• 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!

Biblical Christianity?

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Looked into beyond the theology, you are asking me, but then you point to theological questions. This makes no sense. Look beyond into what, are you asking? You just asked me theological questions.

I never asked theological questions (for example, what scripture says this...and what culture said that...). I'm hoping you're answering questions from your perspective and experience. Short scripture is fine as long as you add simple commentary related to your points.

I'm quite open to people's perspectives. The more the better. I don't think you seem to be however, with incredulous responses with triple question marks, and the like. You seem to be assuming a whole lot about me, when it is clear you don't have any real understanding of what my actual knowledge, awareness, or background is. Are you sure you are open to other's perspectives?

Sorry. I do make assumptions based on the tone of your post. It's very defensive right now. That makes it hard to understand your point, especially spiritual ones.

This is what I say about "Biblical Christianity", such as it is. Why is it about the Bible?

Scripture is fine but if you're talking about anything, make sure you add commentary in your own words. It let's me know whether the points you are making are yours or John's.

BTW, what source do you really know that I am talking from?

Scripture. If I remember correctly. I don't think you posted anything else.

You guys? What, you guys? Where? Who? I don't see anyone else next to me? Who are you hallucinating? How many do you see?

Defense (hallucinated) against defense doesn't make a nonoffense post.

Sorry. You all/christians/or christian minded, seem to think and defend yourself so similarly that it's hard to answer with something unique when it reads the same. After awhile, I feel robotic.

Because people hold different perspectives, that results in war? Not sure I'd want to be your friend, with expectations the people all believe and think alike, or there will be a violent response in a declarations of war.

Getting defense. Yes. In history, people had different believes and it caused war. If only the church, protestants, and pagans sat around and talked about their differences, we'd probably have a better non-christian oriented would.

But, yeah. It's hard to reply to this because it would sound like an insult; and, that isn't my intention.

I don't know how it can't. Don't you ever simply sit under the night sky and feel your soul connect with God? Tell me you've had that experience, right? Did you need to open the Bible for it to happen? Could it happen never even having hear of a Bible in the first place? Do you have spiritual experiences? Have you ever?

I'm trying to back track. I think I lost between replies. I think you said something against those who believe the bible is the word of god; and, I asked if it helps with your spirituality (direct question).

Extra question. In my signature, and other poetry, that's the best I can describe what some people define as "god" through art; bible christians through the bible. All of that you listed, yes, in your point of view, it would be god. Nothing wrong with that. How did that pastor say it...it's all in translation. It's the words.

So you agree everything is Christ's voice, right? Everything, including the Bible? How about everything including the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Diamond Sutras, the Tao De Ching, etc? Does everything include those? No? Then it isn't everything then, right? Only just the books you read?

Of course. Take away god and use divinity. It's a better word to describe what's sacred instead of mixing Hindu (and other eastern) gods with abrahamic god. It does not match whatsoever.

Assumption? Honestly, I only went to a Hindu temple once. I never read the Bhagavad Gita. RF Hindu online (people rather than books), from what I understand it, most don't use the book as a "sacred scripture." As a result, it's hard to answer your question. I assume you haven't practiced any Hindu or Dharmic practices either?

I'm not sure what to say to this. The Bible doesn't help you interpret anything. The Bible is a book you read and interpret using your mind, through the programming of your culture, peers, language, personality, worldviews, etc. The Bible doesn't talk. It just sits there on the table quietly saying nothing, until you use your mind and read the words through filters of your set of eyes you're reading with.

People have different opinions. I don't know if my opinions sound like facts or tell people they are wrong or not. We usually don't see our own biases through our opinions. Human nature.

Whether it is true or right or wrong isn't my point.

Most christians use the bible to interpret and guide them to understand god's creation, interaction with people, and sense of self. It's like if you want to know god by looking at the sky, that's fine. Some people like to look at the sky, see god, as well as get to know other people around jesus' day who sees god as well. It's a communal thing.

Christ speaks from his father's Words so that people can come to his father. God calls his son, the Word, because he is special and the only one god blesses to spread his Word. The bible speaks about those who first and in person interacted with christ/God's Word/Christ. Christians see the bible sacred because it has god's laws through christ.

How do you see the apostle's interaction with christ in the skies?

But, yeah, got to look deeper than that. I understand the negative views about the bible. That's is a christian thing. Some exclusion, but, yeah, that's basically how abrahamic view things. The nature of the belief not how you express it.

Why do I get the very distinct impression that some Christians, yourself apparently, who think of the Bible as if it were some living, organic entity of its own, like it has a flesh cover or something? Do you think the Bible is an animate life force of some sort, that sends off magic energies? I certainly am familiar with the term Bibliolatry, which is the worship of the Bible as if it were God. That's a problem, in my fair estimation.

Do I think? No. I'm talking about many christians who do. Evangelists rather than liturgical believers.

Do you think they see the bible having energies?

I can't figure another way to explain the importance of god without your thinking they see it as a special force or something. The bible/god's words inspire the authors to write the correct message of christ.

Do you understand it logically?

Reading and comprehension are done with the mind. If you mean hearing with the heart, that's fine. I have no problem with that. That's what I do.

Everyone has their different ways to connect with god.

If some people connect with god through the bible (using and reading christ's words written) that's cool too.

I personally have nothing against it. (Going by your posts) Is it that you don't understand it? In your first or second comment you were more defensive. If you rephrase it, are you saying you don't understand it or it's just wrong? or both?

It seems many treat it as though it were, consider it has some goal in mind for you when you read it, claiming it helps you interpret it as if it were a friend standing over your shoulder, and the like. It may not be "god", but it sure sound's like it's viewed as some sort of living creature with a will, mind, and intention.

It does help people interpret. It's like if John's mother passed away. Her friends want to talk to his mother but since she passed away, they talk to her (get to know her history etc) through her son. Sometimes they reminisce about John's mother through her family's photo album. Nicknacks helps. Of course talking about memories is precious as well.

It depends on the person. It's not inherently right or wrong.

Yeah. Bible-thumpers do make the bible seem like an idol. I never heard them treat the bible as christ just his word's. The bible didn't die on the christ. I'm sure you know that?

Who is belittling that? I'm not. They are free to do so, but as I said from the outset, it is not necessary to read the Bible in order to know God. "Biblical Christianity" as a term, is frankly nothing more than a political slogan with no basis in historical reality. If the Bible was the only criteria, than would you call the Roman Catholic Church "Biblical Christianity"? No? Please explain why not then?

I know it is not necessary; and it is not wrong either. To me, it makes sense. I agree with you that god (however defined) is an experience.... I also believe you can learn about god through books too, not either or. You can learn about the divine in everything. I don't see how books are different. Least in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So it's like an internal therapy session?
Certainly. To me it very much touches into what you go into in a psychotherapeutic setting, facing those inner demons, and then some. That's not to say when someone first starts meditating that they enter into these deeper hidden places. But that doesn't happen at first in psychotherapy either.

