Post-Christianity? (probably not the right title)

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It was religionists who reasoned that the indians weren't really people or that black people where descendants of Ham and were cursed that decided that certain people should not be treated even as well as animals.

It is poor logic to associate the sins of a few with the entire group. Throughout the history of Christianity, many Christians have committed many crimes. This is true of perhaps all religions and especially of atheistic communist regimes. So shall we conclude that all religions and atheists are guilty of such crimes?

[cardw]

Quote:

Quote:

It was religionists who reasoned that the indians weren't really people or that black people where descendants of Ham and were cursed that decided that certain people should not be treated even as well as animals.

It is poor logic to associate the sins of a few with the entire group. Throughout the history of Christianity, many Christians have committed many crimes. This is true of perhaps all religions and especially of atheistic communist regimes. So shall we conclude that all religions and atheists are guilty of such crimes?

The point is you have to use sources outside of the Bible to determine that this is wrong. And this view, at the time, was certainly NOT the minority view. This was held to be true across denominational lines by the majority of Christian people. This is still held to be true by some Christians today.

Because of the Bible's view of slavery the early Saint John Chrysostom wrote...

Quote:

The slave should be resigned to his lot in obeying his master he is obeying God.

Saint Augustine wrote in the work City of God...

Quote:

Slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.

18th century orthodox Christianity held slavery to be unchanged even for Christians. The Anglican Bishop of London Edmund Gibson wrote...

Quote:

The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men's Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptised, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.

So, if you are saying that it is sinful to hold slaves, then you are not relying on a Biblical source for that belief. Because, clearly for the majority of Christianity's existence it has held slavery to be a moral obligation to maintain.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The point is you have to use sources outside of the Bible to determine that this is wrong.

I don't agree. The Indians and Africans fall into the gentile group like so many other ethnic groups. The Bible does not teach that gentiles are less than human nor does the Bible itself teach that blacks are descendants of Ham. But even if they are, that wouldn't make them less than human.

Quote:

this view, at the time, was certainly NOT the minority view. This was held to be true across denominational lines by the majority of Christian people.

The remnant of God's people have always been in the minority. I can think of no time in Earth's history when the true followers of God were a majority. Even today, Adventists are far from making up the majority of Christians much less of the entire world population.

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't agree. The Indians and Africans fall into the gentile group like so many other ethnic groups. The Bible does not teach that gentiles are less than human nor does the Bible itself teach that blacks are descendants of Ham. But even if they are, that wouldn't make them less than human.

This is beside the point. You have to have an outside source to determine if slavery is wrong. The Bible clearly supports it. And if a remnant at anytime determined that slavery was wrong and a sin, it too, would have to come to that conclusion from an outside source.

And the ancient Jews gave their slaves less rights because if you killed your slave you were fined, but if you killed another Israelite you were given the death penalty. This would clearly be from a less than human perspective, because the death of animals involved fines. And it was from the gentiles that the Israelites were instructed to make slaves.

[Neil D]

Quote:

hmmmmm....Devine commentary on virtious parenting by Richard....Interesting....

So how do you determine what is virtuous?

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, a form of slavery is accepted in the Bible. However the form of slavery as practiced during the first century of US history was far from what was condoned in the Bible. Ellen White was of the opinion that slavery was the US' greatest sin. So again, the remnant was not condoning slavery in the US like some of the southern churches were.

It is important to understand the church, even the remnant, is made up of erring sinners. Thus it often falls short of the mark. There are several examples in the Bible when the nation of Israel and its leaders fell short of the mark. One only need to look at the atheistic communist regimes to see that they are not the answer the sins of the church.

[D. Allan]

That transforming-experience trumps 'religion' is certainly true since the goal of religion is to put one into confident, trusting relationship with what religion terms "God." Transformation is the result. Now I'm open to a broad definition of "God": like one that says we cannot define God. (That doesn't make sense, logically, does it!) But is true, IMO. It is not the same as there being no "God" for first off there is the 'idea' of God in the human mind. 'God' is a three letter word in English, four letters in Greek. The term has had meaning for thousands of years. Some don't say "God" but rather "The Source, or God, or Whatever You Call It," (namely, Dr. Wayne Dyer, for one.) That's good enough for me. We could get very philosophical and state the the existence of my God depends on my ideas of Him - and I think that is what has happened many times and usually happens - people create their own God. By their faith in Him. In the interview which I saw of Joseph Cambell by Bill Moyers, he talked about the Indian idea that one must kill his "God" - that seems very profound - for how can we encounter the real God who hides in our hearts unless we first get rid of our merely intellectual conceptions?

