• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is Christianity support?

As a Christian, which do you support?


  • Total voters
    15

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
My point is to recognize that these are symbolically meaningful to our experience as human beings, not only the Christian myth, but the myths of all other religions that touch on these themes. It all comes from the same place. It's not about the "fact" of the resurrection, but the "story" of it, the meaning of the myth. This can be said not only of the resurrection story, but of pretty much any common religious theme. It all comes from the same place within us, which is our sense of the Transcendent in us and the world.

Paul’s precise argument, and a similar argument is discerned in each of the 27 NT books, is rather that the fact of the resurrection is important.

You don't think philosophy has any tangible value? That's sounds very modernist.

A good reason to end this discussion—yet again you are twisting my words rather than responding. I didn’t say “philosophy is without any tangible value”. Rather, I emphasized that you cannot discount documents in the historical record (the scriptures) by mere philosophical musings alone, something you have attempted at length.

If you take that as an insult, I'm sorry. It is not.

I think you are indeed attempting to insult my intelligence by presuming it is fact that the mythic-literal scale is accepted universally as THE standard by which to measure anything, including religion and the facts underpinning religions.

If nothing else but this I've said has any truth and value in it for you, then I've done at least that much good in our discussions, which I've appreciated.

Oh, I understand. You have progressed to Stage 5, where you can feel good about dipping shallowly or deeply into area of Bible study or meditation you like, except obedience and adherence. A five-year-old can read the gospels and conclude that Jesus knew His authority and divinity. But you don’t “see it” or “feel it” or—as you keep repeating, “know it” via a “wide variety of tools”.

To conclude our discussion, I have repeatedly and specifically addressed this, and will yet once more for the record. This is how Paul framed his understanding of these things.

“How Paul framed his understanding” sounds spiritual. The truth is Paul stated—as did other NT writers—that “if I’m lying, I’m dying.” Literal followers of Jesus Christ, who is an historical personage who was crucified, as all modern and ancient scholars agree and adhere to—claimed He literally rose from the dead and literally appeared to them via “many convincing proofs” including asking if they had any fish to eat and/or wanted to stick their literal fingers into the literal wounds in His literal resurrected body.

You have offered not one piece of factual, textual or other evidence, which would be commonly accepted under the rules of legal evidence or scientific evidence, to prove the Bible is mythic only and not literal, or if you like, to prove any of it at all is literal on the other hand—either one would have been refreshing! I’ve come to you humbly to ask you to guide my understanding and you keep telling me I don’t understand because of my place on the mythic-literal scale. Also, I should believe your anecdotal experience and philosophy of spirituality rather than the scriptures, which were given by dozens of writers who agree—the scriptures are life, even eternal life, to those who adhere to their teachings.

You have offered only that you are a former fundamentalist who has grown to understand that only the cruel and the inexact (me!) adhere to loving Jesus as He appears in the scriptures, and the scriptures themselves.

I would be happy to continue this discussion if we can change the subject a bit. Since you have not offered any facts whatsoever, I will keep believing the scriptures are eternal life, and also, since I “know too much” about the scriptures—too much fulfilled prophecy, too many correct observations on human kind, “too much” love of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps we can talk about practical steps I can take to advance to a deeper understanding along the mythic-literal scale? I’m being serious. Can this be done without abandoning my fundamental beliefs based on the scriptures?

Thank you.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Rather, I emphasized that you cannot discount documents in the historical record (the scriptures) by mere philosophical musings alone, something you have attempted at length.
A second ago you accused me of making you say things you didn't, yet this is precisely what you are doing here, and have done repeatedly with me through this discussion, getting angrier and angrier with me for what you believe I'm doing. You are familiar with the term projection, where you assign your own sin to another, when it you yourself doing it and they are not? In other words you hate the other person for something you hate in yourself, whereas they look nothing like what is being projected on them by ourselves. This is something we all do, by the way. It's part of our "shadow" in Jungian terms. I wonder, because that's what I see here.

I have at length explained that I do have evidences from modern and postmodern scholarship that serve as a rational basis for these things. Initially you were trying to say I'm just going by my subjective feelings alone, then that I was hearing voices which you claimed multiple times about me, and now that it's "philosophical musings alone". Did you not read my explanations I offered many times, or simply chose to ignore them? How other than "projection" am I supposed to understand this in light of the facts of what I've gone at lengths to explain my processes I do up to this point? Did you think I was insincere? Did you just skim over the words and not read them carefully? I don't understand.

I think you are indeed attempting to insult my intelligence by presuming it is fact that the mythic-literal scale is accepted universally as THE standard by which to measure anything, including religion and the facts underpinning religions.
Absolutely not. For one thing, I actually very much regard your intelligence! That's why I'm engaging at the level I am with you! I'm treating your mind as capable as mine is.

Now, your comment about the "mythic-literal scale" being used to measure "religion and the facts underpinning religions", is confused to say the least. It's not a "scale". It's a certain mode of how people perceive, translate and approach their faith. There are OTHER modes as well! Please look at the very high-level overview of these stages of faith, we all, myself included go through in faith development: Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

This is legitimate scientific research based upon interviewing and mapping out the ways in which faith is approached and expressed by different people at different times of their life. It's very complex, yet a significant model which can be quite practical and useful to understanding what we see in religious expression, historically, and individually. To ignore this is not something I choose to do as it has great power to explain and bring light to see where others are at in order to speak to them in those terms, if that is a goal.

If you were to actually ask me what I see as the "underpinnings of religions" I would NOT say it's mythic-literal belief. Not at all. That's a later more developed stage. It's really the mystical impulse itself found right at the very outset. If you look at Gebser's stages of consciousness he mapped out looking at cultures historically, the very first religions were magic. Mythic religions were a later development, taking the invisible strings that people felt were connected to them through which they could make the world respond to their wishes through various rituals and acts, and shifting it away from themselves onto a deity form external to themselves. In other words the mythic stage takes the magic the person in the magic stage believes they have, and gives it to an externalized god.

This is very much what you see in the early forms of the Abrahamic religions. It's still "magic", in this sense that "miracles" are what makes the bigger things in life happen. It's just that it's God doing it, instead of themselves through ritual and incantation. Now we pray, and God does it for us. Here's some more on that: AN OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF JEAN GEBSER

BTW, notice that the above is actually from psychology and anthropology, and not philosophy? Please take note of this. This is not "philosophy alone" as you are now attempting to say is my approach. Note that I am offering links that support what I am saying?

Oh, I understand. You have progressed to Stage 5
Good god man, that's like saying I've progressed to being 50 years old! :) Growth just happens for a variety of reasons, and it happens at different rates for different people. I actually wished I could have been where I am now 30 years ago, to save myself all the hell you have to go through when you grow, banging your head on the light fixtures as you grow past being only 5 feet tall as you head to 6 feet tall (I painfully know this as I'm 6.3". Yes I "progressed" to 6.3 too. :) Believe me, it's not without its pains. Growth just happens. And yes, there are things we can do to aide in that process, but ultimately it's nothing we do and can congratulate ourselves over.

where you can feel good about dipping shallowly or deeply into area of Bible study or meditation you like, except obedience and adherence.
What is it you are accusing me of here about insulting you? Isn't this an insult to me? Of course I obey God! That is the whole purpose of entering into the Silence that is God. You come before God wholly surrendered in Love. And you say I'm not obeying God? How dare you.

A five-year-old can read the gospels and conclude that Jesus knew His authority and divinity. But you don’t “see it” or “feel it” or—as you keep repeating, “know it” via a “wide variety of tools”.
You see, you don't accept my sincerity about how I approach these things. You scoff and and ridule them. Again, my friend, it appears you are in fact projecting yourself onto me. It is you who is doing these things you accuse me of. It's not me.

Now as far as a five year old "getting it" and I don't? Goodness. Seriously? Why should the mind of five year old be the measure of truth as an adult should understand it? Why even go to school then? And please, don't quote Jesus saying unless we become as a little child to me. It has nothing to do with the knowledge of our minds and how we think about things. It has to do with the openness of a heart in trust. I love that verses, so don't go there to prove this absurd point.

“How Paul framed his understanding” sounds spiritual.
It does? It doesn't sound spiritual to me. It sounds acadameic, which is exactly what my observation is.

The truth is Paul stated—as did other NT writers—that “if I’m lying, I’m dying.”
He wasn't lying. He was speaking the truth as he understood it. I understand that same truth differently.

You have offered not one piece of factual, textual or other evidence, which would be commonly accepted under the rules of legal evidence or scientific evidence
Why on earth does any of that pertain to the truths of the Bible? It doesn't have anything to do with legal courts or scientific research. If you want evidence as to the nature and history of the Bible, whey don't you read all the voluminous works of modern scholarship that explain all that?

I shared this link earlier, but will again if for no reason other to prove to others I'm not going by "philosophy alone". Here's tons of reference material to start the process of discovering what research shows: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

to prove the Bible is mythic only and not literal,
Oh wow, have you not believe me when I've said countless times in this thread that I NEVER use the word myth or mythic to mean a fabrication or a lie? Why do you persist in repeating yourself that I am? Please explain your actions here? Why are you ignoring what I explained? You don't understand it? If so, them please be honest and ask me to clarify. This is getting really old, and offensive to me.

Also, I should believe your anecdotal experience and philosophy of spirituality rather than the scriptures, which were given by dozens of writers who agree—the scriptures are life, even eternal life, to those who adhere to their teachings.
I'm not asking you to think like me. You're asking me to think like you in order to be saved. You think others like me are in error and not following God. You judge us. I don't judge you. Who is in error here?

You have offered only that you are a former fundamentalist who has grown to understand that only the cruel and the inexact (me!) adhere to loving Jesus as He appears in the scriptures, and the scriptures themselves.
Quit putting words into my mouth, friend. These are your thoughts and words, not mine.

Yes, I am a former fundamentalist, and from that place I have a great deal of insights into the fundamentalist mind and the system that supports it. I am in fact quite uniquely qualified to talk to this. I am not however doing what you say which is saying only the "cruel and the inexact adhere to loving Jesus as He appears in the scriptures". First of all that's a lie. I did not say that.