It's not until one begins to feel safety and are willing to open to themselves that stuff starts to come up for them to face. Believe me, most people prefer the devil they know, rather than the devil they don't know yet, and they make all manner of justifications for avoiding facing the truth of themselves. It truly takes real faith to trust enough in the Unknown, to let go and face the truths our ourselves.

People have had relayed experiences where they claim they were possessed by demons so that's why some of them say it's demonic.
Sure, it is a demon of their own creation, and the more they fear and repress it, the more powerful it is. If it comes up when they are unwilling to face it, it can seem like it's something "other" to themselves. They made it that way out of fear, and guilt, and shame. But it is simply a manifestation of something in themselves they are hiding from, and creating a monster out of it through their own fear of it, through their own fear of themselves.

Here's a post I made recently that talks about these things you may find useful too. Searching for the Divine
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Seminary education and bible commentaries and study bibles and websites like Blue Letter Bible don't exist.
I'm honestly not sure what that has to do with my responses? It bypasses the points I made. Sure they exist. They would fit into the "group-think" part of my response. It doesn't address any of the points I raised at all, let alone challenge them in any way. How do you think it does? Explain.

Well if it isn't what the Bible teaches it's pretty close to what the author originally thought based on the what Greek and Hebrew scholars think.
Which scholars? The things I am saying can be found in modern scholarship all over the place. And again, you have no idea what the original authors thought, and nor do they. No one does. It's all best guesses based upon current information. And if someone is not availing themselves of current information, then their speculations are usually far less founded. They used to think the earth was flat, for instance.

It's like any other work of philosophy...

But it claims to be more than that.
The mythologies about it, claim it is more than that. But is it really? If someone wanted to elevate the writings of Immanuel Kant, suppose he had a following of devotees, they would create mythologies to make his works stand out above the rest. He came from God with a mission to teach them, and commission them to teach others his great works.

All of that is mythmaking. But if you look at the texts without that patina, you can approach it on a level playing field as one of many works of the same kind. It's no different with the Bible. It's only "Holy" to those who make it that for themselves for the purpose of inspiring faith in themselves and others.

In effect, God doesn't communicate.
You don't consider Creation communication? The Bible certainly does! :)

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.

~Ps. 19:1-3​

Where is the printing press in that image? Sounds to me like God communicates without words, "day after day, and night after night". Doesn't nature speak God's truth to you, without you needing a book in your hands to read? It certainly does for me! It certainly did for the Psalmist above as well.

If by imperfect you mean untrue then yeah, I do.
So, if she or he is imperfect, makes a statement that is inaccurate or faulty due to their own ignorance about something, you write them off, dismiss them as someone you can trust in anything they have to say? Sounds like you're priming yourself to become a Neo-atheist the second you find out Noah's flood didn't really happen. :)

That's the issue, if the Bible teaches something false it is in error.
So, you believe rainbows come about as a result of magic and not natural processes? The Bible teaches that the rainbow was put into the sky to tell Noah God won't flood the earth anymore.

Now, is that "false"? Not really. It is however scientifically invalid. It is an inaccurate statement. But as a metaphor, as a poetic expression it can have meaning. But in your mind, that error invalidates the whole Bible? I think, as I just said, you are priming yourself to become a Neo-atheist once you acknowledge the Bible is not inerrant. That's just one of countless examples of inaccuracies. But so what? Why can't you allow for the people of the day these were written in to simply have been ignorant of the facts about the natural world?

Why such a tightly-strung definition of God? Do you do that with your significant other in your life, that if they tell you their love is true, yet they blow the science quiz at school you call them a liar and break up with them? Is that how you approach these things? Why?

Inerrancy is not "perfection" which is an arbitrary term, it's the validity of the statement. People are fallible, meaning they can err in their thoughts and communications. Hopefully their words are inerrant most of the time.
Inerrancy is also an arbitrary term, and a non-reality anywhere in the universe. Inerrant according to what or whose standards? It's the same non-reality as "perfection". What the true criteria is is truthfulness, or sincerity. Telling the truth to the best of one's abilities at the time. That's what trustworthy, not "accuracy".

The Bible is both infallible (no possibility it can err) and inerrant (it does err) because its message was communicated across a large span of time and that message is unchanging (it was written that way for a reason).
But yet, neither is true. It does have errors of facts within it. But that doesn't matter really. It's only that erroneous expectation, that mythology that elevates it to the undiscerning in order to bolster its appeal and authority to others that creates this problem that when you look beneath the covers and see in fact just how human it really is, like the rest of all of us through all time, it runs the risk of creating a crisis of faith for folks like yourself.

The only alternative then becomes for them to either accept the errors, lose faith and join the ranks of Neo-atheists who reject the baby with the bathwater, or go into denialism, trying to reject science and knowledge and erroneously calling that stubborn denialism "faith". Both of those are weak alternatives, and completely unnecessary..

To say that the Bible can be interpreted any kind of freaky way you can think is to say in essence that God might as well have not communicated.
Not at all. Think of the parable of Jesus about the Sower of the Seeds. The ground it falls on and the growth that happens or doesn't happen doesn't deny that the seeds were cast out there to begin with. That's communication. Whether it takes root and grows or not, or struggles to grow, is entirely a matter of the ground it falls on. God communicates in every second of everyday through everything and everyone.

That someone fails to see it, does not mean it's not there or it's not real. It means that the person is blocked through something in themselves from allowing it to speak to them, such as being fearful of being wrong and denying knowledge in order to protect and preserve their beliefs they have formed and adopted from others. That would be the "weeds" in Jesus' parable.

But we know that the Bible says that God doesn't author confusion. Does he?
That is absolutely correct. We create the confusion by creating these edifices for ourselves about what we think God is doing or not, and when we do that, it creates confusion. The modern-day myth of Biblical Inerrancy, is one of those sources of confusion. There are countless such things we do that create confusion for ourselves.

That's in there. Your choice what you do with this information.
It's my interpretation, just as yours is yours. However, I think mine is better suited to face the storms of knowledge which throws itself against error. Faith is not about facts. Faith is about being able to accept facts with courage. Doing so grows faith.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry. I do make assumptions based on the tone of your post. It's very defensive right now. That makes it hard to understand your point, especially spiritual ones.
I'm going to deal with this before I address your other points. Admittedly, I have taken a more postured response to you right now, following, but not previously to your post I was responding to where you introduced that tone with me in our conversation. Look at your words which created this atmosphere, you now are claiming I introduced:

Have you looked into christianity beyond the theology? The actual divinity and meaning of christ, community, and christ's teachings about his father???
....
If you look beyond the ink and stuff and what christians say, you'd get how the bible is sooo important to one set of people but not for others. Be more open to people's perspective.
....
You guys can disagree all you want.
.....
why belittle people who want to use scripture as part of learning who god is?

