'only' way to God the Father.
2. Christ was born of a virgin.
3. Chist has the power to forgive sins.
4. Christ serves as the 'go-between' to allow we 'sinners' access to God (related to #1).
5. Christ willingly died, taking our punishment of sin with him.
6. Christ rose from the dead, as witnessed by hundreds (thousands?) of people.
7. Christ assended into heaven.
8. If #1 above isn't true, Christ is a Liar and our faith is in vain.

True Christians (not some hippy, liberal 'Christ-is-love, brother - don't fight one another' person) can ONLY allow for their faith as being 'right'. For a christian to entertain that there are OTHER ways to God, means their faith is worthless. That would mean the Bible is worthless. Nobody who really believes the Bible can allow for it. That's something Christians have to come to terms with. It sucks that a lot of people will die in their sins, away from God. That's just how things work. God created us with free will to accept or deny Him. Most will deny him. A 'few' will find Him.

So yeah - Any path to God which doesn't follow the teachings of Christ is a path walked in vain.

It's up to you to believe it or not.

Good luck!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by -=d=-

So yeah - Any path to God which doesn't follow the teachings of Christ is a path walked in vain.

It's up to you to believe it or not.

Good luck!

Your proof?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by YellowBirdy
Why do some of you say Catholics aren't Christians? My understanding is that Christianity is divided into Catholicism and Protestanism. And yes, the Orthodox churches of Armenia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Russia and other countries utilizing the Cycillic alphabet. But they are all sects w/in the same general religion. Thats what I learned in history. They are components of 1 of the 5 major religions. So if Catholics aren't Christian, does that mean all the people who were living in Europe before 1530 (When Martin Luther did his thing) weren't Christian? And why if when you ask somebody their religion do they say "Catholic" whereas others say "Christian". And are Eastern Orthodox people Christians?

Yellowbirdy, welcome to the board! I am an evangelical protestant Christian, and so I'll try to answer as best I can.

There are three main branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc,. all fall into the Orthodox branch. They spilt with the Catholic Church in the Great Schism (which was in 1095, if I remember correctly) over issues like icons and the seat of the church headquarters. They are just as Christian as anyone else.
The Protestant denominations split from Catholicism during the Reformation. Protestants deny the position of the Pope as Christ's #2 man on earth. There are many protestant denominations, but almost all rely upon the Bible as their primary source of religious instruction, while Catholics rely upon the traditions of the Catholic church about eequally with Scripture (BTW - I'm not a Catholic, I've only read about it, so any Catholics please feel free to correct me).
There are not many Christians who would say that Catholics aren't Christians. While doctrines between the branches differ significantly, the individuals practicing Catholicism are no more or less Christian than anyone else.

Why do some Christians get so crazy about gay marriage? They say it's an "abomination". I went and read some of the bible (and yes, I was pointed to chapters from a left-leaning website, but it had some good points.) People say that Jesus by dying and coming back to life represents some new covenant so that stuff in the old testament can be disregarded. For instance, This is why Christians can eat bacon while Jews can't. But the gay thing is in the Old Testiment. Not the new. So why is the pork disregarded and not the gay thing? Or a Persian Jewish friend of mine said that the Torah (old testament) says you can't touch a women on her period.

Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. And you are right, there is a new covenant (contract, if you will) now that Jesus Christ is here. In the old covenant (Old Testament) God had established many laws relating to diet, clothing, slavery, property, along with religion and morals. With the new covenant, the moral law remains, but the dietary, clothing laws, etc. were no longer necessary.

Exodus 13:!5 - says I can't work on the Sabbath because it's holy. And if I do work on that day, I "shall be killed." That seems harsh. Back when I worked in a restaurant and in the mall my white co-worker would have these old white people always asking him on Sunday why he was working. I guess that was because they were religious. He would say its because he needs to buy books for school. If they believe that he shouldn't work because the day is holy, why do they patronize a business on the holy day? Going to a business on the holy day means that someone will be there working, and that person should die.

Again, the punishments in the OT were done away with, now that we have the new covenant. But God still wants us to take the Sabbath. It is designed to be a day where we rest and focus our attention on God. Your point about going out to eat is interesting though... something I'd never thought about.