I did say that when you, as a Christian who claims to love Jesus, judges your fellow Christian as not true to Christ because they don't read and interpret scripture the same as you, that they don't obey God because they don't approach God as you do, then you are in fact placing a stumbling block for others who are in fact sincere in faith, but just simply think differently than you! That is offensive. You have done it me in this very post!

The difference between me and your average person of faith who thinks like me, is that I am armed to the teeth with knowledge and experience and can defend the complete legitimacy of my own as well as their faith where they are at against those who attempt to dismiss it, playing God as they claim Truth in their readings and approach to scripture. You don't understand this, but you really should.

Jesus warns about judging another man's servant. He warns about putting a stumbling block before one of these "little ones". What you need to do is read the scriptures written on the heart, not look for answers on the pages of your book at the expensive of seeing the Truth expressed in Love by those different from yourself. Amen.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I would be happy to continue this discussion if we can change the subject a bit. Since you have not offered any facts whatsoever
Except for all the supporting links I've been sharing with you, including the three alone in this response.

I will keep believing the scriptures are eternal life, and also, since I “know too much” about the scriptures—too much fulfilled prophecy, too many correct observations on human kind, “too much” love of Jesus Christ.
If you need to believe the Bible is eternal life, then that is how you approach faith. It's not how I do. God is eternal life. Not a book in my view.

Perhaps we can talk about practical steps I can take to advance to a deeper understanding along the mythic-literal scale? I’m being serious. Can this be done without abandoning my fundamental beliefs based on the scriptures?
Well, if you are sincere about this then you'll need to start by being honest about your doubts with the way you currently think about these things? What's not adding up for you? What cause you some concern? What do you wish were different? Perhaps I can relate with my own experience and share with you how I've worked through these things?

I'll share one thought to this to begin with. There is this great saying from Zen Buddhism which says,

Great doubt, great enlightenment;
Little doubt, little enlightenment;
No doubt, no enlightenment.


A quick word about Doubt. Doubt is the agent of faith towards growth. No doubt to me, says there is no faith present, only belief being abused as an avoidance to faith. If you have doubts, then embrace them as a call to growth of faith. If you have no doubts, then you have your reward. How much, and when doubt comes, is a matter of ones readiness.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
have at length explained that I do have evidences from modern and postmodern scholarship that serve as a rational basis for these things. Initially you were trying to say I'm just going by my subjective feelings alone, then that I was hearing voices which you claimed multiple times about me, and now that it's "philosophical musings alone". Did you not read my explanations I offered many times, or simply chose to ignore them? How other than "projection" am I supposed to understand this in light of the facts of what I've gone at lengths to explain my processes I do up to this point? Did you think I was insincere? Did you just skim over the words and not read them carefully? I don't understand.

The scholarship you’ve offered is theoretical examination of persons’ response to the numinous and to our own religiosity as a species. You declined to offer what I requested, documentary or historical evidence to support your comments.

Now, your comment about the "mythic-literal scale" being used to measure "religion and the facts underpinning religions", is confused to say the least. It's not a "scale". It's a certain mode of how people perceive, translate and approach their faith.

I’m sorry, I should have rather written, “approach to their religions”.

But if you consider psychology and anthropology enough evidence to discount historic (literal) Christianity, can I use these in support of Christianity? Have you looked at Maslow’s hierarchy of self-actualization? Are you unaware that as an agnostic Jew, Maslow when asked, said Jesus was the most self-actualized person ever, and that Paul ran a close second? Maslow took the readings of the New Testament at face value to weigh them. Why do you do differently?

What is it you are accusing me of here about insulting you? Isn't this an insult to me? Of course I obey God! That is the whole purpose of entering into the Silence that is God. You come before God wholly surrendered in Love. And you say I'm not obeying God? How dare you.

I dare, sir, with respect, because our Lord said “”Unless you believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sin.” I dare, with respect, because Peter warned both of us that “God will take vengeance on flaming fire on all who disbelieve the gospel,” and because you have self-identified as “I used to believe all that stuff literally but now I don’t”.

He wasn't lying. He was speaking the truth as he understood it. I understand that same truth differently.

I take issue with “speaking as he understood” and then you parsing what he spoke as lies. CLEARLY he “understood” he had a literal commission from literal Jewish authorities to literally travel to literal Damascus to bind literal Jewish Messianics. When he was literally traveling in the company of two others he literally heard and saw Jesus Christ and then radically changed his lifestyle and his religious outlook. But you “understand this truth differently.” How do you “understand it”? Now I have gotten from you that Paul was guilty of being manipulative and threatening people with existential fears. The Christians I call brother love Paul, even where they interpret Paul differently than I.

I did say that when you, as a Christian who claims to love Jesus, judges your fellow Christian as not true to Christ because they don't read and interpret scripture the same as you, that they don't obey God because they don't approach God as you do, then you are in fact placing a stumbling block for others who are in fact sincere in faith, but just simply think differently than you! That is offensive. You have done it me in this very post!

Ah, but I don’t judge you because “you interpret scripture” differently. I judge you because you’ve written:

· Jesus is not God

· Jesus didn’t understand His Earthly mission

· Jesus didn’t die on the cross to save mankind

· Jesus didn’t rise from the tomb

Based on the above and more that you’ve written, I’m having trouble judging you as a Christian at all. I’m sorry if that is offensive. But we must trust Jesus to be saved.

The difference between me and your average person of faith who thinks like me, is that I am armed to the teeth with knowledge and experience and can defend the complete legitimacy of my own as well as their faith where they are at against those who attempt to dismiss it, playing God as they claim Truth in their readings and approach to scripture. You don't understand this, but you really should.

I appreciate that you are prepared to defend your faith. But I don’t perceive your faith as the historic, Christian faith.

Jesus warns about judging another man's servant. He warns about putting a stumbling block before one of these "little ones". What you need to do is read the scriptures written on the heart, not look for answers on the pages of your book at the expensive of seeing the Truth expressed in Love by those different from yourself. Amen.

The scriptural test is that you would confess Jesus as Lord and that He is risen from the dead. I love all people, and I love Christian brethren, of course, and you and I love one another, but the test for who is in Christ is confession of Jesus as divine and that He rose from the dead as Savior.

Well, if you are sincere about this then you'll need to start by being honest about your doubts with the way you currently think about these things? What's not adding up for you? What cause you some concern? What do you wish were different? Perhaps I can relate with my own experience and share with you how I've worked through these things?

I'll share one thought to this to begin with. There is this great saying from Zen Buddhism which says,

Great doubt, great enlightenment;
Little doubt, little enlightenment;
No doubt, no enlightenment.


A quick word about Doubt. Doubt is the agent of faith towards growth. No doubt to me, says there is no faith present, only belief being abused as an avoidance to faith. If you have doubts, then embrace them as a call to growth of faith. If you have no doubts, then you have your reward. How much, and when doubt comes, is a matter of ones readiness.

I agree wholeheartedly. Doubt is a good driver of growth for spiritual persons. Also, it is a plague of the double-minded. When born again Christians get into deep sin, they tend to doubt. It’s a natural outcome of double-minded action.

Please don’t take offense at my harsh words. Paul said he tried to offend no one save in one cause—the saving of souls.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The scholarship you’ve offered is theoretical examination of persons’ response to the numinous and to our own religiosity as a species. You declined to offer what I requested, documentary or historical evidence to support your comments.
What are you talking about? I offered multiple references, none of which coming to mind has anything to do with the numinous. I linked to Gebser, which has nothing to do with that. I linked to Early Christian Writings, which has nothing to do with that. I linked to Fowler's Stages of Faith, which is part of Developmental Studies. So, are you saying this modern science is "only theoretical" and should not be taken seriously? If so, then what I've said about you rejecting modern science is valid. I'm not like you. I accept the validity of this.

Insisting I argue at the level you are insisting, ignores why it's not a valid argument in the first place. I'm not responding with that, because it has little value, to be clear about that. The fact that you think it does, that it is the all-important truth decider proves my point from the very beginning. It's shifting sand.

But if you consider psychology and anthropology enough evidence to discount historic (literal) Christianity, can I use these in support of Christianity?
1. I am not "discounting historic Christianity". Pease stop putting words into my mouth. And 2, yes you may use these!

Have you looked at Maslow’s hierarchy of self-actualization?
Absolutely, yes. I've well familiar with him.

Are you unaware that as an agnostic Jew, Maslow when asked, said Jesus was the most self-actualized person ever, and that Paul ran a close second? Maslow took the readings of the New Testament at face value to weigh them. Why do you do differently?
I would say this, if I look at Fowler's stages of faith, I'd place Jesus at Stage 6. I'd go with Maslow's saying he was self-actualized. Sure. No problem. The Apostle Paul? Not so sure there. I think I'd see him more Stage 3-4, or possibly Stage 5. So not too much dispute there. Paul certainly had some work yet to do. A lot of shadow material in there, a lot of ego still in force.

And I am basing that on what I read in the NT, same as Maslow. I'm not sure what your issue is here.

I dare, sir, with respect, because our Lord said “”Unless you believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sin.”
I believe Jesus was God. Why do you sit in judgement of me otherwise?

I dare, with respect, because Peter warned both of us that “God will take vengeance on flaming fire on all who disbelieve the gospel,”
I don't disbelieve it. Why are you sitting in judgement of another man's servant, against what Jesus says? Who appointed you in Christ's stead? Yourself? Good luck with that. As they say, when you point your finger at others, three are pointing back at you. Be careful how you walk.

and because you have self-identified as “I used to believe all that stuff literally but now I don’t”.
And bingo! Exactly every single point I made from the outset. You judge others with yourself and how you believe as the standard! Shame on you. You have much to learn. I consider this a spiritual sickness on your part.

Have you never read Jesus' word to not judge others, as with what judgment you judge others it will be returned to you? Your judgement of me, is a judgement against yourself. I see you in seat of condemnation here, not myself.

I take issue with “speaking as he understood” and then you parsing what he spoke as lies.
Never once have I said he spoke lies. Never once. Quit lying.

CLEARLY he “understood” he had a literal commission from literal Jewish authorities to literally travel to literal Damascus to bind literal Jewish Messianics. When he was literally traveling in the company of two others he literally heard and saw Jesus Christ and then radically changed his lifestyle and his religious outlook.
I don't doubt the facts of any of this. Why are you falsely claiming against me that I do?