Now, please be honest with yourself things like asking "Have you looked into Christianity beyond the theology?" adding tripple questions marks, which screams "are you that ignorant???", and such editorializing waving hand gestures in the air through the use of special characters, like shouting to someone in all-caps. Responding to people in posts like that is offensive. It's an insult to their intelligence.

Add to this, telling me I need to "Be more open to people's perspective" as if somehow that was actually true of me, that I am not open to others perspectives, when it isn't remotely true of me. Honestly, when I hear people pull stuff out of the air like this and throw it at me, it tends to make me consider that this is how they see themselves, and they are simply projecting their inner demons on others, claiming it's them doing what they won't admit to themselves is something they are the ones doing. In either case, it's offensive.

Add to this, "You guys can disagree", as if I belong to some group-think thing, trying to discount my own well-formed and considered responses as if it were parrotting others, which I guarantee you they are not, nor do many others get either. This too is offensive, and creates a tone of defensiveness in others. It naturally would.

Add to this to accuse me of "belittling people", which I was not, am not, nor have any thought whatsoever of doing. All in all, this is likewise offensive. Again, I hear this as a possible projection, as you don't actually know me nor what I really believe or feel or think.

So yes, the tone got set, and this is where it began. I would prefer not to respond as I did, with a little more of a defensive posture, but honestly, it was relatively mild all in all. I would prefer to post as I had previously to you, without any of that. I suppose in a sense, I took that approach because that was the level you seemed to need to communicate at for yourself, suddenly introducing that element into this. Perhaps I figured that was your preferred mode of communication, so I shifted gears for you?

Do you take responsibility for your part helping set the stage for this tone, which you now blame me for? I'll respond to the rest if you're ready to set aside that approach you set in that post I quoted all these from, and take responsibility for your role in this. I'm hoping we can move past this.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm going to deal with this before I address your other points. Admittedly, I have taken a more postured response to you right now, following, but not previously to your post I was responding to where you introduced that tone with me in our conversation. Look at your words which created this atmosphere, you now are claiming I introduced:



Now, please be honest with yourself things like asking "Have you looked into Christianity beyond the theology?" adding tripple questions marks, which screams "are you that ignorant???", and such editorializing waving hand gestures in the air through the use of special characters, like shouting to someone in all-caps. Responding to people in posts like that is offensive. It's an insult to their intelligence.

Add to this, telling me I need to "Be more open to people's perspective" as if somehow that was actually true of me, that I am not open to others perspectives, when it isn't remotely true of me. Honestly, when I hear people pull stuff out of the air like this and throw it at me, it tends to make me consider that this is how they see themselves, and they are simply projecting their inner demons on others, claiming it's them doing what they won't admit to themselves is something they are the ones doing. In either case, it's offensive.

Add to this, "You guys can disagree", as if I belong to some group-think thing, trying to discount my own well-formed and considered responses as if it were parrotting others, which I guarantee you they are not, nor do many others get either. This too is offensive, and creates a tone of defensiveness in others. It naturally would.

Add to this to accuse me of "belittling people", which I was not, am not, nor have any thought whatsoever of doing. All in all, this is likewise offensive. Again, I hear this as a possible projection, as you don't actually know me nor what I really believe or feel or think.

So yes, the tone got set, and this is where it began. I would prefer not to respond as I did, with a little more of a defensive posture, but honestly, it was relatively mild all in all. I would prefer to post as I had previously to you, without any of that. I suppose in a sense, I took that approach because that was the level you seemed to need to communicate at for yourself, suddenly introducing that element into this. Perhaps I figured that was your preferred mode of communication, so I shifted gears for you?

Do you take responsibility for your part helping set the stage for this tone, which you now blame me for? I'll respond to the rest if you're ready to set aside that approach you set in that post I quoted all these from, and take responsibility for your role in this. I'm hoping we can move past this.

I thought this has to do with the topic. Since I'm out the house, all I can comment is we are human and no one is the victim.

Go back through your posts and extract your topic points. It's not right or wrong that people say the bible is the word of god. Their perspective is different than your own. I was wondering if you logically get how they came to that conclusion?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I thought this has to do with the topic. Since I'm out the house, all I can comment is we are human and no one is the victim.
If that's an apology, I'll accept it and we can move on.

Go back through your posts and extract your topic points. It's not right or wrong that people say the bible is the word of god. Their perspective is different than your own. I was wondering if you logically get how they came to that conclusion?
To believe the Bible is "The word of God" can be taken many ways. If you capitalize Word, then that is a direct reference to John 1:1-14. That's not the Bible being referenced there. It has nothing to do with written scriptures. The other way it can be taken to mean is it's as an expression of Divine inspiration, or "the word of God". This expression can be said of the lilies of the field as well, and that is how I myself will speak of it.

So yes, there is nothing "wrong" with it, other than how are people meaning what they mean by it? Are they worshipping it as a "perfect book" that has special powers? That I see as problematic. Yes.

The point of this thread however is not about calling the Bible the word of God or not. It's about groups of Christians identifying themselves as "Biblical Christians". That is not what early Christians were, nor could in any realistic sense at all be claimed to be that as there never was a Bible for them back then, nor if there were would they own one, let alone be literate in order to read it if they had it. It's a meaningless term that is nothing other than a political slogan for Evangelicals to try to distinguish themselves from other Christian groups - a very unChristian thing in itself.

I have no problem with the Bible. I have verses come into my mind all the time from it which I find inspiring, deep, and meaningful, as well as spiritually profound, if understood with the heart, and not some theological jargon. So, as I said previously, you assume a lot about me that you really have no idea about, and are clearly wrong about. I'll suggest you take the time to ask me, before you assume as you've done.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I actually try not to go by what christians say. If it doesn't line up with my experiences as a former christian and understanding of scripture (as with any other book), it won't make sense to me. Logically, I get it. Personally, unless you ask how I personally feel, I usually keep that out.
To believe the Bible is "The word of God" can be taken many ways. If you capitalize Word, then that is a direct reference to John 1:1-14. That's not the Bible being referenced there. It has nothing to do with written scriptures. The other way it can be taken to mean is it's as an expression of Divine inspiration, or "the word of God". This expression can be said of the lilies of the field as well, and that is how I myself will speak of it.

I was mentioning more simply, the word became flesh means incarnation of god's written laws. The Word made Flesh just means christ incarnate.

The Bible is the Word of God. From god rather than as god or is.

