What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[China]

So I check in on the Religion thread only to find people talking about fingering mens' asses.  

 

 

So I'm guessing someone in here tried that and saw God?

[Renegade7]

21 minutes ago, China said:

So I check in on the Religion thread only to find people talking about fingering mens' asses.  

 

 

So I'm guessing someone in here tried that and saw God?

 

When I saw that meme, I found it very thought provoking.  I've had convos with different people about this, from gay to say it's a choice , and I typically can't get a straight answer on comparing homosexuality as a sin to say murder.  The response I typically get is homosexuality is a sin of the highest order , is it so unforgivable that its worse then murder?  You cant look at something like the book of Joshua and claims consistency there in regards to murder being a top 10 sin. Holy Land, land God promised the early Israelites, wasn't given on a silver platter, it was conquered.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Renegade7

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

What meme is this?

 

 And the people who say that homosexuality is A sin of the highest magnitude are actually idiots of the highest magnitude.

 

edit: And in case anyone was wondering, I’m not gay. I admit that I am a little curious about the G spot in the ass though.

 

double edit: EVERY ONE OF YOU IS THINKING THE SAME THING AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

Edited September 15, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Renegade7]

47 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What meme is this?

 

I posted it in middle of page 25, previous page.

 

I say test it and report back so we don't have to, take one for the team.

 

47 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 And the people who say that homosexuality is A sin of the highest magnitude are actually idiots of the highest magnitude.

 

For me, this is a perfect example of people hiding behind something because it makes them extremely uncomfortable and using their religion to demonize it best they can.  This is especially true in the Black community. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Renegade7

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

For me, this is a perfect example of people hiding behind something that makes them extremely uncomfortable and using their religion to demonize it best they can.  This is especially true in the Black community. 

I’ve seen that since moving to TX. When I first got here, my first social connection was through this adult flag football league and most of my new friends & acquaintances were black. My Facebook feed looked a lot different from when I lived in Loudoun County. But yeah, I was really surprised by the vitriol toward homosexuals.

[Renegade7]

21 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I’ve seen that since moving to TX. When I first got here, my first social connection was through this adult flag football league and most of my new friends & acquaintances were black. My Facebook feed looked a lot different from when I lived in Loudoun County. But yeah, I was really surprised by the vitriol toward homosexuals.

I don't feel the same way about my faith as my religion, and a lot that has to do with who is supposed to be outside looking in (at least who were being told is in or out).  I don't think organized religion survives unless a hard look in the mirror is done as their numbers continue to decline.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Renegade7

[B&G]

I am a Christian.  This is what I believe:

 

The Bible says, “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9). The Bible also says that “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). The moment we do so, the Holy Spirit makes us alive in Christ, imparting the gift of eternal life, and making us entirely new creatures in Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:17). 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

There's a male G-spot?

 

And it's in the ass??

You obviously were never an alter boy.

[Zguy28]

On 9/15/2018 at 4:31 PM, Renegade7 said:

I don't feel the same way about my faith as my religion, and a lot that has to do with who is supposed to be outside looking in (at least who were being told is in or out).  I don't think organized religion survives unless a hard look in the mirror is done as their numbers continue to decline.

A look in the mirror is good for everybody, not just those of us in "organized religion" as you put it. I find that term is an excuse or cop out by the way for those who don't like somebody potentially telling them what's what. It's dangerous when reinforced by others positively. However, it is not completely without merit, too far to one side is indeed legalism, but too far to the other is heresy as well in antinomianism.

 

Incidentally, on the topic of reinforced beliefs, I came across this study earlier. Interesting, and explains a lot about Trump supporters, but about his opposition as well. Think about how much time a person spends on this forum for instance and how over time, people can begin to be affected by positive or negative responses.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/feedback-study-explains-why-false-beliefs-stick

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Zguy28 said:

A look in the mirror is good for everybody, not just those of us in "organized religion" as you put it. I find that term is an excuse or cop out by the way for those who don't like somebody potentially telling them what's what. It's dangerous when reinforced by others positively. However, it is not completely without merit, too far to one side is indeed legalism, but too far to the other is heresy as well in antinomianism.