Enough of that. What I have been ruminating on this week is about Religion vs. transformational experience. I have no answers. Only this observation from my life: As I think about the transformation that has occurred in me over the past 10 years I just cannot see how it could have happened if it were not for the 'religionists.' Don't get me wrong - I'm no big fan of the religionists - I see all their faults and their blindnesses. Often they are arrogant and stubborn. They fight among themselves. I don't attend church anymore because of it. (Oh, that the wonderful church I told you about would have moved to Florida with me! A church which "agrees to disagree".) But still - the wonderful transformation that occured in my heart, 10 years ago and made me "whole" - I don't see how it could have happened without the help of Christian belivers. This is due to my enculturation and personal environmental influences, no doubt - but I belive there are many like me, in the same boat.

[cardw]

Quote:

Yes, a form of slavery is accepted in the Bible. However the form of slavery as practiced during the first century of US history was far from what was condoned in the Bible.

So, the Bible has god ordering the Israelites to make slaves of their neighbors, rape their virgins, and wipe out everyone else. The Bible allows you beat your slave and if your slave gets up within two days after the beating and you haven't knocked a tooth or eye out, no harm no foul, but if your slave dies then you are fined.

So, exactly how is this type of slavery any better than slavery practiced in the US?

Quote:

Ellen White was of the opinion that slavery was the US' greatest sin. So again, the remnant was not condoning slavery in the US like some of the southern churches were.

Again, my point has been that this anti-slavery idea doesn't come from the Bible.

Quote:

It is important to understand the church, even the remnant, is made up of erring sinners. Thus it often falls short of the mark. There are several examples in the Bible when the nation of Israel and its leaders fell short of the mark.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between what the Bible teaches and what people do. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you don't seem to understand. My point is that the majority of the Christian Church has been following what the Bible teaches in terms of slavery for most of its history. The South was clearly on the biblical side in terms of how to treat one's slaves.

To condemn slavery one has to rely on other sources than the Bible. It doesn't matter if there is a minority remnant that condemns slavery. It didn't use the Bible as the source of that condemnation. One can certainly extrapolate a moral imperative if one picks and chooses which texts to use, but that proves my point as well, because that it is not the Bible, but man's ability to reason and empathize. One simply takes the conclusion that slavery is wrong and looks for texts to build that case.

Quote:

One only need to look at the atheistic communist regimes to see that they are not the answer the sins of the church.

And which Christian nations are or were? What is interesting is that the financial set up of the early church was based on a form of communism not capitalism.

I would rather look at the secular governments of today as a model for what works best. Russian and Chinese communism was closer to an ideology, which functions much like a religious state.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs or an ideology. That is simply a misrepresentation of atheism. Its like saying bald is a hair color.

[cardw]

Quote:

That transforming-experience trumps 'religion' is certainly true since the goal of religion is to put one into confident, trusting relationship with what religion terms "God." Transformation is the result. Now I'm open to a broad definition of "God": like one that says we cannot define God. (That doesn't make sense, logically, does it!) But is true, IMO.

Transformation can come out of a personal awakening as well. Some have identified this as the inner Divine that is there all along. I don't know how to tell if that inner awareness is me or something from outside of me, because it feels like a deeper me. It feels like a wiser and more informed me. Whether that is God or not, I can't tell. It feels more like me growing up.

One of the things that surfaced as I explored all of this early on was that as soon as I say that such and such is God, then its not God. Because if I can understand what something is, then it no longer is God but god.

Scott Peck said something that didn't make sense to me at first. He states that if something doesn't produce a paradox, its probably not the deeper truth. He was referring to the idea that if I want to live I have to be willing to die. Or if I want control, I have to let go of control. There are all kinds of these wisdom sayings that appear to be a paradox on paper, but work in practice.

Quote:

That's good enough for me. We could get very philosophical and state the the existence of my God depends on my ideas of Him - and I think that is what has happened many times and usually happens - people create their own God. By their faith in Him. In the interview which I saw of Joseph Cambell by Bill Moyers, he talked about the Indian idea that one must kill his "God" - that seems very profound - for how can we encounter the real God who hides in our hearts unless we first get rid of our merely intellectual conceptions?