1 Corinthians 14:34 says that women are subordinate to men. Then how can you justify having women in power? I'm thinking of O'Connor, Rice, Whitman etc.

I guess I am confused because there seems to be so many rules in Christianity but how do you know which ones to follow? [/B]

What it actually talks about is women's role in church. However, there are other scriptures where it makes it clear that this particular issue was one of his rules, not one of God's commands. And in other NT scriptures, it makes it clear that men and women are supposed to treat each others as equals. Nowhere in the NT are women treated as sub-human or incapable of assuming positions of power.

If you would like to talk more about Christianity please let me know.

Jeff

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Your proof?

of what? Of Christ being the only path? It's true because Christ SAID it.

Do you want 'proof' of God? Look for Him. (shrug).

Faith.

Learn it.

Liberals have lots of faith - shouldn't be hard for you to understand. They just have faith in things which will fail.

:-/

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
With the new covenant, the moral law remains, but the dietary, clothing laws, etc. were no longer necessary.

Now I'm not sure, but isn't it so that the dietary laws and such just didn't apply to the gentiles who were newly (in the Christ's time) accepted into the embrace of God? That is to say, wasn't it made clear that the Jews still had to follow it; one set of rules for the jews, another for everyone else?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Jeff,
A sincere question for you, since you've answered my questions before with much tact and respect. How do you reconcile the differences between Christian denominations?

It seems there is much plurality historically in the interprettation of Christianity. I was born into the United Church, which you could say was a very "liberal" church. However, I've also visited Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches and an Evangelical Babtist Church. I've noticed the almost night and day difference between these churches in terms of doctrine and belief, yet all hold the sanctity of Christ and claim to be the true interprettation of the Bible. As a Christian yourself, how does that reality work with your faith?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Jeff,
A sincere question for you, since you've answered my questions before with much tact and respect. How do you reconcile the differences between Christian denominations?

It seems there is much plurality historically in the interprettation of Christianity. I was born into the United Church, which you could say was a very "liberal" church. However, I've also visited Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches and an Evangelical Babtist Church. I've noticed the almost night and day difference between these churches in terms of doctrine and belief, yet all hold the sanctity of Christ and claim to be the true interprettation of the Bible. As a Christian yourself, how does that reality work with your faith?

I know this was not posed to me, but my quick answer would be - POWER, GREED, ENVY and PRIDE.

Even within the same denominations you will see vast differences. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see Church's break-up when one group within the Church (I am talking at the local level) get upset with a minister and leave to start their own Church.

Myself, I believe that Christ is the saviour and the only way, but I don't go to Church. For the most part, I can't stand organized religion.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Jeff,
A sincere question for you, since you've answered my questions before with much tact and respect. How do you reconcile the differences between Christian denominations?

It seems there is much plurality historically in the interprettation of Christianity. I was born into the United Church, which you could say was a very "liberal" church. However, I've also visited Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches and an Evangelical Babtist Church. I've noticed the almost night and day difference between these churches in terms of doctrine and belief, yet all hold the sanctity of Christ and claim to be the true interprettation of the Bible. As a Christian yourself, how does that reality work with your faith?