 

Incidentally, on the topic of reinforced beliefs, I came across this study earlier. Interesting, and explains a lot about Trump supporters, but about his opposition as well. Think about how much time a person spends on this forum for instance and how over time, people can begin to be affected by positive or negative responses.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/feedback-study-explains-why-false-beliefs-stick

 

How do you feel about something like the Catholic Church allow Gay and Female Priests, allowed to marry, and not expected to stay celibate? 

 

I feel like some expectations are reasonable in regards to seeking everlasting life, salvation.  I wish I knew more to understand which rules were more strictly enforced then others.  So many laws and expectations are rooted in a time period that has very little in common with today's world, and huge history of hipocricy.  I do believe people pick and chose which rules they have to put more of an emphasis on based on their limited understanding of those expectations and context of the versus, or they intentionally interpret them to what they like the most (I try to avoid this, I don't like using scripture to excuse my actions, I try to better under what was originally meant, or even the intent).

 

I'm hoping my post didn't come across as a shot, organized religion is used.  The good churches don't make the news typically, the raping of kids and TV millionaire evangelicals does, Westboro churches of the Country using their religion to justify their hate or disgust of something that makes them uncomfortable or they do not understand.  Organized Religion is losing that perception war in regards to the entire population of the country because it is happening, regardless of how common it is, would you agree?  Bible says not to judge people, I think most of us do that anyway.

 

Republicans gaining the Evangelical vote despite wanting to cut social programs to afford their tax cuts, it hurts to so moral issues picked over helping the poor, and everybody is watching.  Everyone might not believe what they believe, is that a reason not to help them? Why doesn't the evangelical segment of the country demand the Republican party do that, force them to support Medicaid expansion or even Medicare for All?  Is it more important to keep quite on that so they can get another Anti-Abortion Supreme Court Justice?  Do they realize how much this turns off the secular part of our populations, or those on the fence of wanting to go to church more?

Edited September 17, 2018 by Renegade7

[Zguy28]

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

How do you feel about something like the Catholic Church allow Gay and Female Priests, allowed to marry, and not expected to stay celibate? 

I'm a Southern Baptist (of the Russell Moore variety, not the Robert Jeffries kind), so I don't get into what the RCC does too much, except to say that I believe they have doctrinal and ecclesiastical errors. It's why I am not a member of the RCC. On the specific issue you mention, the bible is pretty clear that all Christians are part of the "priesthood of believers" (1 Peter 2) with Jesus as the High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 4:14). So right off the bat the terminology is incorrect. Now, a Roman Catholic will tell you "well, priest comes from the same root as pastor. That's all it means." Ok. I do believe that only men should be pastors/elders (same thing) mainly because of the Apostle Paul's writings that he did not allow allow women to teach or be in authority over men in the church. And teaching is an authoritative role and a pastor/elder's main job. Obviously many churches disagree and claim cultural context, but that is a slippery slope to theological liberalism.

 

Quote

 

I feel like some expectations are reasonable in regards to seeking everlasting life, salvation.  I wish I knew more to understand which rules were more strictly enforced then others.  So many laws and expectations are rooted in a time period that has very little in common with today's world, and huge history of hipocricy.  I do believe people pick and chose which rules they have to put more of an emphasis on based on their limited understanding of those expectations and context of the versus, or they intentionally interpret them to what they like the most (I try to avoid this, I don't like using scripture to excuse my actions, I try to better under what was originally meant, or even the intent).

 

Sin is sin really. All of it is breaking God's law. However, the Apostle Paul seems to put particular emphasis on sexual immorality. All other sins he says to hold your ground and resist temptation. Sexual sin however, he says to run away as fast as you can. For one because it is the hardest to resist, and second because biblically when two people have sex, they are joined as one flesh, AKA should be married. He asks the question "why would join yourself to the flesh of a prostitute?" at one point.