Some christians see the bible as god's Word because they read it as if christ is speaking to them through the written words. When they read scripture, they hear christ.

Whether they do or not, I have no clue. I do understand the logic behind it. (My point: Do you?)

So yes, there is nothing "wrong" with it, other than how are people meaning what they mean by it? Are they worshipping it as a "perfect book" that has special powers? That I see as problematic. Yes.

No. Not worshiping a perfect book just a perfect christ. The book is christ's voice not christ himself.

Think of it like the Eucharist. People think Catholics worship the Eucharist/accidents/bread and wine, but they do not. They worship the essence/jesus christ himself.

Likewise the bible. Christians don't worship the written bible/accidents, they worship Christ/God's Word itself.

Point: Do you get the logic between the two?

The point of this thread however is not about calling the Bible the word of God or not. It's about groups of Christians identifying themselves as "Biblical Christians".

That is not what early Christians were, nor could in any realistic sense at all be claimed to be that as there never was a Bible for them back then, nor if there were would they own one, let alone be literate in order to read it if they had it. It's a meaningless term that is nothing other than a political slogan for Evangelicals to try to distinguish themselves from other Christian groups - a very unChristian thing in itself.

The first part, no. We were talking about how you felt the word of god isn't actually god's word. Therefore, christians worship the written book as god rather than seeing everything as the "word of god" rather than a written book.

The last part, you got to see it by context. If you read it by content, gosh, the whole bible would make no sense at all. I wouldn't even use it as a reference.

Remember. You said god is in everything. Can you use references outside the bible to explain your point?

I have no problem with the Bible. I have verses come into my mind all the time from it which I find inspiring, deep, and meaningful, as well as spiritually profound, if understood with the heart, and not some theological jargon. So, as I said previously, you assume a lot about me that you really have no idea about, and are clearly wrong about. I'll suggest you take the time to ask me, before you assume as you've done.

Do you believe the bible is the Word of God?

Do you agree with christians that you need the bible to know about Christ?

I assume these are no; but, if I assumed wrongly, can you rephrase your answers because that's what I'm going by.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
What were they really following then, if it wasn't the Bible? What is Christianity about then, if it's not about "following the Bible"? What is it supposed to be following then, if they Bible is handled in such ways that people hide their prejudices behind what they are reading? Is Christianity founded in the Bible, or something else? What is the reality of Christianity, since "Biblical Christianity" is a created myth?

Originally Christian meant a disciple of Jesus.


When he found him, he brought him to Antioch, and for a whole year they were guests of the church and taught a large crowd. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

Acts 11:26

And disciple of Jesus is person who remains in the words of Jesus.


"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

John 8:31-32

That was possible, even before modern Bible was made.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Can you read a book without interpreting it? No. Anyone who has ever written a response essay knows this. So everyone who reads the Bible is, unless they have an outside authority, going to interpret it differently. For us Jews, we have halakhah holding us together, although admittedly we there is more than one halakhah to go around. For Catholics, they have the Pope and the Magisterium.

But Protestants, who are the ones who claim Bible only, each end up being their own Pope. In a million ways, Protestants depend on Tradition without even realizing it. For example, why do they worship on Sunday? It's not in the New Testament. Where do they get the canon of the New Testament? Not one of the authors gave a Table of contents -- they inherited the TOC from the Catholics, who got it via the authority of the Church. They got their TOC for the Tanakh from us Jews (why they would consider another religion to be authoritative for them is beyond me).
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I was mentioning more simply, the word became flesh means incarnation of god's written laws.
And that is where I throw up that red flag. "Word" or "Logos" as nothing to do with "written laws". In fact the entire thing about the Christ is to get rid of written laws, and make them laws being written on the tablets of the heart. This is central to spiritual development in the lives of people, which Christ pointed to. That is the whole point of "salvation".

But furthermore, Logos is eternal. There is no "written law" in the Eternal. Laws are for men. God's "law" is simply what the nature of the Divine is. The eternal Logos is the Radiance of the Divine. It's not a law book, for God's sake. :)

The Word made Flesh just means christ incarnate.
Logos made flesh is the Divine incarnation. Yes. Logos in that passage does not mean letters in the page of a book made flesh, like a walking law book or something. Just to be clear on that. :)

The Bible is the Word of God. From god rather than as god or is.
But which Bible? You see the problem you run into using such statements? Which is God's word, and which isn't? Which books should be included and not? Are some God's words, but other books included in other branches of Christianities Bibles, and there are several, are not God's word? Is it the King James Version? The Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Coptic Bible? Which one?

Who decided what books should be considered God's word? Was it God? The Apostles? Who?

You see, this is a big, big problem when we set ourselves up to consider the Bible as "The Word of God". We really need to find out which one, so we aren't being deceived thinking some books the Word of God, when they might actually not be, right?

Some christians see the bible as god's Word because they read it as if christ is speaking to them through the written words. When they read scripture, they hear christ.

Whether they do or not, I have no clue. I do understand the logic behind it. (My point: Do you?)
Oh sure, I fully understanding the nature of symbolism. (well maybe not "fully" as there are many layers to understand :) ). You can also hear Christ speaking though the rustling of the leaves on the tree in the afternoon breeze. I certain can. Honestly, it's a matter of just seeing the divine in any object you look at. For some people they need to have something set aside that they consider especially sacred or holy. And that is absolutely fine. It's a powerful tool and I would recommend it as a practice.

However, the problem becomes when it moves from being an aid to help one's thoughts to move towards transcendence, which is what they should do, to thinking that object has the power to give that to. The truth is, they are giving themselves access to the Divine through faith, not the book or even the words. At a point, the words speak themselves from within, and then you yourself begin to be the Word of God in yourself.

To quote, "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart."

No. Not worshiping a perfect book just a perfect christ. The book is christ's voice not christ himself.
I wouldn't call the book Christ's voice at all. Christ's voice is what they hear in their hearts, through the Spirit, as they in who they are as an individual person are opened to it, can hear. The same as hearing Spirit speak in the laughter of a child, or the stillness of a lake, or the smell of flowers on the breeze, or the light and warmth of the sun on their face. To me the entire universe, is the Word of God. Not just one book.

Think of it like the Eucharist. People think Catholics worship the Eucharist/accidents/bread and wine, but they do not. They worship the essence/jesus christ himself.

Likewise the bible. Christians don't worship the written bible/accidents, they worship Christ/God's Word itself.

Point: Do you get the logic between the two?
In effect, quite a many Christians in fact do have an idolatrous relationship with the Bible, thinking the power resides within it. That is why there exists the very well known term that was coined because of that, "Bibliolatry".