But you “understand this truth differently.” How do you “understand it”?
Ok, let's take something that actually is where I hold a different understanding than Paul. I don't have a different understanding of his travels. Why would I? That's pretty mundane. I have no reason to think of it differently. But let's talk about something where I do have a different interpretation. Let's talk about his experience on the Damascus Road.

I've personally had that type of experience. So naturally, I have some personal insight into it! I've had that Light, brighter than the noonday sun drop me to me knees, quite literally. That happened to me. But how I understand that is not exactly the same as Paul understood it. That what it was, to him. That same thing is not necessarily what it is to another person. Nor is how that manifest and was understood by me is how another person might understand the same type of experience to them! This is where you err. You think that one person's understanding of their experience is THE one and only understanding! This is a very large error on your part.

Was my experience understood by me to be God? Yes. Very much so. Indisputably so, to me. But is that proof that how I understood it then, or understand it now therefore absolute true and no other way of understanding these experiences allowed? Absolutely NOT! That is the Beauty and the power of such experience. They reflect something within us that takes on a particular face that we need it to, as part of our own spiritual awakening. Exactly the same as it was for Paul.

I could go into some great depth here talking about this, but I suspect you'll just breeze over my words and not really consider them, so I'll reserve that for you if you show some humility and actually ask me to talk more from my experience, like Paul's, to you. You could learn from me, if you were willing. I do know what I'm talking about here.

Now I have gotten from you that Paul was guilty of being manipulative and threatening people with existential fears.
You've gotten it completely wrong, again.

The Christians I call brother love Paul, even where they interpret Paul differently than I.
So, you only love Christians who look and think like you? I consider that a very deep shortcoming on your part. I consider that as Paul calls it, a "babe who needs milk". Part of maturing, is not needing to right all the time and only love and agree with those who think like you do, affirming your beliefs to you so you can have "faith". That's very weak faith, to me. You should celebrate meeting those with other points of view than yourself. That's how we all grow, myself included.

Ah, but I don’t judge you because “you interpret scripture” differently. I judge you because you’ve written:
At least you are admitting you are sitting in judgment of me and other Christians who don't think like you. This is actually a very good step forward, allowing you to look at that in yourself. You asked about growing? That's a first step right there.

· Jesus is not God
I've never said he wasn't. Why are you making a false statement against me?

Jesus didn’t understand His Earthly mission
I've never spoken to this, nor was it ever brought up. I've shared no thoughts on this. Why are you falsely claiming I did? Isn't this a violation of one of the ten commandments about bearing false witness?

Jesus didn’t die on the cross to save mankind
Again, this specific point was never discussed. I believe Jesus died. What role that plays in saving others is something I never went into. I just don't think in terms of bloodletting to appease God's wrath. That much I have said.

Jesus didn’t rise from the tomb
Jesus didn't rise as a resuscitated corpse. that's the only thing I've said.

Based on the above and more that you’ve written, I’m having trouble judging you as a Christian at all. I’m sorry if that is offensive. But we must trust Jesus to be saved.
Your arrogance and presumptiveness of others and sitting in the seat of Christ in judgement of them is what is offense. That and the fact you are bearing false witness. Based on those, it should be others who question your claims to be a follower of Jesus. I won't do that. I think you mean well, but you are being poisoned by the system you're in, feeding into the worst of our egos that lead us to do exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught, which is to "love one another as I have loved you".

That woman who predated upon my dying father also sat in judgment of my faith. She sat there, wrinkling her nose at me and asked, "what kind of a Christian are you", because I had declined her version of faith being brought to my father in his dying moments. You too are doing what she did, judging me and my faith. I say to you what I said to her. Shame on you. Your brand of fundamentalism is not making you a compassionate soul. It is not opening the ears of your heart. This is why I say fundamentalism is a pathological, religious disease. You strain at the gnats of theologies, while you swallow the camel of self-righteousness over others.

Now, that was me being harsh. But it's for the benefit of maybe some part of you waking up. I wish you well with this, and if and when you are ready to heal and grow beyond this form of religion into realizing the fruits of the Spirit in yourself, then let me know. I've walked that path, fighting every step to overcome myself and the poisonous religious mentalities I was taught was authoritatively true in order to move into that Liberty of the Spirit.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What are you talking about? I offered multiple references, none of which coming to mind has anything to do with the numinous. I linked to Gebser, which has nothing to do with that. I linked to Early Christian Writings, which has nothing to do with that. I linked to Fowler's Stages of Faith, which is part of Developmental Studies. So, are you saying this modern science is "only theoretical" and should not be taken seriously? If so, then what I've said about you rejecting modern science is valid. I'm not like you. I accept the validity of this.

Insisting I argue at the level you are insisting, ignores why it's not a valid argument in the first place. I'm not responding with that, because it has little value, to be clear about that. The fact that you think it does, that it is the all-important truth decider proves my point from the very beginning. It's shifting sand.

I thought we were moving on, but if we’re not moving on, I’m respectfully requesting documentary or contemporaneous evidence. Many of the “early Christians” not in the NT wrote centuries after Christ. And many of their writings are corrupt IMHO.

I would say this, if I look at Fowler's stages of faith, I'd place Jesus at Stage 6. I'd go with Maslow's saying he was self-actualized. Sure. No problem. The Apostle Paul? Not so sure there. I think I'd see him more Stage 3-4, or possibly Stage 5. So not too much dispute there. Paul certainly had some work yet to do. A lot of shadow material in there, a lot of ego still in force.

And I am basing that on what I read in the NT, same as Maslow. I'm not sure what your issue is here.

My issue is that you are reinterpreting Maslow’s statements about who was highest and second-highest on a Maslow hierarchy! You won’t let Maslow speak for Maslow. It’s an odd choice.

I don't disbelieve it. Why are you sitting in judgement of another man's servant, against what Jesus says? Who appointed you in Christ's stead? Yourself? Good luck with that. As they say, when you point your finger at others, three are pointing back at you. Be careful how you walk.

How is it you take literally Romans (don’t judge another man’s servant) but not the rest of the NT?

And bingo! Exactly every single point I made from the outset. You judge others with yourself and how you believe as the standard! Shame on you. You have much to learn. I consider this a spiritual sickness on your part.

Have you never read Jesus' word to not judge others, as with what judgment you judge others it will be returned to you? Your judgement of me, is a judgement against yourself. I see you in seat of condemnation here, not myself.

Why are you then judging me, in your paragraphs above?

Ok, let's take something that actually is where I hold a different understanding than Paul. I don't have a different understanding of his travels. Why would I? That's pretty mundane. I have no reason to think of it differently. But let's talk about something where I do have a different interpretation. Let's talk about his experience on the Damascus Road.

I've personally had that type of experience. So naturally, I have some personal insight into it! I've had that Light, brighter than the noonday sun drop me to me knees, quite literally. That happened to me. But how I understand that is not exactly the same as Paul understood it. That what it was, to him. That same thing is not necessarily what it is to another person. Nor is how that manifest and was understood by me is how another person might understand the same type of experience to them! This is where you err. You think that one person's understanding of their experience is THE one and only understanding! This is a very large error on your part.

Was my experience understood by me to be God? Yes. Very much so. Indisputably so, to me. But is that proof that how I understood it then, or understand it now therefore absolute true and no other way of understanding these experiences allowed? Absolutely NOT! That is the Beauty and the power of such experience. They reflect something within us that takes on a particular face that we need it to, as part of our own spiritual awakening. Exactly the same as it was for Paul.

I could go into some great depth here talking about this, but I suspect you'll just breeze over my words and not really consider them, so I'll reserve that for you if you show some humility and actually ask me to talk more from my experience, like Paul's, to you. You could learn from me, if you were willing. I do know what I'm talking about here.

I admit that as I study your words, not breezing over them, I have trouble comprehending them. Did Paul see Jesus Christ? Paul said he not only experienced light but heard Jesus say, “I am Jesus, whom you are confronting.”

So, you only love Christians who look and think like you? I consider that a very deep shortcoming on your part. I consider that as Paul calls it, a "babe who needs milk". Part of maturing, is not needing to right all the time and only love and agree with those who think like you do, affirming your beliefs to you so you can have "faith". That's very weak faith, to me. You should celebrate meeting those with other points of view than yourself. That's how we all grow, myself included.

I think you are mistaking what I wrote as “even if different than I”.

Jesus didn't rise as a resuscitated corpse. that's the only thing I've said.

But resurrection IS a corpse coming to life once again. Do you deny a bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Now, that was me being harsh. But it's for the benefit of maybe some part of you waking up. I wish you well with this, and if and when you are ready to heal and grow beyond this form of religion into realizing the fruits of the Spirit in yourself, then let me know. I've walked that path, fighting every step to overcome myself and the poisonous religious mentalities I was taught was authoritatively true in order to move into that Liberty of the Spirit.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, yes.

Obviously, I need to understand you better, as you wrote, before judging. But it sure sounds like you have a different Jesus than I have . . . one who is unable to give us scriptures that we can bank on.

I will be mostly away from this account until after the New Year. I wish you well and good holidays.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My issue is that you are reinterpreting Maslow’s statements about who was highest and second-highest on a Maslow hierarchy! You won’t let Maslow speak for Maslow. It’s an odd choice.
The only difference I offered was that of Paul. And honestly, I wasn't placing Paul on Maslow's scale, if you go back and read what I wrote. I was placing him within Fowler's stages. Someone in fact could be a self-actualized individual on Maslow's hierarchy, yet land at a Stage 2 on Fowler's stages. I think this is something you do not understand about the different lines of development. These are different areas of development.

I think it's a common mistake in thinking that if someone is advanced in one area, they are therefore absolutely developed and complete in all areas. That's a fallacy. That's why, it's not an insult to say someone is developmentally a Stage 2 or Stage 3 in faith development, yet a stage 5 in cognitive development. It's not saying you're an idiot or stupid because in the line of faith development there is less maturity. We all develop different lines, at different rates, and can be highly evolved in one, while stunted in others. That applies to all of us.

How is it you take literally Romans (don’t judge another man’s servant) but not the rest of the NT?
How is it you take all of scripture as absolutely trustworthy, yet do not follow it?