This concept appears in Buddhist tradition as well. It is the command to kill the Buddha if you see him walking down the road. We in the West are not very practiced in the art of mystical exploration. It has been largely destroyed by western forms of religion which are based on an authoritarian based rationalism.

Along this line I think we need to kill the Bible because it has become our god. And this god has been the basis of countless wars, persecutions, brutality, torture, and oppression. There are remnants of a mystical tradition within the Bible, because those in charge of putting the Bible together didn't understand it, that remain. It is hard to change all of Jesus' sayings.

Quote:

As I think about the transformation that has occurred in me over the past 10 years I just cannot see how it could have happened if it were not for the 'religionists.' Don't get me wrong - I'm no big fan of the religionists - I see all their faults and their blindnesses. Often they are arrogant and stubborn. They fight among themselves. I don't attend church anymore because of it. (Oh, that the wonderful church I told you about would have moved to Florida with me! A church which "agrees to disagree".) But still - the wonderful transformation that occured in my heart, 10 years ago and made me "whole" - I don't see how it could have happened without the help of Christian belivers. This is due to my enculturation and personal environmental influences, no doubt - but I belive there are many like me, in the same boat.

Its hard to live life in this country without a connection with Christian believers. I would say that many in the Christian community achieve transformation in spite of Christianity, not because of it. I believe there is power in love, no matter what the source. And Christianity is one place to begin the dialog. Bishop Spong takes the position that he will continue to talk within a Christian context because that is the language of spiritual conversation, but to say he is a Christian is only in community, not by majority definition.

I chose to have my sons attend Adventist High Schools because there certainly is a much more open dialog there than in other Christian High Schools. I wanted them to know what it was like to understand the world from a Christian point of view since that is the dominant point of view in this country. They have had many fine, intelligent, and loving teachers.

This has been balanced with many dinner conversations and open dialog at home. I have not discouraged my sons from seeing God as a personal God, but so far they have chosen to see the issue of God in a much different way than even I see it. And they are much more compassionate and insightful than I was at their age. They are certainly not Christians, but I see a lot of potential in them to move deeper into these questions than I will within my own lifetime.

And you are right, there are many silent ones that are in the same boat. I think we are on the verge of another Renaissance if we can figure out how to not destroy ourselves.

[cardw]

Quote:

That is what I have found. Not a "proof", just evidence that satisfys me according to the fleeces that I have put out...Ain't gonna attempt to convince you that my evidence that speaks to me is gonna do the same for you. So don't insist that i do so...

Well, only you have the power to give me the ability to insist. I would also note that your belief strongly implies that I need to understand the Bible in a similar way that you do and I would consider that an attempt to insist that I believe as you do.

I openly think that your reasoning is faulty and you are certainly free to withdraw from the conversation, but I would note that you asked ME to consider all the evidence and you failed to provide any. What you did provide is a series of statements that basically cried "foul."

I have no debate with how you come to find meaning in your life, unless you either directly or indirectly imply that my understanding has to be the same. And before you accuse me of doing the same, let me pre-empt that with the following statement.

To point out that something is not reasonable or is harmful is not the same as saying that you have to believe the same way I do.

[D. Allan]

Thank you for your reply, Richard. We have much in common.

Quote:

Transformation can come out of a personal awakening as well. Some have identified this as the inner Divine that is there all along. I don't know how to tell if that inner awareness is me or something from outside of me, because it feels like a deeper me. It feels like a wiser and more informed me. Whether that is God or not, I can't tell. It feels more like me growing up.

I suppose what we call it is not as important as the fact something special happened. Something numinous. The true Self has been awakened. This may be the same way in which Jesus considered himself divine - The Father and I are One, he said.

Quote:

Along this line I think we need to kill the Bible because it has become our god. And this god has been the basis of countless wars, persecutions, brutality, torture, and oppression. There are remnants of a mystical tradition within the Bible, because those in charge of putting the Bible together didn't understand it, that remain. It is hard to change all of Jesus' sayings.

It is very diffucult thing to do. - kill one's god. Yes, I have noticed that Christianity just doesn't seem to get the mystical portion of Jesus' sayings. They even seem to be fearful of any such thing. So I say no more!

Quote:

I would say that many in the Christian community achieve transformation in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

Mine began easily but then the Christian community began to hamper it, and make it very difficult. Still there was no other resource for me personally at that time in my life that could have awakened the numinous experience within me.