But aside from those Christians, looking at others you seem to be pointing towards, who exist as well, yes I understand the logic. It's the marriage of symbol and meaning for them. They find meaning through the symbol, and in their minds at the time, the two are fused into one, which is how symbolism works at that particular stage of Faith, as James Fowler discovered through his research. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

In his stages I linked to there, the ones you are speaking of are most likely Stage 3, synthetic conventional. The hard-core "Biblical literalists", those who are the ones swerving into Bibliolatry, would likely mostly be found within those of Stage 2 faith, or "mythic-literal". That stage in its early formation is full of magical thought about God, and so the symbols understood at later stages of development as highly symbolic, and that the meaning can be found in other symbols, they interpret in ways that, for instance, just saying Jesus' name has power. And so that speak it a problem, saying things which I have personally heard countless times, "In Jesus' name! I plead the blood. I cast you out Satan", and the such. That's magic. That's casting spells, using power words and such. Not all Christians see God this way, but make no mistake, a very large number do.

However in the Stage 3 faith, the meaning and the symbol are still fused together, not yet decoupled as you see beginning in Stage 4, the Individuative-Reflective stage. For stage 3, they will in your example find a connection to God through the symbol, which is perfectly reasonable and fine for that stage of faith development. At stage 4, that same Christ found in the Eucharist, can be found in other religions' symbols as well. They are able to see the meaning apart from the symbol. Then of course you move beyond that into later Stage 5, where one now being able to successfully understand the meaning of the symbol beyond the symbol itself, find interest in taking those earlier symbols and recontextualizing them with that larger understanding and experience of faith. I'd put myself in that stage pretty solidly.

So yes, I do understand. But you should also understand that there are many different stages of faith development which sees these same things you are talking about, in very different ways through their sets of eyes, through their level of development in the line of Faith.

The first part, no. We were talking about how you felt the word of god isn't actually god's word.
In a literal sense, of course not. In a symbolic sense, it certainly can be held that way by many. That makes it perfectly valid for them. Symbolic truth becomes an actuality to those who are invested in that particular symbol.

Therefore, christians worship the written book as god rather than seeing everything as the "word of god" rather than a written book.
I think you would benefit by recognize that "Christians" as a group perceive these things all differently from each other. To say "Christians believe", should be qualified as to which ones, and where does that mode of perception of faith land on the scale. It's not some monolithic, univocal thing, by any means.

Do you believe the bible is the Word of God?
I believe it can be. :) It depends who's reading it and how they respond to what they read. Many things can qualify as the Word of God. All things are, at a certain point.

Do you agree with christians that you need the bible to know about Christ?
No. You know Christ through prayer. Not by trying to understand with the mind. You understand with the heart, and if they read something on the page that inspires them, it's not the words, but the Spirit itself within them they are hearing. The words were just triggers. At some point, everything can be a trigger just like that.

I assume these are no; but, if I assumed wrongly, can you rephrase your answers because that's what I'm going by.
Did any of that help? I'm happy to try to explain more, now that you have some frame of reference you can think about what I said against.
 

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
Is there really any such thing, or is this a mythology? I believe it is a created myth in order to bolster an image of authority to a particular set of beliefs and values, typically conservative/fundamentalist in nature. It is a moniker created as a political slogan in order to create a sense of validity and authority to their specific views."It's not my words, but God's!", which is of course a false position for any human to say. Everything read from the Bible, is subjective to personal or group interpretations. Recognizing that fact, begins to open oneself to self-awareness and our particular biases which divide rather than unite.

In reality, there never was such as thing as "Biblical Christianity", especially in the early church. There was no Bible for the early Christians. There was no "official collection" of books that they all agreed upon, and held up as a source of authority for the first couple hundred years. Yet, they were Christians, who did not have a "Bible", let alone "follow" it.

What were they really following then, if it wasn't the Bible? What is Christianity about then, if it's not about "following the Bible"? What is it supposed to be following then, if they Bible is handled in such ways that people hide their prejudices behind what they are reading? Is Christianity founded in the Bible, or something else? What is the reality of Christianity, since "Biblical Christianity" is a created myth?
Well, it isn't entirely true there was no Bible for early Christians. The first "Christians", which wasn't a term Christ coined, were mostly Jews who recognized the Messiah prophesies in the Tanakh, the Hebrews scriptures, was realized in Yeshua. (Jesus, Emmanuel)

Today there is a difference though. There is what is called Bible or Biblical Christianity. People who ascribe zealously and fundamentally to all of the scriptures as not parables, metaphor, idioms, etc... But as literal in every word and meaning.

And there are also Spiritual followers of holiness, or "The Way".
The Bible is seen as a guide while the faithful one see's themselves in a relationship with God. Realizing holy spirit communicates his will and ways through the same vessels as were afforded through the parables, metaphor, idioms, etc... in written form in scripture. And to that individual in the faith. God is not seen as a gender being, but as what God describe of God. A holy spirit. And that is why , as was taught, we are to worship in spirit. Not by rote.As some do.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
And that is where I throw up that red flag. "Word" or "Logos" as nothing to do with "written laws". In fact the entire thing about the Christ is to get rid of written laws, and make them laws being written on the tablets of the heart. This is central to spiritual development in the lives of people, which Christ pointed to. That is the whole point of "salvation".

But furthermore, Logos is eternal. There is no "written law" in the Eternal. Laws are for men. God's "law" is simply what the nature of the Divine is. The eternal Logos is the Radiance of the Divine. It's not a law book, for God's sake. :)


Logos made flesh is the Divine incarnation. Yes. Logos in that passage does not mean letters in the page of a book made flesh, like a walking law book or something. Just to be clear on that. :)


But which Bible? You see the problem you run into using such statements? Which is God's word, and which isn't? Which books should be included and not? Are some God's words, but other books included in other branches of Christianities Bibles, and there are several, are not God's word? Is it the King James Version? The Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Coptic Bible? Which one?

Who decided what books should be considered God's word? Was it God? The Apostles? Who?

You see, this is a big, big problem when we set ourselves up to consider the Bible as "The Word of God". We really need to find out which one, so we aren't being deceived thinking some books the Word of God, when they might actually not be, right?


Oh sure, I fully understanding the nature of symbolism. (well maybe not "fully" as there are many layers to understand :) ). You can also hear Christ speaking though the rustling of the leaves on the tree in the afternoon breeze. I certain can. Honestly, it's a matter of just seeing the divine in any object you look at. For some people they need to have something set aside that they consider especially sacred or holy. And that is absolutely fine. It's a powerful tool and I would recommend it as a practice.

However, the problem becomes when it moves from being an aid to help one's thoughts to move towards transcendence, which is what they should do, to thinking that object has the power to give that to. The truth is, they are giving themselves access to the Divine through faith, not the book or even the words. At a point, the words speak themselves from within, and then you yourself begin to be the Word of God in yourself.