Why are you then judging me, in your paragraphs above?
I am not judging you. To criticize your behaviors is not judging your relationship with God. I am not saying you are not a Christian to say you are not acting like you should in your dismissal of other Christians who think differently about God and the meaning of faith differently than you. You are judging them as God. I am not doing that with you.

I admit that as I study your words, not breezing over them, I have trouble comprehending them.
Beautiful! Thank you for being honest. You should ask me for clarification and make a sincere effort to understand them before simply responding with things which do not fit into what I was saying. It will help our discussion immensely.

Did Paul see Jesus Christ? Paul said he not only experienced light but heard Jesus say, “I am Jesus, whom you are confronting.”
Yes, Paul had an experience that manifest itself to him as Jesus, whom he was persecuting. Yes, I accept that was how he experienced that, and what it was to him. I would very much enjoy discussing this in detail with you. I'll put down a few thoughts to this to open the door to that discussion and we can take it from there.

What Paul had was a mystical "state" experience. I too have had these. Based on his description, it very perfectly describes what these are. When I read it the first time, I recognized it as the same type of experience I had had which began my own religious life. When we talk about state experiences, these are temporary, transcendent moments. Maslow refers to these as "peak experiences". Not to get too deep at this point but simply to mention, these temporary state or peak experiences are quite different from stages of growth. As the saying goes, "states are free, but stages are earned". States can happen to anyone at any stage of development. It has nothing to do with the rigors of growth development.

Within State experiences, they can be broken out into four or six basic categories: psychic, subtle (low and high), causal (low and high), and nondual states of consciousness. (There is academic work supporting all of these if you demand to see it). What Paul experienced was a Subtle State experience. Subtle state experiences is where the transcendent takes various subtle forms. It's how our minds translate tapping into something wholly transcendent to our normal waking consciousness.

In these subtle-state experiences, what manifests to the person's conscious mind, draws from the cultural symbols of the transcendent, or a projection of what that looks like from the person's own subconscious mind. This is why a Catholic will have a vision of Mother Mary, a Buddhist a thousand-armed Avalokiteshvara, the Hindu Sri Krishna, a Native American the Wolf Spirit, and so forth. They are all the same type of experience, and how it manifests to the mind will be coming from the symbol-rich pool of their own subconscious minds. Hearing them "speak" to you, may also be part of that.

So Paul, doubtless was deeply conflicted in his mission against these Christians. He was doubtlessly building things up internally inside of him into a very deep existential crisis. And when he was ready, he let it manifest to him. It "struck him down", he saw Light (very common), he had a vision (very common), he heard the vision speak to him (very common), and it was Jesus, the very one that symbolized his deep conflict within himself. The result was, it turned his life the other direction (very, very, very common in this sorts of spontaneous peak experiences! They are characteristically life changing! I know that from my own experience.

So now, bring the two together of "states and stages". Any and all experiences we have will always end up being translated by our current stage of development, using that mode of thinking, using it's symbolic frameworks. In the case of Paul, he was very much part of the mythic framework. So his experience of the Transcendent ended up being translated by him into that framework. You see where I'm going here?

I'm going to let you digest that for awhile, as you definitely will need to. Please take your time with it, and ask me questions. I have a great deal of knowledge in this area, so approach this trying to learn.

I'll pick up the rest of my response later. I hope to discuss the above point with you as it is just the very beginning of cracking open how I see and process all of these things. You want to know how I think and believe, you'll need to walk through that door.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But resurrection IS a corpse coming to life once again.
Not necessarily. If it was a resuscitated corpse, then how could it be spoken of as walking through a closed door? Again, death and resurrection themes are common in the world's religions. As far as I know, they are all touching on the symbolic theme of dying to the old self and rising a new creation. I think believing it be like a zombie cheapens the meaning of that. As I've said many times, I don't need a magic act to have faith or find truth and meaning in a symbol.

Do you deny a bodily resurrection of Jesus?
I don't imagine the resurrection as a zombie, no. I think it's spiritual. It is the inner man that rises to new life, not the shell of the outer man. To make a corpse come back to life, is the outer man. I find that truly outside the point of the theme of resurrection. That's just resuscitation, or reanimation if you will. It's not the "same body" that was sown into the ground. Paul speaks at some length about this. If I were to put words to it, I'd call it a "subtle body". It's spiritual, not material.

Obviously, I need to understand you better, as you wrote, before judging. But it sure sounds like you have a different Jesus than I have . . . one who is unable to give us scriptures that we can bank on.
Let's spend some time on this. Yes, I do have a "different Jesus" than you. How I envision Jesus becomes a different image to my mind, than how you envision Jesus appears to your mind. In talking about the various stages of faith, you can relate this to the work of Spiral Dynamics, which uses various colors of the rainbow to describe the general stages of growth. For a brief summary of these stages please refer to their work here: Summary of Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan by Steve Dinan

So quite literally at each of those stages we all inhabit different worlds, different realities. The world at the Red vMeme stage is a different world than someone at the Green vMeme stage. And so "Jesus" to someone living at the Red stage is a "Red Jesus". Jesus to someone at the Green stage is a "Green Jesus".

Each person sees him as reflective of their own stage of development. He literally is a "different Jesus" because the individual will see what reflects the limits of their world in him. This is why you have the legalist warrior-king Jesus of Red stage, the upholder of truth and tradition at the Amber stage, the teacher of Wisdom at the Orange Stage, the Pluralistic teacher of unity at the Green Stage, the Universal Wise Sage of the Tiel stage, and so forth. Each stage sees him as representative of themselves, and each stage finds support for their image of him.

For someone as myself, I don't argue Jesus is one thing. I recognize he is many things to many people. I see him in a far more holistic, integral, symbolic network of meaning, all reflective of our own individual faith development. He is vastly more than just a human teacher in this way. So.... trying to "get back to what the Bible says" about him, is a futile search. The meaning is not in the "facts" whatsoever. It's in ourselves in our own spiritual unfolding, looking to that image of our higher Self embodies in the image of Christ.

Again, that will take some time to digest, possibly years actually.

Now as far as Jesus for me being "one who is unable to give us scriptures that we can bank on," I find the entire notion of being able to "bank on" scriptures to fall far short of actual reality. What we read in scriptures is a reflection of our own stage of development at the time. How can we "bank on" something that is a self-reflection?

I do not accept that there can be an external authority to "tell us" truth. We are participants in that process of truth seeking. It is not possible to know the truth passively, "banking on" what someone explains to you. If what they are saying is literally over your head, then how can you "bank on it"? You can't. Truth is a constant process of our own unfolding. This is something you do not yet realize about the nature of your own personal development spiritually.

Again, I'm really speaking from my thought processes quite openly here. I'm sure it seems quite foreign to you, but this is scratching the surface of how I interpret and translate all information that comes into my mind. It's how I process spiritual experience and phenomena, as well as anything scientific and rational, or relational, or anything else whatsoever. It's a vastly complex interconnected web of a dynamic and organic nature. Spirit is the paper on which all this is drawn, and we are That before and beyond all our mappings of reality.

Chew on that for awhile. :)

I will be mostly away from this account until after the New Year. I wish you well and good holidays.
And Merry Christmas to you as well. In your free moments, spend some time looking at some of those links before getting back to me.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Not necessarily. If it was a resuscitated corpse, then how could it be spoken of as walking through a closed door? Again, death and resurrection themes are common in the world's religions. As far as I know, they are all touching on the symbolic theme of dying to the old self and rising a new creation. I think believing it be like a zombie cheapens the meaning of that. As I've said many times, I don't need a magic act to have faith or find truth and meaning in a symbol.
I don't imagine the resurrection as a zombie, no. I think it's spiritual. It is the inner man that rises to new life, not the shell of the outer man. To make a corpse come back to life, is the outer man. I find that truly outside the point of the theme of resurrection. That's just resuscitation, or reanimation if you will. It's not the "same body" that was sown into the ground. Paul speaks at some length about this. If I were to put words to it, I'd call it a "subtle body". It's spiritual, not material.



Let's spend some time on this. Yes, I do have a "different Jesus" than you. How I envision Jesus becomes a different image to my mind, than how you envision Jesus appears to your mind. In talking about the various stages of faith, you can relate this to the work of Spiral Dynamics, which uses various colors of the rainbow to describe the general stages of growth. For a brief summary of these stages please refer to their work here: Summary of Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan by Steve Dinan
So quite literally at each of those stages we all inhabit different worlds, different realities. The world at the Red vMeme stage is a different world than someone at the Green vMeme stage. And so "Jesus" to someone living at the Red stage is a "Red Jesus". Jesus to someone at the Green stage is a "Green Jesus".
Each person sees him as reflective of their own stage of development. He literally is a "different Jesus" because the individual will see what reflects the limits of their world in him. This is why you have the legalist warrior-king Jesus of Red stage, the upholder of truth and tradition at the Amber stage, the teacher of Wisdom at the Orange Stage, the Pluralistic teacher of unity at the Green Stage, the Universal Wise Sage of the Tiel stage, and so forth. Each stage sees him as representative of themselves, and each stage finds support for their image of him.
For someone as myself, I don't argue Jesus is one thing. I recognize he is many things to many people. I see him in a far more holistic, integral, symbolic network of meaning, all reflective of our own individual faith development. He is vastly more than just a human teacher in this way. So.... trying to "get back to what the Bible says" about him, is a futile search. The meaning is not in the "facts" whatsoever. It's in ourselves in our own spiritual unfolding, looking to that image of our higher Self embodies in the image of Christ.
Again, that will take some time to digest, possibly years actually.
Now as far as Jesus for me being "one who is unable to give us scriptures that we can bank on," I find the entire notion of being able to "bank on" scriptures to fall far short of actual reality. What we read in scriptures is a reflection of our own stage of development at the time. How can we "bank on" something that is a self-reflection?
I do not accept that there can be an external authority to "tell us" truth. We are participants in that process of truth seeking. It is not possible to know the truth passively, "banking on" what someone explains to you. If what they are saying is literally over your head, then how can you "bank on it"? You can't. Truth is a constant process of our own unfolding. This is something you do not yet realize about the nature of your own personal development spiritually.
Again, I'm really speaking from my thought processes quite openly here. I'm sure it seems quite foreign to you, but this is scratching the surface of how I interpret and translate all information that comes into my mind. It's how I process spiritual experience and phenomena, as well as anything scientific and rational, or relational, or anything else whatsoever. It's a vastly complex interconnected web of a dynamic and organic nature. Spirit is the paper on which all this is drawn, and we are That before and beyond all our mappings of reality.
Chew on that for awhile. :)
And Merry Christmas to you as well. In your free moments, spend some time looking at some of those links before getting back to me.