 

Homosexuality is targeted for several reasons: 1) it is the squeaky cultural wheel of the recent years, 2) the bible calls it an "abomination" which is " a thing that causes disgust or hatred" (think about how much many people feel this way about Trump for a comparison of the level of feelings of disgust (waiting for the person who says "are you comparing Trump to gay people?" and misses the point)). I don't elevate it any higher than greed or adultery or other sins. But I also don't say it's not a sin that is deadly serious to a holy God either. God isn't safe, but He's good. (which is why CS Lewis made him a lion) The unfortunate side effect can be to seek justice (remember the holiness of God and that God's law is broken), forgetting that these are still people, and doing so without love and mercy tempering it. Truth and love must always work together or the scales go out of balance. I think the topic of sexual sin is a topic that will do this thread an injustice though and we should focus elsewhere.

 

And, who isn't a hypocrite really, both inside or outside the church?

 

 

[Fresh8686]

No offense to Zguy28, but stuff like the above is why religion needs to be updated and renewed or discarded altogether for a more in-tune and dynamic paradigm in my view. We need to get back to what actually nurtures and cultivates spirituality and harvest the fruits of that platform once the development occurs rather than wasting time fighting about doctrine and dogma. Everybody wants to argue about what the destination looks like, rather than talk about the actual path people need to walk to get there and the pattern of changes that take place as you do so.

Like, in my experience if you are actually increasing the capacitance of your spirit, you should be changing to become more attractive and balanced around women because you're sexuality is maturing and harmonizing. There are stable patterns of change that include shifts in energy in the way you see women, the way sexual stimulation effects you, and you're ability to remain coherent and centered in heart and spirit, no matter the sexual intensity. It becomes something you can enjoy and drink deeply from, but it's just another appetite to shape and incorporate in your life as a vehicle for communion and connection. Rather than one of the "most dangerous of sins/temptations known to man that must be ran from". 

These are changes I have witnessed within myself, so when I see dogma from the Apostle Paul and many others like him across the different religions who are undeveloped in spirituality in the realm of sexuality and connection I know to reject it along with any other "poisoned fruit" that is associated with it in the bible/koran/etc. They're keyboard jockey's who have no first-hand experience and no evidence of first-hand development/growth in this particular subject.

That's why my wife (who is an ordained minister herself) and I are working on creating our own spiritual center for people who want to be a part of a balanced, nuanced, and dynamic non-denominational community that doesn't marginalize women or promote primitive traditions and focuses on what the actual steps are to feel more of your spirit within yourself and see it express more in your actions and behaviors.

How to become more sensitive to the right things, how to have a healthy empathetic system that automatically engages around people, how to handle pressure so it doesn't sap your spirit but instead enriches your motivationi, how to protect hope and trust from bitterness, resentment, and cynicism, or the difference between spiritual masculinity/femininity/gender fluidity versus toxic masculinity/femininity/gender fluidity. How to refine and enhance your moral compass and spiritual palate so you are attracted to healthy things and repulsed by unhealthy things, especially in the case where short term stimulation would have you characterize them as otherwise. 

No more of this binary dumbassery, instead we focus on nuance and reality-based context to determine what is healthy vs unhealthy, rather than purely subjective and easily co-opted words like good and evil.


 

[Renegade7]

@Fresh8686 that's what I was hoping for and wish you and your wife the best of luck in that endeavor.  

 

@Zguy28 It's 2018, man, you really with a straight face don't want women to be pastors/elders?  I can't support focusing on what Paul said knowing that Mary Magdalene was minimized out the Bible, her book intentionally removed, and characterized as a prostitute at best in the middle ages.  I wouldn't get with a prostitute, but not because I find them disgusting, Jesus had a couple examples of reaching out to them and there are people that real talk can't get laid.  I have no problem with it, but I don't want to get off-topic on that.  There are so many gay priests in the Catholic Church that they might as well allow it, you can argue they technically are.