To quote, "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart."


I wouldn't call the book Christ's voice at all. Christ's voice is what they hear in their hearts, through the Spirit, as they in who they are as an individual person are opened to it, can hear. The same as hearing Spirit speak in the laughter of a child, or the stillness of a lake, or the smell of flowers on the breeze, or the light and warmth of the sun on their face. To me the entire universe, is the Word of God. Not just one book.


In effect, quite a many Christians in fact do have an idolatrous relationship with the Bible, thinking the power resides within it. That is why there exists the very well known term that was coined because of that, "Bibliolatry".

But aside from those Christians, looking at others you seem to be pointing towards, who exist as well, yes I understand the logic. It's the marriage of symbol and meaning for them. They find meaning through the symbol, and in their minds at the time, the two are fused into one, which is how symbolism works at that particular stage of Faith, as James Fowler discovered through his research. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

In his stages I linked to there, the ones you are speaking of are most likely Stage 3, synthetic conventional. The hard-core "Biblical literalists", those who are the ones swerving into Bibliolatry, would likely mostly be found within those of Stage 2 faith, or "mythic-literal". That stage in its early formation is full of magical thought about God, and so the symbols understood at later stages of development as highly symbolic, and that the meaning can be found in other symbols, they interpret in ways that, for instance, just saying Jesus' name has power. And so that speak it a problem, saying things which I have personally heard countless times, "In Jesus' name! I plead the blood. I cast you out Satan", and the such. That's magic. That's casting spells, using power words and such. Not all Christians see God this way, but make no mistake, a very large number do.

However in the Stage 3 faith, the meaning and the symbol are still fused together, not yet decoupled as you see beginning in Stage 4, the Individuative-Reflective stage. For stage 3, they will in your example find a connection to God through the symbol, which is perfectly reasonable and fine for that stage of faith development. At stage 4, that same Christ found in the Eucharist, can be found in other religions' symbols as well. They are able to see the meaning apart from the symbol. Then of course you move beyond that into later Stage 5, where one now being able to successfully understand the meaning of the symbol beyond the symbol itself, find interest in taking those earlier symbols and recontextualizing them with that larger understanding and experience of faith. I'd put myself in that stage pretty solidly.

So yes, I do understand. But you should also understand that there are many different stages of faith development which sees these same things you are talking about, in very different ways through their sets of eyes, through their level of development in the line of Faith.


In a literal sense, of course not. In a symbolic sense, it certainly can be held that way by many. That makes it perfectly valid for them. Symbolic truth becomes an actuality to those who are invested in that particular symbol.


I think you would benefit by recognize that "Christians" as a group perceive these things all differently from each other. To say "Christians believe", should be qualified as to which ones, and where does that mode of perception of faith land on the scale. It's not some monolithic, univocal thing, by any means.


I believe it can be. :) It depends who's reading it and how they respond to what they read. Many things can qualify as the Word of God. All things are, at a certain point.


No. You know Christ through prayer. Not by trying to understand with the mind. You understand with the heart, and if they read something on the page that inspires them, it's not the words, but the Spirit itself within them they are hearing. The words were just triggers. At some point, everything can be a trigger just like that.


Did any of that help? I'm happy to try to explain more, now that you have some frame of reference you can think about what I said against.

Quick questions before I read.

Is this post more what your opinion is about the subject?

Do you understand the other party's perspective from what you studied (say theologically?) or is it based on your observations of christians you are around (and RF?)

I wasn't raised in a religious family. Came to protestant christianity early in life academically. Went into Catholicism sevenish years ago then learned about it spiritually (huge difference!). I learned about the differences spiritually and it's so profound than theological study, and opinions about If Jesus is God that it wasn't even worth the discussion.

On the other hand, I realized what I don't believe (as spiritually helps you learn things about yourself), took the eucharist for the last time, and focused on what I was called to despite my experiences....

With that said, this post, is it based on your spiritual experiences?
Has these lines of thinking helped you in a spiritual way?

I don't mind talking about spirituality; but, unfortunately, I cut short with whether we are talking about Word, Logos, God, Jesus interchangeably. It's good talk about it spiritually, but logically....

Let me get back to you with the other post. Just be mindful, I'm not versed in theology and academics. You'd have to go a bit deeper: meaning, your opinion, spiritually, how other people see it, is there truth beyond, under, and throughout scripture-quoting, and things like that.

That I can talk hours about. Theology, probably a few posts here and there.

To be continued...
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hm.
And that is where I throw up that red flag. "Word" or "Logos" as nothing to do with "written laws". In fact the entire thing about the Christ is to get rid of written laws, and make them laws being written on the tablets of the heart. This is central to spiritual development in the lives of people, which Christ pointed to. That is the whole point of "salvation".

Talking about the law of Moses Jesus refers to. Since no one followed the laws in the OT, god made jesus incarnated so the "law can walk among the people" (context) and so, through the final law, people who believed would be saved through christ.

Everything you said is fine. Just I'm very simple. I don't know another way to put it (scratching my head). It's a lot more deeper than what is written and said. Some people say written is important and others do not.

I say it's important because, like a math textbook, it doesn't tell them the answers but does help them how to solve the problem with experiences.

Do you understand why the bible is seen as God's Voice and not any other book?

But furthermore, Logos is eternal. There is no "written law" in the Eternal. Laws are for men. God's "law" is simply what the nature of the Divine is. The eternal Logos is the Radiance of the Divine. It's not a law book, for God's sake. :)

What's a logos? Is it this:

The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word. The Logos is God, begotten and therefore distinguishable from the Father, but, being God, of the same substance (essence).

-If so, holy spirit is easier to understand.

Written law is just the Laws of Moses that people no longer need to follow through ritual. I think you're stuck too much on content. Got to look at the context too.

What is your relationship with scripture?

Logos made flesh is the Divine incarnation. Yes. Logos in that passage does not mean letters in the page of a book made flesh, like a walking law book or something. Just to be clear on that. :)

You're stuck on the book thing. :oops: I'm just saying the book is god's voice. I'm not saying you are wrong, just you are missing something very crucial in why people see the bible as sacred and not just any old book.

But which Bible? You see the problem you run into using such statements? ...

You're making this sooo complicated.

Remember. You said you can see god through everything.

Do you understand how the bible (King James or whatever) works in a evangalist christian's lives?

Who decided what books should be considered God's word? Was it God? The Apostles? Who?

Shrugs. You're making this too complicated. The Word of God isn't owned by the authors. You're missing the point entirely.

You see, this is a big, big problem when we set ourselves up to consider the Bible as "The Word of God". We really need to find out which one, so we aren't being deceived thinking some books the Word of God, when they might actually not be, right?