To me, according to Scripture, everyone Jesus resurrected had a ' happy-and-healthy physical ' resurrection.
Jesus was giving us a preview, or coming attraction, of what he will be doing on a grand-global Scale during his coming millennium-long day of governing over Earth when earth's nations will be healed ->Revelation 22:2
ALL who died before Jesus died ( Acts of the Apostles 2:34; Matthew 11:11; John 3:13 ) can have a healthy physical resurrection. They can have the same opportunity that was originally offered to Adam before his downfall.
Those with a healthy physical resurrection can gain ' everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth ' during Jesus' 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth begins when Jesus will have earthly subjects, or citizens, from sea to shining sea - Psalms 72:8; Psalms 72:12-14
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
** How is it you take literally Romans (don’t judge another man’s servant) but not the rest of the NT?

How is it you take all of scripture as absolutely trustworthy, yet do not follow it?

What do you mean? I follow the NT teachings including where they tell me which OT teachings I should follow. I was asking you, and am asking again, how you know “don’t judge” is not only literal but specific to a Christian judging bad doctrine. Christians are exhorted to expose bad doctrine.

** Did Paul see Jesus Christ? Paul said he not only experienced light but heard Jesus say, “I am Jesus, whom you are confronting.”

Yes, Paul had an experience that manifest itself to him as Jesus, whom he was persecuting. Yes, I accept that was how he experienced that, and what it was to him. I would very much enjoy discussing this in detail with you. I'll put down a few thoughts to this to open the door to that discussion and we can take it from there.

I read what you wrote. The processes you suggest would be insufficient to explain over 500 persons seeing the resurrected Christ in Galilee, all at one time. I’ve also noticed that Paul experienced Jesus upon the Damascus road in the presence of two witnesses. I’ve also noticed that Paul spoke of a number of visions and encounters with Christ, and that Paul performed miracles.

I do not accept that there can be an external authority to "tell us" truth. We are participants in that process of truth seeking. It is not possible to know the truth passively, "banking on" what someone explains to you. If what they are saying is literally over your head, then how can you "bank on it"? You can't. Truth is a constant process of our own unfolding. This is something you do not yet realize about the nature of your own personal development spiritually.

Jesus Christ said “I’m truth,” and not “I point to truth,” or “I know truth,” etc. Jesus said He holds the keys of death and Hell, and He told numerous persons in the gospels, “You are forgiven of sin because I offer that forgiveness.”

You wrote you do not accept that an external authority can “tell us” truth. Yet today millions of students in America alone are testing in subjects as to whether they are answering truthfully, factually, and thousands of teachers are judging whether their students are factual and promoting facts.

My position is somewhat close to yours—you say none can tell us truth but ourselves, I say One can tell us truth while men tend to suppress uncomfortable truth. It is up to us to receive truth.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
** How is it you take literally Romans (don’t judge another man’s servant) but not the rest of the NT?

What do you mean? I follow the NT teachings including where they tell me which OT teachings I should follow. I was asking you, and am asking again, how you know “don’t judge” is not only literal but specific to a Christian judging bad doctrine. Christians are exhorted to expose bad doctrine.
My point was to say that to be accused of being selective of what I think is valid and what I think isn't, is not nearly so egregious as claiming everything is valid and making excuses for not following through with it. I see the former as "discriminating", and the latter as "hypocritical". As Jesus said, it's not those who claim his name, but those who do the will of the Father who are followers of him.

To not judge others is a spiritual truism for very many reasons, and the reason why I strive to not allow myself to fall into that ego-inflating exercise. I recognize through my own experience how harmful it is, and therefore why I consider that teaching from Jesus to have real meaning to it.

** Did Paul see Jesus Christ? Paul said he not only experienced light but heard Jesus say, “I am Jesus, whom you are confronting.”

I read what you wrote. The processes you suggest would be insufficient to explain over 500 persons seeing the resurrected Christ in Galilee, all at one time.
Yes, it would be insufficient. I wasn't addressing them. I was addressing Paul's experience. Mass hallucinations are a different thing from an individual peak experience, alone in one's own personal existential crisis. There are plenty of modern examples of hundreds of people all "seeing" the Virgin Mary at the same time. Do you believe that proves the Virgin Mary myths? How do you explain that? A demon? Some other magical supernatural explanation?

Here's an example of "thousands" seeing Mary. That's certainly trumps a mere 500 seeing Jesus. :) Virgin Mary 'appears' to crowd of thousands: Incredible photo of mystery being emerges

I’ve also noticed that Paul experienced Jesus upon the Damascus road in the presence of two witnesses. I’ve also noticed that Paul spoke of a number of visions and encounters with Christ, and that Paul performed miracles.
Well, a couple things here. Again, Luke is a historical fiction. He's no true historian and shows no indication he is when you compare him to other historians of the day. So the tale of two witnesses, well, I don't put a lot of stock in that. The reason I don't bother to question too much the road story as a kernel of truth, is because it could easily have been an actual experience of Paul, and then the author of Luke mythologized it a bit. Maybe it didn't happen at all like that. What do you find in Paul's writings which mention the road?

Did Paul have multiple visions of Christ? Sure. He say he did himself in his own legitimate letters. I have visions too. So do other people. People have visions of the Buddha, of Mary, of Krishna, and so forth. Did Paul ever see a resuscitated human corpse? No.

Jesus Christ said “I’m truth,” and not “I point to truth,” or “I know truth,” etc. Jesus said He holds the keys of death and Hell, and He told numerous persons in the gospels, “You are forgiven of sin because I offer that forgiveness.”
Ah, this verse hasn't come up yet. When John has Jesus speaking these words he is portraying him speaking as the Divine Son of God, such as when he says "Before Abraham was I AM". Obviously, that was not talking about his fleshly, earthly body. So speaking as the Divine Christ, the Eternal Logos, "I am the Truth" is in fact accurate. The Being of God is the Truth. But what Jesus said in his earthly words, point to that Truth. Likewise, forgiveness is found "in God". Yes. Anyone who Knows God, knows this in themselves, for God is Love.

You wrote you do not accept that an external authority can “tell us” truth.
I did not write that. I said that to rely exclusively on external authorities, to 100% externalize your knowledge of truth and to simply parrot words in rote without any internal knowledge through your own experience is lopsided, and to say the least prone to grave misunderstanding. Once again, for you it seems you can only hear or imagine others doing what you do, that it's one thing or the other, either all external or all subjective. I have addressed this point multiple times with you, and to reiterate again, I advocate balance.

My position is somewhat close to yours—you say none can tell us truth but ourselves,
Can you please support that with a direct quote from me? I'm not sure where you are getting this from?
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
My point was to say that to be accused of being selective of what I think is valid and what I think isn't, is not nearly so egregious as claiming everything is valid and making excuses for not following through with it. I see the former as "discriminating", and the latter as "hypocritical". As Jesus said, it's not those who claim his name, but those who do the will of the Father who are followers of him.

To not judge others is a spiritual truism for very many reasons, and the reason why I strive to not allow myself to fall into that ego-inflating exercise. I recognize through my own experience how harmful it is, and therefore why I consider that teaching from Jesus to have real meaning to it.

The scriptures say a half-dozen times that the Lord loves when the righteous judge. We need to better understand the context of Matthew 7.

Here's an example of "thousands" seeing Mary. That's certainly trumps a mere 500 seeing Jesus.

I’m familiar with the Fatima appearances and other appearances. I believe the proofs for the resurrection are much stronger, and carry the weight of prophecy.

Well, a couple things here. Again, Luke is a historical fiction. He's no true historian and shows no indication he is when you compare him to other historians of the day.

When I was taking my Bachelor’s in Religion at a secular university, we discussed the hundreds of place, people and event names Luke uses in the Acts and Luke, that they are detailed, exemplary and verified via archaeology. Luke further opens his gospel with his statement that he sought eyewitnesses, verification and to set events by chronology.

Ah, this verse hasn't come up yet. When John has Jesus speaking these words he is portraying him speaking as the Divine Son of God, such as when he says "Before Abraham was I AM". Obviously, that was not talking about his fleshly, earthly body. So speaking as the Divine Christ, the Eternal Logos, "I am the Truth" is in fact accurate. The Being of God is the Truth. But what Jesus said in his earthly words, point to that Truth. Likewise, forgiveness is found "in God". Yes. Anyone who Knows God, knows this in themselves, for God is Love.

I’m an inclusivist. I would not deny that the love of Christ is shed to many people. But I’m also saying that Jesus made extraordinary truth claims about His person—even to saying He had the two requisite OT witnesses to His work, the Father and Himself—and further, that He only needed His own testimony without the Father’s! I’m thus saying many people can have and enjoy the love of Christ, but to better understand Jesus and better navigate life, we need the scriptures.

I did not write that. I said that to rely exclusively on external authorities, to 100% externalize your knowledge of truth and to simply parrot words in rote without any internal knowledge through your own experience is lopsided, and to say the least prone to grave misunderstanding. Once again, for you it seems you can only hear or imagine others doing what you do, that it's one thing or the other, either all external or all subjective. I have addressed this point multiple times with you, and to reiterate again, I advocate balance.

You may want to reread your original post, as I excerpted it and made sure to quote you precisely. However, I also advocate balance in all things. And the Bible advocates such, too. But I find myself thinking today how it is you come to know certain things. Your playbook seems self-made. Men self-make religions and love, death and destruction. We must be cautious while maintaining this balance—it may even be how we maintain this balance.

Now, I absolutely agree that parroting words without internal and experiential knowledge is quite prone to dangers. The Bible recommends ruminating on, meditating on the Bible. I don’t need to intentionally memorize passages although I do so, because verses come to the fore based on situations and experiences. The Bible says isn’t always predicated by “The Bible is true” but perhaps it should be.