 

In regards to hypocrisy, there are so many denominations that we may already be too far gone on agreeing on what we are supposed to do.  I believe we should be trying to better understand the point of so many of these scriptures in the context of that time period and today.  We should talk about the non-negotiables, but we need to be clear on what that is if we want organized religion to survive.  I'm on the fence of having sexual context conversation in regards to the bible, but for real, at some point, we need to.  For years I've felt a lot of the context of the OT testament was to increase the number of children for the early Jews as much as they could so they could have a large enough population to defend themselves from invading forces.

 

So ya, I'd rather talk about how to protect the future of religion over sexual morality any day (but I'm open to whichever direction anyone wants to go).  I have questions that may get answered without my asking.

[bearrock]

I believe in God.  I have no doubt that Jesus Christ is my savior.  But I reject the notion that we can figure out the answer to the universe by reading the bible as if it's some list of mathematical equations that unlocks God's will.  The history of the bible shows that such view would be farcical.  For a long time people couldn't agree whether certain books belong in the bible and now RCC recognizes Apocrypha while Protestants don't.  KJV of the bible contains sixteen verses that modern translations don't.  There are competing translations that actually result in canonically significant variation depending on the translation.  There are verses that simply doesn't lend itself to the same meaning across multiple languages.  Many Christians of yesteryears, especially in countries with short history of Christianity, labored under incorrect translations until they were eventually fixed.  The notion that every single word of the bible is the infallible word of God is as laughable as it is historically inaccurate.  God works his blessings on us despite all of our screwups, not because of it.  Humanity has done a marvellous job of screwing up the good news in every which way they can.  That there are still true Christians remaining today is a testament to God's grace and miracle.  Let us not forget it wasn't so long ago when people used the bible to justify slavery and ban interracial marriage.

[Zguy28]

9 hours ago, bearrock said:

I believe in God.  I have no doubt that Jesus Christ is my savior.  But I reject the notion that we can figure out the answer to the universe by reading the bible as if it's some list of mathematical equations that unlocks God's will.  The history of the bible shows that such view would be farcical.  For a long time people couldn't agree whether certain books belong in the bible and now RCC recognizes Apocrypha while Protestants don't.  KJV of the bible contains sixteen verses that modern translations don't.  There are competing translations that actually result in canonically significant variation depending on the translation.  There are verses that simply doesn't lend itself to the same meaning across multiple languages.  Many Christians of yesteryears, especially in countries with short history of Christianity, labored under incorrect translations until they were eventually fixed.  The notion that every single word of the bible is the infallible word of God is as laughable as it is historically inaccurate.  God works his blessings on us despite all of our screwups, not because of it.  Humanity has done a marvellous job of screwing up the good news in every which way they can.  That there are still true Christians remaining today is a testament to God's grace and miracle.  Let us not forget it wasn't so long ago when people used the bible to justify slavery and ban interracial marriage.

Let's also not forget that in the same times there were people who use the bible as their justification to ban slavery.

 

Saying something is not what it is because somebody used it wrongly is a non sequitur. You wouldn't say a shovel is not a gardening tool or good for digging holes because somebody used it wrongly to wack somebody on the head and bury them.

[Zguy28]

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

It's 2018, man, you really with a straight face don't want women to be pastors/elders? 

Absolutely I believe it. I stand on truth revealed, not how I feel. Feelings change, truth does not (despite misuse and abuse).

 

Quote

I can't support focusing on what Paul said knowing that Mary Magdalene was minimized out the Bible, her book intentionally removed, and characterized as a prostitute at best in the middle ages.  I wouldn't get with a prostitute, but not because I find them disgusting, Jesus had a couple examples of reaching out to them and there are people that real talk can't get laid.  I have no problem with it, but I don't want to get off-topic on that.  There are so many gay priests in the Catholic Church that they might as well allow it, you can argue they technically are.

The only things true in this paragraph is that Jesus did indeed reach out to prostitutes (not lie with them) and the Roman Catholic church having gay priests. The rest...not so much.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Zguy28

[bearrock]

56 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Let's also not forget that in the same times there were people who use the bible as their justification to ban slavery.

 

Saying something is not what it is because somebody used it wrongly is a non sequitur. You wouldn't say a shovel is not a gardening tool or good for digging holes because somebody used it wrongly to wack somebody on the head and bury them.