Take out the words Word of God; you're stuck on it.

The bible just tells christians about jesus.

The bible did not die on the cross. Bible-christians understand this.

Do you understand it?

Oh sure, I fully understanding the nature of symbolism. (well maybe not "fully" as there are many layers to understand :) )....

Which is NOT bad at all. It's not "either/or" it's in addition to.

Is there a way you can understand why they see the bible as they do without telling them in context that they don't have the real experience in christ if they use the bible?

Fundamentalist do believe in symbolism. The bible didnt die on the cross.

However, the problem becomes when it moves from being an aid to help one's thoughts to move towards transcendence, which is what they should do, to thinking that object has the power to give that to....

Bible-christians have all that. Do you understand how regardless how much you disagree with it?

To quote, "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart."

Okay...

I wouldn't call the book Christ's voice at all. Christ's voice is what they hear in their hearts, through the Spirit, as they in who they are as an individual person are opened to it, can hear.....

Yeah. It's just words. Got to look beyond that. English isn't good at translating content if you're not familiar with how the context is used with that word especially in religion.

In effect, quite a many Christians in fact do have an idolatrous relationship with the Bible, thinking the power resides within it. That is why there exists the very well known term that was coined because of that, "Bibliolatry".

Yes. Some do. I try not to take sides. After my experiences, both sides make sense. I know some christians see the bible as an idol. It makes sense why. I mean, if you had a letter from your deceased loved ones, I'm sure you may keep it, and read it if in grief from time to time while knowing it isn't your loved one. I'm sure?

But aside from those Christians, looking at others you seem to be pointing towards, who exist as well, yes I understand the logic. It's the marriage of symbol and meaning for them. They find meaning through the symbol, and in their minds at the time, the two are fused into one, which is how symbolism works at that particular stage of Faith, as James Fowler discovered through his research. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

Yes.... which isn't wrong or anything. Are you against just a set of people who idolize the bible? Are you saying these sets of people don't understand or experience spirituality because when they do that, they aren't guided by the spirit in the breeze etc?

However in the Stage 3 faith, the meaning and the symbol are still fused together, not yet decoupled as you see beginning in Stage 4, the Individuative-Reflective stage. For stage 3, they will in your example find a connection to God through the symbol, which is perfectly reasonable and fine for that stage of faith development. At stage 4, that same Christ found in the Eucharist, can be found in other religions' symbols as well....

So yes, I do understand. But you should also understand that there are many different stages of faith development which sees these same things you are talking about, in very different ways through their sets of eyes, through their level of development in the line of Faith.

In a literal sense, of course not. In a symbolic sense, it certainly can be held that way by many. That makes it perfectly valid for them. Symbolic truth becomes an actuality to those who are invested in that particular symbol.

It is symbolic. Think of it this way. The bible did not die on the cross.

Are you disagreeing more with how some christians think? Cause I understand how the bible is the word of god and why they believe it. It makes sense. It's not wrong or anything like that. I never experienced that with the bible or with any book; but, that is just me.

I think you would benefit by recognize that "Christians" as a group perceive these things all differently from each other. To say "Christians believe", should be qualified as to which ones, and where does that mode of perception of faith land on the scale. It's not some monolithic, univocal thing, by any means.

Yes. They do. That's why I'm confused as to how you feel these set of christians are worshiping a bible when they are worshiping christ.

I believe it can be. :) It depends who's reading it and how they respond to what they read. Many things can qualify as the Word of God. All things are, at a certain point.

Pretty much. God's creation is in everything, you said. I'm not sure why the bible would be an exception, though.

No. You know Christ through prayer. Not by trying to understand with the mind. You understand with the heart, and if they read something on the page that inspires them, it's not the words, but the Spirit itself within them they are hearing. The words were just triggers. At some point, everything can be a trigger just like that.

Why would you think bible-christians don't experience this???

Did any of that help? I'm happy to try to explain more, now that you have some frame of reference you can think about what I said against.

I know you're against it. I'm wondering if you understand why they do so, so your against would be more "that is difference" rather than saying (summarizing)

You can experience christ through creation but once you use the bible, you lost that connection. (Or blind to it or so have you).

It's one thing to have differences of opinion. I am red-flagged in my head when the differences/against becomes "they don't have this because they practice or see it like that". Pet peeve.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hm.


Talking about the law of Moses Jesus refers to. Since no one followed the laws in the OT, god made jesus incarnated so the "law can walk among the people" (context) and so, through the final law, people who believed would be saved through christ.

Everything you said is fine. Just I'm very simple. I don't know another way to put it (scratching my head). It's a lot more deeper than what is written and said. Some people say written is important and others do not.

I say it's important because, like a math textbook, it doesn't tell them the answers but does help them how to solve the problem with experiences.

Do you understand why the bible is seen as God's Voice and not any other book?



What's a logos? Is it this:

The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word. The Logos is God, begotten and therefore distinguishable from the Father, but, being God, of the same substance (essence).

-If so, holy spirit is easier to understand.

Written law is just the Laws of Moses that people no longer need to follow through ritual. I think you're stuck too much on content. Got to look at the context too.

What is your relationship with scripture?



You're stuck on the book thing. :oops: I'm just saying the book is god's voice. I'm not saying you are wrong, just you are missing something very crucial in why people see the bible as sacred and not just any old book.



You're making this sooo complicated.

Remember. You said you can see god through everything.

Do you understand how the bible (King James or whatever) works in a evangalist christian's lives?



Shrugs. You're making this too complicated. The Word of God isn't owned by the authors. You're missing the point entirely.



Take out the words Word of God; you're stuck on it.

The bible just tells christians about jesus.

The bible did not die on the cross. Bible-christians understand this.

Do you understand it?



Which is NOT bad at all. It's not "either/or" it's in addition to.

Is there a way you can understand why they see the bible as they do without telling them in context that they don't have the real experience in christ if they use the bible?

Fundamentalist do believe in symbolism. The bible didnt die on the cross.



Bible-christians have all that. Do you understand how regardless how much you disagree with it?



Okay...



Yeah. It's just words. Got to look beyond that. English isn't good at translating content if you're not familiar with how the context is used with that word especially in religion.



Yes. Some do. I try not to take sides. After my experiences, both sides make sense. I know some christians see the bible as an idol. It makes sense why. I mean, if you had a letter from your deceased loved ones, I'm sure you may keep it, and read it if in grief from time to time while knowing it isn't your loved one. I'm sure?



Yes.... which isn't wrong or anything. Are you against just a set of people who idolize the bible? Are you saying these sets of people don't understand or experience spirituality because when they do that, they aren't guided by the spirit in the breeze etc?







It is symbolic. Think of it this way. The bible did not die on the cross.