**

My position is somewhat close to yours—you say none can tell us truth but ourselves,

Can you please support that with a direct quote from me? I'm not sure where you are getting this from?

Forgive me, we both believe we can get truth from the divine and from others and from experience. But I would say that although we both think it right to pursue balance between what is external and what is subjective, that I have an external, objective playbook—literally a book, of course.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The scriptures say a half-dozen times that the Lord loves when the righteous judge. We need to better understand the context of Matthew 7.
Judge how? In what areas, in what ways? Can you cite the verses you feel contradict where it asks you who are you to judge another man's servant?

I’m familiar with the Fatima appearances and other appearances. I believe the proofs for the resurrection are much stronger, and carry the weight of prophecy.
I do not. I feel actually the modern testimonies are far more relevant because we can actually: 1) Know the names of the people who claim it, and 2) directly question them. You have neither in the Bible's claim. Who are these 500? What are their names? What did they claim to experience? Seeing the "risen Christ"? That's a vision, the same as Paul's. Paul did not see a flesh and bone living corpse.

When I was taking my Bachelor’s in Religion at a secular university, we discussed the hundreds of place, people and event names Luke uses in the Acts and Luke, that they are detailed, exemplary and verified via archaeology. Luke further opens his gospel with his statement that he sought eyewitnesses, verification and to set events by chronology.
Yes, well.. just because the text includes actual historical names that does not mean it's a book of history. That's why they call it "historical fiction". Fiction very often includes actual history, such as romance novels set in the American Civil War. We all know the war happened, but does that mean the tales of Margaret's hot steamy love for Brian is not fictional?

If you want to examine why you shouldn't consider Luke on par with historians of the day, I'd recommend watching this presentation by the historical scholar Richard Carrier if you care to hear a serious scholarly critique. I find it quite informative:

I’m an inclusivist. I would not deny that the love of Christ is shed to many people.
Unlike your idea of inclusivist, I don't believe it's shed to "many" people. I believe it is fully shed to ALL people. I'm not a partial inclusivist, as partial makes it exclusivist to some.

I'll finish my response later....
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You may want to reread your original post, as I excerpted it and made sure to quote you precisely.
Ok, I just did. Here's what I said, including the context you must not have seen:

"I do not accept that there can be an external authority to "tell us" truth. We are participants in that process of truth seeking. It is not possible to know the truth passively, "banking on" what someone explains to you."​

How does this translate into me saying we should not listen to and respect what external authorities say so we should just go with our subjective thoughts instead? I read balance here in those three sentences. Don't you? If so, then what did you object? Did you just make a mistake in what you were reading?

But I find myself thinking today how it is you come to know certain things. Your playbook seems self-made.
Haven't I been actively sharing my sources with you? How many links have I provided? How then is it you don't have any idea how I come to know certain things? I've shown you where I go. I've explained how I process information (on a surface level). Why are you still puzzled?

Also, I find your choice of word, "playbook", to be interesting. :) Do you imagine I have some script I follow in responses, the way an apologist has his little book of "answers" to all these other religions? No, actually, and the reason I'm responding to this point is that what best describes what I am doing is creatively examining and responding to the things you bring up. It's quite dynamic and fluid.

I'm loving our discussion on a number of levels, one of which is that it gives me an opportunity to hear what you're saying and see how my perspectives may address these things that somewhat, somehow begins to convey my evolving thoughts. There are no, in fact cannot be, any "pat answers", as my theology is open-ended and evolving, not codified in "approved doctrine". "Playbook" in no way conveys how I think or am communicating with you.

Men self-make religions and love, death and destruction.
I completely agree. All religions are creations of humans. Christianity included.

We must be cautious while maintaining this balance—it may even be how we maintain this balance.
Cautious, in what regard? Can you explain your thoughts here?

I don’t need to intentionally memorize passages although I do so, because verses come to the fore based on situations and experiences.
That's cool. I have the same thing happen, where verses that speak to the moment come to me all the time. So you do understand then.

Forgive me, we both believe we can get truth from the divine and from others and from experience. But I would say that although we both think it right to pursue balance between what is external and what is subjective, that I have an external, objective playbook—literally a book, of course.
And here's my thoughts to that. I believe that at a certain point one can, and should, ride their bicycle without training wheels. I believe that "playbook", is a living reality not a manual. One can read all about how to dance, but at a certain point you need to move beyond the manual and realize dance can go all over the place - so long as you are dancing!

Religion is simply a matter of training wheels, basic how to step to get the idea of dancing. But you know what? That's not meant to say you must dance this exact way and this way only. That is not dancing, it's intimidating dance. You may completely invent some new steps that are not in the "manual", and in fact should be added to the manual for future dancers who find dancing a dance from 2000 years ago just simply does not express the modern age in which they live.

You see where I'm going in these metaphors? I think your "playbook" idea of scripture really misses the idea that it's not about following the rules, but finding the "flow". Do you understand what I'm saying here? It's not a "playbook", it's an introduction to dancing to get you to start dancing and creating new ways to express it, even if you never go back to the "fundamentals".
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Ok, I just did. Here's what I said, including the context you must not have seen:
"I do not accept that there can be an external authority to "tell us" truth. We are participants in that process of truth seeking. It is not possible to know the truth passively, "banking on" what someone explains to you."​
How does this translate into me saying we should not listen to and respect what external authorities say so we should just go with our subjective thoughts instead? I read balance here in those three sentences. Don't you? If so, then what did you object? Did you just make a mistake in what you were reading?
Haven't I been actively sharing my sources with you? How many links have I provided? How then is it you don't have any idea how I come to know certain things? I've shown you where I go. I've explained how I process information (on a surface level). Why are you still puzzled?
Also, I find your choice of word, "playbook", to be interesting. :) Do you imagine I have some script I follow in responses, the way an apologist has his little book of "answers" to all these other religions? No, actually, and the reason I'm responding to this point is that what best describes what I am doing is creatively examining and responding to the things you bring up. It's quite dynamic and fluid.
I'm loving our discussion on a number of levels, one of which is that it gives me an opportunity to hear what you're saying and see how my perspectives may address these things that somewhat, somehow begins to convey my evolving thoughts. There are no, in fact cannot be, any "pat answers", as my theology is open-ended and evolving, not codified in "approved doctrine". "Playbook" in no way conveys how I think or am communicating with you.
I completely agree. All religions are creations of humans. Christianity included.
Cautious, in what regard? Can you explain your thoughts here?
That's cool. I have the same thing happen, where verses that speak to the moment come to me all the time. So you do understand then.
And here's my thoughts to that. I believe that at a certain point one can, and should, ride their bicycle without training wheels. I believe that "playbook", is a living reality not a manual. One can read all about how to dance, but at a certain point you need to move beyond the manual and realize dance can go all over the place - so long as you are dancing!
Religion is simply a matter of training wheels, basic how to step to get the idea of dancing. But you know what? That's not meant to say you must dance this exact way and this way only. That is not dancing, it's intimidating dance. You may completely invent some new steps that are not in the "manual", and in fact should be added to the manual for future dancers who find dancing a dance from 2000 years ago just simply does not express the modern age in which they live.
You see where I'm going in these metaphors? I think your "playbook" idea of scripture really misses the idea that it's not about following the rules, but finding the "flow". Do you understand what I'm saying here? It's not a "playbook", it's an introduction to dancing to get you to start dancing and creating new ways to express it, even if you never go back to the "fundamentals".

True, to me, humans wrote the Bible (who else on earth has writing ability) but according to 2 Timothy 3:15-16 ALL Scripture is inspired by God meaning men wrote as they were inspired by God to write down God's thoughts.
It's as if they were God's secretary.

At Acts of the Apostles 8:28-30 a non-Christian did Not understand the passage of Scripture he was reading until a Christian named Philip explained the verses to him. Jesus wants his followers to be teachers according to Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 24:14. I suppose doing what Jesus said to do would be moving beyond the Manual.
Moving throughout the Earth to accomplish the international proclaiming about God's kingdom government message as Jesus instructed. - Acts of the Apostles 1:8

The Bible, unlike modern-day self-help books and authors which are always being updated or revised whereas the Bible remains the same without training wheels. We are all free to act responsibly toward God within God's given rules of conduct such as listed at Galatians 5:22-23; Philippians 4:8
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Judge how? In what areas, in what ways? Can you cite the verses you feel contradict where it asks you who are you to judge another man's servant?

That quotation is from Romans, not Matthew 7, but I’m not “another man’s servant”. I’m the servant of Jesus. You are a Christian. I’m judging our father’s servants, not another man’s servants. Most unbelievers need love and gospel, not judgment. But if needed, Christians can judge other Christians and church elders can even put people under church discipline. Much of 1 Cor is judgment on an immoral brother and much of 2 Cor is restoration of that same brother.

The NT also says, “Judgment begins at the house of God” and Paul says “Christians are to judge angels.”

I do not. I feel actually the modern testimonies are far more relevant because we can actually: 1) Know the names of the people who claim it, and 2) directly question them. You have neither in the Bible's claim. Who are these 500? What are their names? What did they claim to experience? Seeing the "risen Christ"? That's a vision, the same as Paul's. Paul did not see a flesh and bone living corpse.

The Jewish people did not wish to have a suffering servant messiah but a military redeemer. They had motive and many of the leaders did all they could to put down claims about the resurrection. I thought you believe in the resurrection so I’m unsure why this is an issue. If it remains an issue, please present your evidence here that Jesus did not appear before the 500 in Galilee:

Evidence 1:

Evidence 2:

Evidence 3:

Yes, well.. just because the text includes actual historical names that does not mean it's a book of history. That's why they call it "historical fiction".

The Bible says thousands of times it is the revealed Word of God. Where does the Bible say it is fictitious?

I did not have time to watch the whole YouTube presentation but I was able to look at the slides. I didn’t see where Dr. Carrier addressed the hundreds of facts in Acts that have been verified by archaeology.

Unlike your idea of inclusivist, I don't believe it's shed to "many" people. I believe it is fully shed to ALL people. I'm not a partial inclusivist, as partial makes it exclusivist to some.

I'll finish my response later....

Hitler was saved, then? Strange idea to me, but I’m open if you’re a universalist.