 

Well my main point was the body of my post.  The justification example is more to show that the bible is vague enough and conflicting enough for people to use it for their own devices.  

[MisterPinstripe]

41 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Well my main point was the body of my post.  The justification example is more to show that the bible is vague enough and conflicting enough for people to use it for their own devices.  

Sure, if context is ignored people can try to manipulate the text, but that doesnt change whats actually in there and being said. And to kind of hop onto your previous post as well, the bible that we have today is easily the most accurate and verifiable ancient document we have to the originals. Way more than others that are widely accepted as accurate texts. Biblical and secular scholars would agree with that, regardless of if you think whats in it has any truth to it or not, just wanted to point that out since you were talking about that a bit previously.

[Zguy28]

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Well my main point was the body of my post. 

I know what your main point was, and I agree with it enough (not quite 100% though) to not respond to it.

 

Quote

The justification example is more to show that the bible is vague enough and conflicting enough for people to use it for their own devices.  

There is an old saying: "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things." The bible isn't vague in the fact that all people are made in God's image for instance. Modern black slavery was justified by claiming they were not fully human, but rather sub-human.

[Fresh8686]

On 9/13/2018 at 12:19 PM, Bang said:

See, again i go back to the cop out.

It  is always so convenient. God is what i want him to be.

Those other folks certainly believe he is on their side. Just because you believe he's not doesn't mean that is true either.

If there is a god, he is Crom.

for Crom cares not for anything but Crom.
THAT i could believe. At least that makes sense in full view of everything.

 

~Bang

In these last couple points Bang brings up a good point about the different views of God people hold to.

 

The Sheltering Parental God and the Uncaring Distant God... two poles in a spectrum perhaps?

Does anyone else run through and parse out different possible versions of God to inform their spiritual landscape?

Like, one of the possibilities I operate from is what if God needs our help? What if God is life, but God relies on us, all living beings to harmonize chaos into creation? In this instance, there is no get out of jail free card where you can abrogate responsibility, but instead we are the very substance of life rising from chaos to push creation forward and increase potential and possibility through raw effort, with very real possibilities of failure.

I mean think about how the world has risen from chaos and how much diversity and life springs forth from the higher platform of potential a developed earth creates. Then think of how it can all fall apart, the world being destroyed and life has to start again from a much diminished starting line, patiently spooling for how many eons to again create the right conditions for life and potential to spring from chaos. And it's up to us, we either do it or we don't. And that's how life really is in a lot of ways. You either put in effort and become changed by it, creating adaptation and growth or you don't and either stagnate or regress.

In my spiritual practice I hold and operate from many different possibilities while most importantly holding a gap in my certainty for the space where mystery resides. Too many people don't respect that gap and fall into dogma and conflict as they fight about "truth". What is truth but a proper description of reality? And in our reality, there is a gap or void of knowledge and certainty that we must respect and incorporate into our spiritual practice or else we become unhealthy and out of balance, killing each other for a "truth" that is flawed. Our spiritual senses dulling because we blindly accept second-hand dogma rather than living and developing first-hand spirituality. Feeding our minds with certainty but starving our spirit of the mystery and fruits of potential that is the journey and path of spiritual growth.

Everything in reality, has a gap, a hole or void that is filled by something else. There is a reason for it. It creates need to interact and reach out for other things in reality, which means chemistry and various reactions like combustion that leads to forward motion and greater variations of connection and more expansive degrees of potentiality made manifest.

I yearn for the possibility of one day humans chaining together multiple generations of people who have dedicated themselves to developing their own spiritual compass and palate to the point where we don't need to argue about dogma from the past, because we have our own senses to tell us where to go and how to behave spiritually in the present. I feel like Jesus wanted people to walk his path and adapt and change in similar ways as he did along that path. I don't think he wanted people to be a bunch of clucking hens arguing about what some dude said centuries ago, when if you just dedicated yourself to spirit you'd be able to feel and suss out the right directions yourself.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Fresh8686

[bearrock]

44 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Sure, if context is ignored people can try to manipulate the text, but that doesnt change whats actually in there and being said. And to kind of hop onto your previous post as well, the bible that we have today is easily the most accurate and verifiable ancient document we have to the originals. Way more than others that are widely accepted as accurate texts. Biblical and secular scholars would agree with that, regardless of if you think whats in it has any truth to it or not, just wanted to point that out since you were talking about that a bit previously.