Quote:

I believe there is power in love, no matter what the source. And Christianity is one place to begin the dialog. Bishop Spong takes the position that he will continue to talk within a Christian context because that is the language of spiritual conversation, but to say he is a Christian is only in community, not by majority definition.

Yes, there are many lovely, and loving 'Christians' (and many who are not so nice as they would like to believe). Perhaps Bishop Spong is a more 'pratical' christian than most, - an authentic, honest man in whose heart is found no guile.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The South was clearly on the biblical side in terms of how to treat one's slaves.

An accurate understanding of US history would reveal how erring this opinion is.

Quote:

My point is that the majority of the Christian Church...

The Adventist church does not make up the majority of the Christian church.

Quote:

What is interesting is that the financial set up of the early church was based on a form of communism not capitalism.

There is a difference between the church and the civil government. I am not one that advocates a union of church and state.

[cardw]

Quote:

An accurate understanding of US history would reveal how erring this opinion is.

This has nothing to do with what I posted. Read it more carefully. And if you are making a point a little bit of evidence would make you more believable rather than claims.

Quote:

The Adventist church does not make up the majority of the Christian church.

Again this has nothing to do with my post.

Quote:

There is a difference between the church and the civil government. I am not one that advocates a union of church and state.

Well, my point was that Russian and Chinese communism operated much like a religion since they were based on ideologies. Atheism was simply a side issue. Like I said before saying that Atheism is a religion or an ideology is like saying bald is a hair color.

[Dr. Shane]

Pointing out bad theology and errors in Christianity to Adventists in an effort to make the point that Christianity is something bad is a poor course of discussion. Adventists believe the papacy is the anti-christ and apostate Protestantism is the false prophet of Revelation. One that points out sins of Christianity past and present to Adventists is likely to be greeted with nodding heads in return. Yes, Adventists believe that most Christian denominations do a poor job of representing the Biblical faith. That is why they feel part of their mission is to call members of these other denominations to leave them and join God's remnant church.

The original point I was responding to wasn't dealing with slavery. The point made was that "Christians" taught that American Indians and Africans were less than human. I pointed out that the Bible does not teach any such thing. Even slaves in the Bible had more rights than what those in captivity in America did. But slavery is itself a separate issue apart from racism. Many confuse the two because in the US blacks were slaves so the issue of slavery and racism went hand in hand. Biblically, those are two separate issues.

Socialism is still practiced in the church although not to the extent that the Bible seems to teach it was in the early church. Socialism can work well within an organized religion's structure. It does not work for civil governments. The early church is an example for our churches today but not for our civil governments.

The idea that atheism was or is a side issue of communism is completely void of what communism is and how it has been implemented. Socialism is not atheistic by nature, communism is. All the great communist societies (USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam) have been atheistic. Many western European countries practice a form of socialism, allow and encourage religion to thrive in them.

[Bravus]

But Richard's point does not pertain to Adventism, but to the Bible. Is he correct in saying that Adventism's principled opposition to slavery is in opposition to the explicit teaching of the Bible?

[cardw]

Shane,

A few things that are making it impossible to dialog with you.

1. Too many topics

2. No evidence

3. Not responding to my points.

4. Ignoring my evidence.

[David Koot]

Ahem . . . stuff is being laid on or piled up thick enough, indeed. Layer upon layer. But, to get to the crux of things . . . Richard, old top, you stole my line. An empiricist, you say? That's what I am--or at least what I prefer. For an empiricist, accuracy is a paramount concern. Identifying the evidence, analyzing the evidence, interpreting the evidence.

That department is where this discussion reminds me of the interminable arguments between Creationists and evolutionists. As I have carefully studied them and researched the position statements, I have recognized something. Each side is looking at evidence, and placing an interpretation upon the evidence. I see something similar happening here.

Two critical challenges need to be met, in order for the work product of an empiricist to have some measure of validity:

1) accurately identify and take into consideration ALL the evidence;

2) use objective criteria in interpreting that evidence.

I see this discussion falling short in both of these areas. For example, Richard, you have indeed relied upon a number of events recorded in Scripture to support your particular views. HOWEVER, I do not see you referencing other Scriptural evidence which may bear on those limited events or, for that matter, giving evidence of careful consideration of the accounts as they are written, a word-by-word, passage-by-passage analysis. (Even if you do have an explanation or interpretation which takes into consideration such other evidence, it would be important to state it, along with your interpretation, so that other students can study and compare notes.) You then, in reliance on that incomplete evidentiary record, build an edifice of interpretation which, itself, appears to be subjective. Empirical? No. Doing science? No. More on the order of, 'philosophy drives science' or 'theology drives exegesis.' Nor is Richard alone in doing so. That type of thing abounds, which would seem to account for the escalation of the conflict.