**

You bolded the wrong words, you should have bolded:

I do not accept that there can be an external authority to "tell us" truth.

That was my quotation. However, it is possible to know the truth passively, “banking on” what someone explains to you. For that reason, I’ve neither drunk sulphuric acid nor did the persons who told me this truth—a truth they also did not personally experience but received.

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies about Himself. More of the Bible’s prophecies have come true since 1948 in Israel. The Bible is authoritative.

Haven't I been actively sharing my sources with you? How many links have I provided? How then is it you don't have any idea how I come to know certain things? I've shown you where I go. I've explained how I process information (on a surface level). Why are you still puzzled?

Also, I find your choice of word, "playbook", to be interesting.
clip_image001.png
Do you imagine I have some script I follow in responses, the way an apologist has his little book of "answers" to all these other religions? No, actually, and the reason I'm responding to this point is that what best describes what I am doing is creatively examining and responding to the things you bring up. It's quite dynamic and fluid.

I'm loving our discussion on a number of levels, one of which is that it gives me an opportunity to hear what you're saying and see how my perspectives may address these things that somewhat, somehow begins to convey my evolving thoughts. There are no, in fact cannot be, any "pat answers", as my theology is open-ended and evolving, not codified in "approved doctrine". "Playbook" in no way conveys how I think or am communicating with you.

1. You are taking one word too far. Playbook is to me the resources and knowledge one draws upon.


2. When I say “your playbook seems self-made” it would be better to write “your playbook is highly subjective”. There are ramifications. I’m unwilling to rest my spirituality with modern theorists drawing from anecdotal observations. Not when Jesus fulfills prophecy, answers prayers, and predicts the course of history.

And here's my thoughts to that. I believe that at a certain point one can, and should, ride their bicycle without training wheels. I believe that "playbook", is a living reality not a manual. One can read all about how to dance, but at a certain point you need to move beyond the manual and realize dance can go all over the place - so long as you are dancing!

Religion is simply a matter of training wheels, basic how to step to get the idea of dancing. But you know what? That's not meant to say you must dance this exact way and this way only. That is not dancing, it's intimidating dance. You may completely invent some new steps that are not in the "manual", and in fact should be added to the manual for future dancers who find dancing a dance from 2000 years ago just simply does not express the modern age in which they live.

You see where I'm going in these metaphors? I think your "playbook" idea of scripture really misses the idea that it's not about following the rules, but finding the "flow". Do you understand what I'm saying here? It's not a "playbook", it's an introduction to dancing to get you to start dancing and creating new ways to express it, even if you never go back to the "fundamentals".

Please give me evidence so I can know for certain that I should follow the book or follow a or the book for a while before not adhering to it. There are certain books I’ve found wonderful lifelong. I need a reason to abandon them now as literal or true or truth-telling.

I suppose doing what Jesus said to do would be moving beyond the Manual.

Showing someone manual statements they’ve overlooked or neglected is not showing someone to go beyond the manual text.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And since this has been a bone of contention for some time, let me say many important decisions are credence decisions: "Four of five dentists choose . . . " and "The policemen I know say that . . . "

Jesus Christ and the scriptures have far more credence than many theorists IMHO.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That quotation is from Romans, not Matthew 7, but I’m not “another man’s servant”. I’m the servant of Jesus. You are a Christian. I’m judging our father’s servants, not another man’s servants.
I had the impression you were careful in reading scripture. I think you need to look more closely at the context here. It very clearly is talking about Christians not judging other Christians - something which you think is okay, for some reason. Let's me present to you the passage:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
Well, there you go. As I said all along. I have a different understanding of what is "acceptable" then you do. The passage spells that out pretty clearly. Quit judging, and you may find a world you don't know of yet where you can enjoy and explore without the judgement of others upon you.

Most unbelievers need love and gospel, not judgment.
ALL human beings need this. That's what Jesus taught.

But if needed, Christians can judge other Christians and church elders can even put people under church discipline. Much of 1 Cor is judgment on an immoral brother and much of 2 Cor is restoration of that same brother.
I don't think you are wise enough to claim a position to do this. I think you are in error. I think you think you are wiser than you really are.

The Jewish people did not wish to have a suffering servant messiah but a military redeemer. They had motive and many of the leaders did all they could to put down claims about the resurrection. I thought you believe in the resurrection so I’m unsure why this is an issue.
Have you forgotten our discussion? I don't believe in a resuscitated corpse notion of the resurrection.

If it remains an issue, please present your evidence here that Jesus did not appear before the 500 in Galilee:

Evidence 1: It was a vision the same as Paul's.

Evidence 2: It was a vision the same as Paul's.

Evidence 3: It was a vision the same as Paul's.

The Bible says thousands of times it is the revealed Word of God. Where does the Bible say it is fictitious?
Of course it doesn't say this about itself! Modern criticism does not regard that voice as authoritative. Right?

I did not have time to watch the whole YouTube presentation but I was able to look at the slides. I didn’t see where Dr. Carrier addressed the hundreds of facts in Acts that have been verified by archaeology.
You need to watch it. It addresses that. Luke cribbed Josephus. That doesn't make Luke a historian any more than Wendy Brown writing about Margaret's hot steamy love for Brian when Abraham Lincoln was president makes that actually history because Abraham Lincoln was a real person.

Hitler was saved, then? Strange idea to me, but I’m open if you’re a universalist.
I don't think of "saved" in these sense you do, I'm sure. But I don't consider myself a "universalist" in the sense of what universalism generally teaches. I don't believe everyone will be "saved" from hell. I don't believe there is a such a thing, and I believe that it is we ourselves who deny God and create our own "hell" through that. Hitler was a deeply dysfunctional human being, a broken soul whose own hell created death for those around him. Yet, God is Love. Hitler's demise was in his own hands, broken and shattered as those were for him. Even when we separate ourselves from God, God is Love.

I heard someone I respect put it this way once. "I'm not a universalist. I'm a lovist". I like that much better!

That was my quotation. However, it is possible to know the truth passively, “banking on” what someone explains to you. For that reason, I’ve neither drunk sulphuric acid nor did the persons who told me this truth—a truth they also did not personally experience but received.
We're back to this reducing things down to the lowest possible denominator. Physical threats are considerably more simplistic than spiritual pitfall. The latter operates at a much higher level than if you stick your thing into a meat grinder it will hurt real bad. :)

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies about Himself. More of the Bible’s prophecies have come true since 1948 in Israel. The Bible is authoritative.
Yeah, no it's not. It anything but reliable. Prophecies are a magician's sleight of hand. I've explained that to you previously.

2. When I say “your playbook seems self-made” it would be better to write “your playbook is highly subjective”.
No, actually I'd say they are quite balanced between subjective and objective realities.

I’m unwilling to rest my spirituality with modern theorists drawing from anecdotal observations.
You shouldn't! I've never advocated trusting modernists as the new voice of authority for you. I am saying you should consider with an open mind what they say, and weigh it with your own heart. See where that takes you. Use both your reasoning mind, and open heart, and learn to hear both with open hands. That is the only thing I say.

BTW, what on earth do you mean that modern theorists are drawing from "anecdotal observations"? This sounds like you dismiss modernity, as I've been saying from the outset. Explain what you believe they are doing? Playing loose and fast with the data? I don't understand what you imagine they do looks like.

Not when Jesus fulfills prophecy, answers prayers, and predicts the course of history.
Yeah, no. Prophecies and predicting the future are forms of mythology, which when you examine them critically do not stand up. Does God answer prayers? Sure, but in ways I don't think you would understand. It's not magically.

Please give me evidence so I can know for certain
How thoroughly modern of you! :) This is your whole problem.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I had the impression you were careful in reading scripture. I think you need to look more closely at the context here. It very clearly is talking about Christians not judging other Christians - something which you think is okay, for some reason. Let's me present to you the passage:


Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

Well, there you go. As I said all along. I have a different understanding of what is "acceptable" then you do. The passage spells that out pretty clearly. Quit judging, and you may find a world you don't know of yet where you can enjoy and explore without the judgement of others upon you.

Are you, like Paul, asking the question, or are you being rhetorical? I don’t judge my brother or sister in regards to eating or not eating or observing a day above others (both cited in this Romans chapter) and other points of the Mosaic Law. I am and you are to judge/discern et al when a brother is immoral or has bad doctrine. A pastor has heretical doctrine? Judge it is time to change churches. A brother is immoral and claiming to be born again, saying adultery against his spouse is okay as a Christian? It’s time for judgment and church discipline.

You seem to feel that there are only passages in the NT against judging for all circumstances, when there are also passages requiring judgment in some circumstances.

**

Most unbelievers need love and gospel, not judgment.

ALL human beings need this. That's what Jesus taught.

All human beings need the saving gospel of Jesus? Then why are you annoyed that I share the saving gospel with people?

The Bible says thousands of times it is the revealed Word of God. Where does the Bible say it is fictitious?

Of course it doesn't say this about itself! Modern criticism does not regard that voice as authoritative. Right?

1. Are you aware it is not a single voice but the claim of several dozen writers and scribes, each saying they were transmitting God’s Word to man?


2. Can you or I present modern scholarship evidence that conclusively proves the Bible writers were not understanding what they wrote or falsified what they wrote?

You need to watch it. It addresses that. Luke cribbed Josephus. That doesn't make Luke a historian any more than Wendy Brown writing about Margaret's hot steamy love for Brian when Abraham Lincoln was president makes that actually history because Abraham Lincoln was a real person.

A conservative scholar would date Luke’s writing before Josephus. Not only does this vice versa the claim (Josephus cribbed Luke) but Luke claims to have spoken to eyewitnesses and to have made an orderly account and to have been in the know from the beginning of his narrative (Luke 1) where Josephus explains in his writings he is documenting some things firsthand and some things he culled from other sources.

**

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies about Himself. More of the Bible’s prophecies have come true since 1948 in Israel. The Bible is authoritative.

Yeah, no it's not. It anything but reliable. Prophecies are a magician's sleight of hand. I've explained that to you previously.