Are you disagreeing more with how some christians think? Cause I understand how the bible is the word of god and why they believe it. It makes sense. It's not wrong or anything like that. I never experienced that with the bible or with any book; but, that is just me.



Yes. They do. That's why I'm confused as to how you feel these set of christians are worshiping a bible when they are worshiping christ.



Pretty much. God's creation is in everything, you said. I'm not sure why the bible would be an exception, though.



Why would you think bible-christians don't experience this???



I know you're against it. I'm wondering if you understand why they do so, so your against would be more "that is difference" rather than saying (summarizing)

You can experience christ through creation but once you use the bible, you lost that connection. (Or blind to it or so have you).

It's one thing to have differences of opinion. I am red-flagged in my head when the differences/against becomes "they don't have this because they practice or see it like that". Pet peeve.
I honestly don't know why you continue to think I'm saying things when I pretty clearly explained my thoughts in the last post. You may wish to read it more closely and you'll see right after I say I agree, you ask me why I don't. I'm not sure how to correct that, other than have you re-read my post. I qualify what I say in every case.

Not all Christians are really spiritual, and they do not understand these things from a spiritual perspective. They understand things from a membership identify perspective, rallying around the Bible like it was the flag that says they are an American. It's all exoteric, or outside of themselves, external to themselves. Spirituality is an internal realization. It cannot be taught, or studied one's way into it.

To give you a little context for who am I in my approach, I very much am on that internal, or spiritual path, and from that perspective of very direct and life changing experience of the Divine Reality, my understanding of the teachings of the Bible take on a life that cannot be taught in a seminary. I have a degree in theology, yet I found the entire affair to be a projection of their own egos, edifices erected to themselves with the banner "God" flying like a flag on top of their popsicle stick idol they called the truth of God, all the while saying, "It's not my words, it's God's, right here in his Word!," as they hold the Bible up absolving themselves of any responsibility, and humility.

However, my studies since those days has been extensive in trying to understand how so many different religious people reading the same things can end up in such entirely different ways from each other, divided around beliefs, championing "right doctrine" or "Biblical Christianity," to distinguish themselves from other Christians who they see as lost, because they don't think the same way they do.

None of that is spiritual. None of it. It's all ego. So when I hear those who define themselves as "Biblical Christians", I hear anything but spirituality. It's hubris. Do they call all Christians, including Catholics by that term? No they do not. They don't because to them, they aren't because their practices and beliefs don't match theirs, which they imagine in their mythology, is the same as early Christians had, you know, the "Biblical ones", of the first century. It's pure nonsense.

But alas, perhaps it is part of someone's actual spiritual path. If they are truly on theirs and continue however, I think it would become apparent that unity through shared beliefs is not truly spiritual at all. Embracing diversity of thought is, which for some reason, you continue to think I don't see. Not sure why that is. :)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I honestly don't know why you continue to think I'm saying things when I pretty clearly explained my thoughts in the last post. You may wish to read it more closely and you'll see right after I say I agree, you ask me why I don't. I'm not sure how to correct that, other than have you re-read my post. I qualify what I say in every case.

I did. I have to separate your posts like this so I can read it. It's not personal. I separate for all people. If I posted in chunks, I can't remember any of any persons posts. Don't assume I'm not reading what you're saying. Please ask.

Not all Christians are really spiritual, and they do not understand these things from a spiritual perspective.

They understand things from a membership identify perspective, rallying around the Bible like it was the flag that says they are an American.

It's all exoteric, or outside of themselves, external to themselves. Spirituality is an internal realization. It cannot be taught, or studied one's way into it.

My point is your opinions are one sided. Of course not all christians are. Some are, though. I don't know the point you're making when you're separating those who don't believe how you do to those who do.

Some do. Some don't. It sounds like you're putting bible-christians in a box.

To give you a little context for who am I in my approach, I very much am on that internal, or spiritual path, and from that perspective of very direct and life changing experience of the Divine Reality, my understanding of the teachings of the Bible take on a life that cannot be taught in a seminary.

I have a degree in theology, yet I found the entire affair to be a projection of their own egos, edifices erected to themselves with the banner "God" flying like a flag on top of their popsicle stick idol they called the truth of God, all the while saying, "It's not my words, it's God's, right here in his Word!," as they hold the Bible up absolving themselves of any responsibility, and humility.

I can see that. I know your position; but, what is your point after coming to that conclusion?

Personally, theology degree or not, in my experience there are people like-that and people who aren't. I've sided with the people aren't like that. I try not to express things as you do (above) as a result. To me, it messes up my spirituality.

Everyone sees differences, well, differently: Nothing personal.

However, my studies since those days has been extensive in trying to understand how so many different religious people reading the same things can end up in such entirely different ways from each other, divided around beliefs, championing "right doctrine" or "Biblical Christianity," to distinguish themselves from other Christians who they see as lost, because they don't think the same way they do.

I don't know. That's a good question. I'd say, from their view, that saying the bible is the word of god is using inspired words to help dictate god's how they are to interact with people and god's creation. Whether right or wrong, that's not my place to say. I just know why and what seems to make sense. If I were still christian, I wouldn't be a bible-christian. Catholics arent bible-christians but purely experience-viewed.

So I get what you're saying in what you disagree with. It's very hard to find your points. After you found out some christians put their faith in idolism, is that it? Does understanding their point of view help with making their practice a difference not something wrong? Or?

None of that is spiritual. None of it. It's all ego. So when I hear those who define themselves as "Biblical Christians", I hear anything but spirituality. It's hubris. Do they call all Christians, including Catholics by that term? No they do not. They don't because to them, they aren't because their practices and beliefs don't match theirs, which they imagine in their mythology, is the same as early Christians had, you know, the "Biblical ones", of the first century. It's pure nonsense.

Shrugs. That's a generalization. I know many what you would call idol-christians that don't have those views; and, I live with, neighbored, and live in a christianed on complex to where that's all I hear.

Is there a way to get you to understand their point of view or is that it?

But alas, perhaps it is part of someone's actual spiritual path. If they are truly on theirs and continue however, I think it would become apparent that unity through shared beliefs is not truly spiritual at all. Embracing diversity of thought is, which for some reason, you continue to think I don't see. Not sure why that is. :)

I don't take sides. Plus, the side you're taking is very rough; so, it's hard to agree with your sentiments. That's the difference. I understand your logic: bible-christians don't know spirituality because they use the bible as an idol instead of finding spirituality themselves around them.

I don't share your sentiment.

That's simply not true.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Of course not all christians are. Some are, though. I don't know the point you're making when you're separating those who don't believe how you do to those who do.
I give up. It's not personal, but it's not worth my trying to spell it out more clearly than I have without just repeating myself. Who you seem to think I am, I'm not that.
 
Top