Isaac, the doctrinal/theological differences between many of the Protestant denominations are very small. In fact, I think if some level headed people got together, they could merge about half of the denominations into one big one. There are, however, some very liberal protestant denominations. The original denominational splits occured mostly because of differences in beliefs about baptism, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, music, communion, liturgy, etc. Present day splits are occuring over homosexuality and abortion; and while the vast majority of Christian churches proclaim Jesus Christ to be the resurrected Son of God, there are some churches today that regard the whole Bible as 'part of the word of God' or a book of 'good teachings' that don't hold Christ to be a supernatural being, or even a real historical person. These churches are way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, but still call themselves Christian.
As to how I feel about it... I understand that there will be differences in some minor beliefs, and it doesn't bother me. I have had friends in denominations from Catholic to Espiscopal to Pentecostal to Baptist, and they have all proven to be close followers of Christ. What really saddens me is that people would try to retain the Christian label, yet deny the basic tenets of the faith; that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Isaac, the doctrinal/theological differences between many of the Protestant denominations are very small. In fact, I think if some level headed people got together, they could merge about half of the denominations into one big one. There are, however, some very liberal protestant denominations. The original denominational splits occured mostly because of differences in beliefs about baptism, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, music, communion, liturgy, etc. Present day splits are occuring over homosexuality and abortion; and while the vast majority of Christian churches proclaim Jesus Christ to be the resurrected Son of God, there are some churches today that regard the whole Bible as 'part of the word of God' or a book of 'good teachings' that don't hold Christ to be a supernatural being, or even a real historical person. These churches are way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, but still call themselves Christian.
As to how I feel about it... I understand that there will be differences in some minor beliefs, and it doesn't bother me. I have had friends in denominations from Catholic to Espiscopal to Pentecostal to Baptist, and they have all proven to be close followers of Christ. What really saddens me is that people would try to retain the Christian label, yet deny the basic tenets of the faith; that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

That's fair enough. I have wondered why there wasn't a greater union of churches in the protestant faith. Perhaps, it is a historical factor than a religious factor. Since Protestants broke away from the Catholic faith because they disagreed with Church, perhaps they have a greater tradition to, well, "protest". I could, however, be off my rocker since I am hardly a religious scholar by any respects.

I guess I've always wondered why Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox could not simply accept their differences in tradition and brace their brotherhood in terms of root faith. I suppose faith is a realm of strong conviction.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I know this was not posed to me, but my quick answer would be - POWER, GREED, ENVY and PRIDE.

Even within the same denominations you will see vast differences. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see Church's break-up when one group within the Church (I am talking at the local level) get upset with a minister and leave to start their own Church.

Myself, I believe that Christ is the saviour and the only way, but I don't go to Church. For the most part, I can't stand organized religion.

I suppose politics undoubtably finds itsway into matters of faith! I can logically see the attraction in avoiding organized religion on that basis.

 

[dilloduck]

I think the difference is merely different interpretions of the literature. People like to argue and be right ya know. Free was pretty right on IMHO. Fear of death is also a big factor in being right. Eternity, so hear, is a long time so if you don't choose the right denomination there is a high price to pay for being "wrong".

 

[Zhukov]

I think it's all about power, and always has been. That's why Jesus admonished people to pray in the privacy of their own homes, because he had a pretty good idea what would happen.

Despite his warnings, it happened anyways. Human nature I suppose.

Free, Jesus, and I all agree on that point: Organized religion is not a good thing.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I think it's all about power, and always has been. That's why Jesus admonished people to pray in the privacy of their own homes, because he had a pretty good idea what would happen.

Despite his warnings, it happened anyways. Human nature I suppose.

Free, Jesus, and I all agree on that point: Organized religion is not a good thing.

I will go one further and reference the tower of Babylon.

ANY organization of power is going to corrupt over time and deteriorate. The larger it is, the worse and faster the destruction.

Needless to say, I have never liked organized religion, group think, business boards, or compromise.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I think the difference is merely different interpretions of the literature. People like to argue and be right ya know. Free was pretty right on IMHO. Fear of death is also a big factor in being right. Eternity, so hear, is a long time so if you don't choose the right denomination there is a high price to pay for being "wrong".

Indeed. Which creates a great puzzle for a person choosing their faith. Thousands to chose from, one or none are correct. All, from what I can tell are based on a circular arguments, logically speaking. Then again, I fully accept that faith is not supposed to be completely logical. As a person still actively searching for his spirituality, those concepts create quite the paradox in my mind. Though I suppose the search is rewarding in itself. I am learning alot from others.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Indeed. Which creates a great puzzle for a person choosing their faith. Thousands to chose from, one or none are correct. All, from what I can tell are based on a circular arguments, logically speaking. Then again, I fully accept that faith is not supposed to be completely logical. As a person still actively searching for his spirituality, those concepts create quite the paradox in my mind. Though I suppose the search is rewarding in itself. I am learning alot from others.

What would you call a faith that proves its self with historical evidence and prophecies which have been documented fulfilled?