How can Bible prophecies be one’s sleight of hand when the ones under discussion (Jesus, Israel post-1947) were fulfilled by ones who didn’t author the prophecies? Consider the folly of what you’re implying, for example, “Jesus chose to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill that prophecy, and chose to be taken to Egypt as a toddler to fulfill that prophecy, and chose to rise from the dead to fulfill those prophecies.”

BTW, what on earth do you mean that modern theorists are drawing from "anecdotal observations"? This sounds like you dismiss modernity, as I've been saying from the outset. Explain what you believe they are doing? Playing loose and fast with the data? I don't understand what you imagine they do looks like.

A modern or current theorist who states that people are in different phases or stages of spirituality is doing which of the following:

1. Speaking as a divine amanuensis

2. Speaking as a scientist who uses a “spirit meter” to measure stages of spiritual growth

3. Speaking as a scientist who is culling the meat of notable scientific studies measuring the spirituality of persons in double-blind experiments

4. Speaking from a position of hypothesizing regarding anecdotal observation

**

Not when Jesus fulfills prophecy, answers prayers, and predicts the course of history.

Yeah, no. Prophecies and predicting the future are forms of mythology, which when you examine them critically do not stand up. Does God answer prayers? Sure, but in ways I don't think you would understand. It's not magically.

It’s assumptive on your part to again discount my statement without inquiring as to my evidence. Jesus has answered so many thousands of my own prayers that I’m unwilling to discount His intervention. Jesus has kept multiple promises that I have observed regarding religious observance, finance et al . . .

**

Please give me evidence so I can know for certain

How thoroughly modern of you!
C:\Users\MBSHER~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png
This is your whole problem.

It is not modernity’s imposition but a biblical frame of reference to pursue evidence. If you like, I can refer you to Bible passages about how to receive evidence from God, God’s view toward the evidence method, what and whom should be tested, how to test, etc.

I have from you a bunch of (please excuse my frankness) hippy-dippy nonsense regarding spirituality and man. You don’t seem to understand your self-contradictory commentary.

For example, you want me to be “open” to new ways of understanding things I claim to already understand BUT in your last post you write:

“God doesn’t answer prayers in ways you can understand” and

“It’s a problem to ask for evidence to test my assumptions”

. . . Neither of which contradictions bode well for 1) understanding God 2) defining terms on anything so we both comprehend one another 3) ever receiving proof or evidence of anything concrete.

Please provide non-touchy feely, hippy-dippy evidence for your assertions, proving that you and/or modern scholars have disproven the Bible as the Word of God, or else let’s close this conversation for now. Please understand I’m using the word “proving” in the common vernacular:

To establish the truth or validity of (something) by the presentation of argument or evidence.”

Thanks.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Are you, like Paul, asking the question, or are you being rhetorical? I don’t judge my brother or sister in regards to eating or not eating or observing a day above others (both cited in this Romans chapter) and other points of the Mosaic Law.
You are a little bit too literal here. These can and should be taken as simply examples of how we judge each other over trivial matters, not matters of the heart - which was the very point of these examples of Paul. You think because it's not about meat or days, then it's OK to judge other Christians? I think you are still on the milk here....

I am and you are to judge/discern et al when a brother is immoral or has bad doctrine.
Which if you apply that to what Paul was saying about judging meat, that is in fact a moral judgement. I'm sorry you don't see the point of Paul here, but that also explains a lot.

A pastor has heretical doctrine?
Yeah, heretical to whom? The Pharisees of the Christian church, straining at gnats while swallowing camels?

Judge it is time to change churches. A brother is immoral and claiming to be born again, saying adultery against his spouse is okay as a Christian? It’s time for judgment and church discipline.
That's really tragic to hear you seat yourself in the position of their judge. You know so little, yet presume so much. This is what Jesus warned against.

You seem to feel that there are only passages in the NT against judging for all circumstances, when there are also passages requiring judgment in some circumstances.
No, there is enlightened guidance from known wrongs, and sitting in judgement of others without truly listening from the heart. I'm not hearing that demonstrated here.

All human beings need the saving gospel of Jesus? Then why are you annoyed that I share the saving gospel with people?
I'm annoyed by those who mistake getting people to accept doctrinal beliefs with truly reaching out through a heart of love. It makes me feel bad for those "believers" who think this is truly loving.

1. Are you aware it is not a single voice but the claim of several dozen writers and scribes, each saying they were transmitting God’s Word to man?
I'm quite aware. There were a lot more than just them! Yet those texts don't appear in your bible because.... why? :)

2. Can you or I present modern scholarship evidence that conclusively proves the Bible writers were not understanding what they wrote or falsified what they wrote?
Well, I think there is more that sufficient reason and evidence to support this is not miracle supernatural stuff, but rather normal mythmaking processes you see in all cultures. Nothing extraordinary in that regards.

A conservative scholar would date Luke’s writing before Josephus.
Sure, but that doesn't mean anything. That's why modern scholarship is necessary to check those assumptions. I believe modern scholarship has a much sharper edge that traditionalist, or conservative ideas.

Not only does this vice versa the claim (Josephus cribbed Luke)
That's not valid at all. The evidence shows it the other way around, quite clearly. Josephus most certainly did NOT crib Luke. He never cites him. What's more the evidence shows how and why it was Luke trying to bolster his fiction by citing the history from Josephus. Carrier goes into that quite a bit in that video, you did not watch.

but Luke claims to have spoken to eyewitnesses and to have made an orderly account and to have been in the know from the beginning of his narrative
Again, addressed at some length in that Carrier video you chose not to watch. You really should so we can talk specifics here.

How can Bible prophecies be one’s sleight of hand when the ones under discussion (Jesus, Israel post-1947) were fulfilled by ones who didn’t author the prophecies?
This sleight of hand is really a matter of reading back into the rather open and obscure texts a modern context where you make it "fit". You should read some of the early "prophecy fulfilled" stuff from generations past. It's no different, other that they were "fulfilled" in their day and age with this and that event, exactly like your "1948" "prophecy fulfilled" idea. It's no different. Same prophecy, different historical fulfillment.

Consider the folly of what you’re implying, for example, “Jesus chose to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill that prophecy, and chose to be taken to Egypt as a toddler to fulfill that prophecy, and chose to rise from the dead to fulfill those prophecies.”
Oh my. I'm sorry, I need to take a step back here. These were stories, narrative written long after the fact of whatever it was that really happened to make it fit into these "prophecies" as some sort of indication Jesus "fulfilled" them. The stories are fabrications, woven around their particular reading of Jewish scriptures, making Jesus born of a "virgin", and the like based on what they believed the scriptures were saying.

This is not a miracle. This is mythmaking. Not that the myths are meaningless, as they aren't. But don't mistake them as history or proofs of magic or the supernatural. I actually suspect you know this already.

A modern or current theorist who states that people are in different phases or stages of spirituality is doing which of the following:

1. Speaking as a divine amanuensis
Why on earth would you think this? Do you not understand research and creating maps, such as human development? It's not magic my friend.

2. Speaking as a scientist who uses a “spirit meter” to measure stages of spiritual growth
Again, I'm sorry. I think you really need to acquaint yourself with modern research. I'd recommend you buying and spending some time with Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning: James W. Fowler: 9780060628666: Amazon.com: Books as a basic starting point. Read and understand what goes into this research. You are speaking from ignorance.

3. Speaking as a scientist who is culling the meat of notable scientific studies measuring the spirituality of persons in double-blind experiments
Again, you need to step beyond your ignorance here.

4. Speaking from a position of hypothesizing regarding anecdotal observation
Why do you consider the research anecdotal? Who has fed you this, and how to you justify that view? If you can't, why do you say it?

Not when Jesus fulfills prophecy, answers prayers, and predicts the course of history.

It’s assumptive on your part to again discount my statement without inquiring as to my evidence. Jesus has answered so many thousands of my own prayers that I’m unwilling to discount His intervention. Jesus has kept multiple promises that I have observed regarding religious observance, finance et al . .
I very clearly and specifically did not challenge "answered prayer", only this stuff of "fulfilled prophecy".

Buddha answers prayers too. So do all the gods of the world to those that believe in them. In my view, it's all God, and we all access that through our faith, be we Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or what have you. The religious face is just simply a different colored key, yet each with it's own personality.
.
It is not modernity’s imposition but a biblical frame of reference to pursue evidence. If you like, I can refer you to Bible passages about how to receive evidence from God, God’s view toward the evidence method, what and whom should be tested, how to test, etc.
All of this is an interpretation through a quasi-modernist lens. It most certainly is not an injunction for an empiricist framework.

I have from you a bunch of (please excuse my frankness) hippy-dippy nonsense regarding spirituality and man. You don’t seem to understand your self-contradictory commentary.
No, actually, you don't understand what I'm saying and see it as self-contradictory. :) BTW, do you know what "paradox" means? Wouldn't you say the Eternal is paradoxical? If not, why not?

For example, you want me to be “open” to new ways of understanding things I claim to already understand BUT in your last post you write:

“It’s a problem to ask for evidence to test my assumptions”
Where in the F* did I say this? Please show me the exact quote in the exact post number. It is not there. This is nothing I ever said, nor would ever say! Where did you get this from? Ask away! I have tons of evidence, and I've linked you to them. Have you read them? No? Why not?

. . Neither of which contradictions bode well for 1) understanding God 2) defining terms on anything so we both comprehend one another 3) ever receiving proof or evidence of anything concrete.
Concrete. Yes, that's a problem with you and your literalist expectations. Nothing is concrete in any of human experience.

Please provide non-touchy feely, hippy-dippy evidence for your assertions
Hippie-Dippy? You consider Richard Carrie "hippie dippie"? :) This is ludicrous. You have no legs to stand on. You are resorting to unsubstantiated rhetoric at this point. Give up the fight, oh Black Knight with no arms and no legs saying "come back here and I'll bite you. :) (Reference to Python's Holy Grail).

, proving that you and/or modern scholars have disproven the Bible as the Word of God, or else let’s close this conversation for now.
You ask for evidence, I provide it. You ignore it. Then demand it or you'll shut down the conversation? Hah. :)

Please understand I’m using the word “proving” in the common vernacular:

To establish the truth or validity of (something) by the presentation of argument or evidence.”
Read the damn references, or quit claiming I'm spouting "hippie dippie" nonsense. I've given you the references. Now go do your homework.
 
Last edited:
Top