 

I'm not saying that bible has no truth or does not reveal the word of God.  What I'm saying is using every passage of the bible as minute manual of our daily lives or even workings of the church is not tenable.  But all the progress we've made in archaeological aspect of the bible can give us false confidence.  We still don't know how accurate the copies were between the original text and the copies the bible was eventually based on in the 3rd and 4th century. 

 

Aside from that, the bible as a whole has many self conflicting passages or passages that may reasonably mean one thing or the other.  Let's take John 3:16 vs 1 Timothy 5:8.  Obviously John 3:16 is exceedingly simple in it's condition of salvation.  1 Tim 5:8, in the context of talking about children caring for widows says "[a]nyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."  What does this mean?  Is not caring for your own family a renunciation of faith?  Does it only apply to children caring for widows or does it also apply for their own children?  All relatives?  What's the definition of relatives?  Was Paul just being hyperbolic?  You could make a reasonable argument for many of the possible interpretations, which would have a pretty significant effect on the conditions of salvation.  

 

Now then, should a christian be sitting there trying to read the bible in original greek and try to figure exactly what 1 Tim 5:8 says about the conditions of salvation?  Or should we take from that, God wants us to take care of each other, especially family and then just do the best we can?  

 

What about 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

 

Quote

A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

Woman can't teach or assume authority over a man.  Does that only apply in church leadership? If we have a female only church, can that church have female pastors?  Can a nun teach the gospel to a man?  What about mother and child?  Only mother and male child?  Mother and male adult?  Woman saved through childbearing?  So what does that mean for woman who don't have kids?

 

What about Revelations 22?

 

Quote

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

 

Is the "prophecy of this scroll" only Revelations or the bible? (People who added 16 extra verses to KJV and the people who later removed them might want to know).  Since Revelations was the last book accepted into canon, are those people who preceded that decision screwed?  What about some sect of the church who rejected it into the 15th century?  People who inaccurately interpreted the Revelations into other languages?

 

I view the bible as a biography.  Yes, there are good information and things that I need to know.  Certainly a lot of food for thought.  But imagine your child holed up in a room and trying to figure you out using a biography about you.  If you want to get to know me, come out and let's talk.  Play catch, ride a bike, catch a movie together.  Let's spend time together.  That's how you build a relationship.  God is alive.  He's not holed up in those thin pages of the bible. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by bearrock

[MisterPinstripe]

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I'm not saying that bible has no truth or does not reveal the word of God.  What I'm saying is using every passage of the bible as minute manual of our daily lives or even workings of the church is not tenable.  But all the progress we've made in archaeological aspect of the bible can give us false confidence.  We still don't know how accurate the copies were between the original text and the copies the bible was eventually based on in the 3rd and 4th century.

Im not quite sure what you mean here, but I will say that I see the bible as the inspired word of God, accurate and true. If I think that parts of it are wrong, or inaccurate then how could I believe any of it? For me that would throw everything else into question. Which brings back the important to me that the accuracy to the original documents is well established from scholars who do and those who don't believe the bible.

 

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Aside from that, the bible as a whole has many self conflicting passages or passages that may reasonably mean one thing or the other.  Let's take John 3:16 vs 1 Timothy 5:8.  Obviously John 3:16 is exceedingly simple in it's condition of salvation.  1 Tim 5:8, in the context of talking about children caring for widows says "[a]nyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."  What does this mean?  Is not caring for your own family a renunciation of faith?  Does it only apply to children caring for widows or does it also apply for their own children?  All relatives?  What's the definition of relatives?  Was Paul just being hyperbolic?  You could make a reasonable argument for many of the possible interpretations, which would have a pretty significant effect on the conditions of salvation.  