Dave

[Neil D]

Quote:

.Ain't gonna attempt to convince you that my evidence that speaks to me is gonna do the same for you. So don't insist that i do so...

Well, only you have the power to give me the ability to insist. I would also note that your belief strongly implies that I need to understand the Bible in a similar way that you do and I would consider that an attempt to insist that I believe as you do.

I openly think that your reasoning is faulty and you are certainly free to withdraw from the conversation, but I would note that you asked ME to consider all the evidence and you failed to provide any. What you did provide is a series of statements that basically cried "foul."

[cardw]

Quote:

Those who come to the bible to learn of God, learn an experimental knowledge of God Himself. If one does this, then one tends to learn RELATIONSHIP principles, not doctrine...and has a more full understanding of God...and Who He is...and what He wants...and where to go....

You are certainly welcome to read the Bible in a generalized way, but it appears that you have decided that God is Love and only read those things that support that view or you provide God with excuses in the difficult parts.

I can't read the Bible that way. And when I observe Christianity in general over the ages it is one of the most violent religions on the planet historically. Christianity has been reformed by culture, rather than by the Bible. There have certainly been those like yourself who are able to make this book work by taking only those things that support the view of a loving God.

I can read the Bible that way as long as I admit that I'm picking and choosing, but I can't find any evidence that this book is organized as a whole to present the view of a loving God or is Divinely put together.

[cardw]

Quote:

I see this discussion falling short in both of these areas. For example, Richard, you have indeed relied upon a number of events recorded in Scripture to support your particular views. HOWEVER, I do not see you referencing other Scriptural evidence which may bear on those limited events or, for that matter, giving evidence of careful consideration of the accounts as they are written, a word-by-word, passage-by-passage analysis. (Even if you do have an explanation or interpretation which takes into consideration such other evidence, it would be important to state it, along with your interpretation, so that other students can study and compare notes.)

I would refer to other evidence if I could find any. This is the way I read it so far.

If we admit that it was God and not Moses who ordered the man gathering wood to be stoned we then have to determine if this punishment and the way it was implemented would be the act of a loving and just God.

Explain to me why having the whole tribe stone a man for gathering wood is just and loving?

The only explanation I have heard so far is that if God didn't take drastic action at this juncture then the whole nation would be in chaos or God was only working within their ethical capabilities.

There certainly isn't a scriptural basis for either of these ideas, unless you have something I haven't read. And there certainly isn't any scientific basis for the procedures since we know what happens to people when they live under these types of regimes and when they are ordered to participate in violence. It doesn't produce ethical loving people. It produces traumatized, emotionally frozen people, that act out of fear in even more violent ways. And this is exactly what Christianity has produced in great numbers historically.

So, if you have other evidence in regard to this incident, I would like to know.

[Neil D]

Quote:

You are certainly welcome to read the Bible in a generalized way, but it appears that you have decided that God is Love and only read those things that support that view or you provide God with excuses in the difficult parts.

Well, I don't think it is "generalized" and if I have preconcieved ideas when I come to the bible, so do you...As I have said before, when examining a piece of evidence, you need to look at the whole, and not the part.

Quote:

I can't read the Bible that way. And when I observe Christianity in general over the ages it is one of the most violent religions on the planet historically. Christianity has been reformed by culture, rather than by the Bible. There have certainly been those like yourself who are able to make this book work by taking only those things that support the view of a loving God.

I won't argue that religion in general is very violent. And I won't question that the Catholic church has been very active in "converting" people this way. I see a depth to the bible that is not in other religious books. Perhaps that is subjective, but it is also personal. I have always said that if a person is not more loving when he is converted to Jesus, then he is at best, a poor representation of Jesus and at worst, a devil in sheeps clothing. The problem is that a disciple of Jesus doesn't always make for a famous or notable person. Usually, a follower of Jesus dissappears from the masses....A follower of Jesus is a lover of people. And a lover of people, helps them....and does not seek status...His status is in heaven.

Quote:

I can read the Bible that way as long as I admit that I'm picking and choosing, but I can't find any evidence that this book is organized as a whole to present the view of a loving God or is Divinely put together.

Interestingly, Jesus refered to all the OT books before they became the OT. FRom those passages in those books, we get the OT. As for the NT, the catholic church ratified [notice, I did not say organize] the NT. And they ratified those books because there were people who died for them.

[cardw]

I would like to provide a new text for analysis. This has to do with the performance of human sacrifice by order of God.

Quote:

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)

This is basically a battle between denominations. It is obvious that human sacrifices aren't being done here and yet the Lord's guy performs human sacrifices on them to desecrate them. And the text essentially says that Josiah is the greatest king of Israel. Is this really the best idea God could come up with to restore religious piety?

There is quite a bit of evidence that shows that there were competing versions of monotheism present within Israel. One had a more Egyptian influence and the other had a more Babylonian influence. You can see remnants of both mythologies within the Bible stories. Often god's are renamed people or are simply named by the elements they represent. And as we have gained more knowledge about Egyptian religious practices we have been able to see how Israel incorporated these within their own rituals and myths.

We also know of a brief period of monotheism that was present in Egypt itself and it was violently destroyed after its supporting ruler died. We know that Egyptian mythological symbols were used by the Kings of Israel at various times in their seals and many aspects of Egyptian ritual are present within the Tabernacle services.

[John317]

What would you do if you were the Creator of the universe and you had the kind of rebellion on your hands that the Bible says God has?

What would you do with human beings on this planet that are in rebellion? Would you force everyone to be good? Would you destroy the one who started it, maybe before he had a chance to start it? Would you simply only create creatures who would obey you? Would you compel everyone by your sheer power to believe in you? Would you save everyone through a program of education? Make everyone so they can only behave well?

[cardw]

Quote:

Well, I don't think it is "generalized" and if I have preconcieved ideas when I come to the bible, so do you...As I have said before, when examining a piece of evidence, you need to look at the whole, and not the part.

I have been looking at the whole Bible. If we are going to take a look at the whole Bible then every event tells us about God. I have mentioned specific events. Tell me how Jesus reconciles choices that God made in the Old Testament, which according to Adventist theology is Jesus, with his instructions to turn the other cheek?

Quote:

I see a depth to the bible that is not in other religious books. Perhaps that is subjective, but it is also personal.

There are certainly things that represent a philosophical depth within the Bible. And there are some things that are pretty silly. Have you ever read the Tao? This small book explores many things that Jesus hinted at. The Buddha said that the meek would inherit the earth 500 years before Jesus. There are a number of remarkable parallel sayings.

We know that there were Buddhist influences from extensive travel from India through Palestine. Have you read the Gospel of Thomas. This gnostic gospel reveals 115 sayings of Jesus that provide some interesting insights into what Jesus possibly was trying to say, but the disciples simply weren't getting it. Jesus does give some indication that if he said the whole truth they would probably consider him a blasphemer.

Quote:

nterestingly, Jesus refered to all the OT books before they became the OT. FRom those passages in those books, we get the OT. As for the NT, the catholic church ratified [notice, I did not say organize] the NT. And they ratified those books because there were people who died for them.

Well Jesus' presented quite a number of ideas that ran counter to the OT. The Council of Nicea chose which books would be in the NT and this was essentially ran by a few philosophers who had the ear of Constantine and the wealthy families of Rome. This process had little to do with truth and a lot more to do with politics.

[cardw]

Quote:

What would you do if you were the Creator of the universe and you had the kind of rebellion on your hands that the Bible says God has?

Well let us step back even farther and examine how rebellion is even possible. Explain to me why Lucifer, supposedly the most brilliant angel in the universe, came up with the hair brained idea of jealousy?

Anybody with any kind of wisdom comes to a realization that the praise of people for greatness has no meaning. Why would Lucifer become mentally unstable if he was created perfect and brilliant? Only the immature waste their time trying to gain the praise of others as a basis of their self worth.

And what kind of test would be considered fair to pit the most brilliant being in the Universe other than God with the most immature? I know how easy it is to trick most children and even some adults.

And what is just about being born on a planet with a tendency to sin and pretty much set up to fail. It seems evident that most of the people on the planet will be sent to the lake of fire since only a remnant is going to saved. What kind of nutty set up is that?

There are a whole series of things one has to take on faith that have little or no basis in reality to make this work.