 

Now then, should a christian be sitting there trying to read the bible in original greek and try to figure exactly what 1 Tim 5:8 says about the conditions of salvation?  Or should we take from that, God wants us to take care of each other, especially family and then just do the best we can? 

I dont see passages like this as contradictory or too confusing, I think this goes back to context both with the rest of the bible as well as who it was written to and the time period. What people were thinking about or going through during that time. And yes, there are versus that arent super clear from the get go and many disagreements on exactly what is being said. But in this instance I read Tim 5:8 and it seems pretty straight forward to me when taken in context with the rest of the bible. I can see why you would look at it the way you outlined though.

 

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

What about 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

 

Woman can't teach or assume authority over a man.  Does that only apply in church leadership? If we have a female only church, can that church have female pastors?  Can a nun teach the gospel to a man?  What about mother and child?  Only mother and male child?  Mother and male adult?  Woman saved through childbearing?  So what does that mean for woman who don't have kids?

 

Again, I see the struggle with this passage but I think again when I read it with the context of the whole bible it seems clear to me. I think a big part of this being an issue for people is the bible puts men and women in different roles and this is read as the woman is lesser than a man. Combining that with the "Proverbs 31" woman I think shows that. In regards to authority and children that is established elsewhere in the bible and so with that in context shows that that doesnt mean male children dont have to obey their mother. I dont want to try to respond to everything as I know you are just throwing out things to consider which I appreciate.

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

What about Revelations 22?

   

Is the "prophecy of this scroll" only Revelations or the bible? (People who added 16 extra verses to KJV and the people who later removed them might want to know).  Since Revelations was the last book accepted into canon, are those people who preceded that decision screwed?  What about some sect of the church who rejected it into the 15th century?  People who inaccurately interpreted the Revelations into other languages?

Perhaps Im reading this wrong but a lot of that comes off as legalism. That to me is speaking towards false prophets trying to lead people astray and again I think that goes back to context with all of scripture.

 

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I view the bible as a biography.  Yes, there are good information and things that I need to know.  Certainly a lot of food for thought.  But imagine your child holed up in a room and trying to figure you out using a biography about you.  If you want to get to know me, come out and let's talk.  Play catch, ride a bike, catch a movie together.  Let's spend time together.  That's how you build a relationship.  God is alive.  He's not holed up in those thin pages of the bible. 

I agree, there are passages in there that are tough, or hard to flesh out and fully understand, that we just dont fully understand, etc. And I definitely agree with the concept that God is alive and not just holed up in the bible, but I also think that the bible is the best way we have to know God and to take it out into the world and apply it and learn more about him through what he created.

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to write all of that out, I enjoyed reading through what you were saying and your thought process.

[bearrock]

And thanks for your reply @MisterPinstripe.  I'm not (at least I don't think) at a place where it's a lot different from your POV.  I just think sometimes people can get bogged down in the minutiae and miss the bigger picture.  Despite my posts about the bible in this thread, I do read it seriously and carefully and try to take guidance from it.  I will say I'm nowhere close to being able to parse every truths and meaning from the text and I'm okay with that.  I hope my heart is in the right place and hopefully that's good enough for God.  

[Zguy28]

33 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I will say I'm nowhere close to being able to parse every truths and meaning from the text

Show me somebody who claims they do and I'll show you a liar.

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Absolutely I believe it. I stand on truth revealed, not how I feel. Feelings change, truth does not (despite misuse and abuse).

 

This is disappointing on so many levels.  We know for a fact the church tried to minimize her relationship with Jesus and the other apostles as much as they could out if sexism.  It seems like the only person who believed in women having equal footing in regards to his beliefs was Jesus himself, few people defended Mary the way he did.

 

4 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

The only things true in this paragraph is that Jesus did indeed reach out to prostitutes (not lie with them) and the Roman Catholic church having gay priests. The rest...not so much.

 

Rather not debate about legalizing prostitution, but what's your take on Mary's relationship with Jesus?  You really going to base it on what made it into the bible?