ohmi

Simply reproving 'faiths' to the scripture eliminates all the current chrstian dogmatic creeds that I know of, they are not even close to agreeing with scripture because of their 'traditions' which they refuse to reprove in accord with the whole scripture [which nevertheless they insist that they believe in!]

The scripture tells one how it is to be interpreted , and leads one into contradictions with other scripture if one gets it wrong [e.g. wrong on account of preconceptions or dogma]

The whole thus knits together into a self-contained message about Love being the only way, that everyone will accept eventually [but not yet]... and death being nothing to fear for anyone ; A message that is nowhere near the massage of modern sinner 'chrsitianity' religions ,buckets of them, all different, all disagreeing with the scripture they say they believe.

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

ohmi

Interestingly perhaps that scripture reveals that this will be the way of this world, climaxing in worldwide secular and religious power of the antichrist [one in place of Christ]

But only so that it is proven untrue by the fall and death of this the greatest evil done in the name of good... power wielded by conceit fails in the end, but not before convincing almost all men.

The God of scripture doesn't threaten punishment , only false religion and secular powers do that . Rather the scripture simply explains the consequences of our unloving acts that are inevitable ... One might put it that people learn from their mistakes , most give up pride, unsharing, uncaring, inequality only when their unloving ways are seen to fail them...

So makind has to suffer

Or looking at a broader picture, one might say that time-less God cannot experience , so in knowing evil we are that knowing for Him, God's 'eyes' in time which He cannot experience directly ...

Either way of looking at it, suffering is inevitable in order that evil be known absolutely for what it is , but it is never a punishment since mankind has no responsibility [as we could deduce from observation of our belief in causality , but most cannot accept the implication]

In scripture the covering cherubim manifest the power of God in this world [predominantly 'Satan'] and the next [predominantly 'Jesus'] , by manifestation of the spirit as men.

Thus if one were to listen to God's prophets one would realise that the impression of greatest power in this world of the coming antichrist [final climactic unification of nations and religions] is NOT the final word on power , even though almost all the world will accept it...

The problem in understanding then [if that is what it is] is perhaps partly the inability to think long-term, even to consider the end of this world (already demonstrably close even in scientific terms as we destroy our even our means to eat in the name of 'progress' ) let alone what is beyond death

More than a moment may be required, a lifetime is usually insufficient

Not that it makes any difference, but we have not the ability to judge each other aright , so one needs to treat everyone the same eventually, whether they lie to one [or themselves!] or not, indeed whatever they do.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

1 Corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

We are due one might fall , the pride of men in themselves trampled in the dust of our destruction of our own home planet's ability to support us... the epitah: 'they were proud fools to themselves'

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Sure, but men cannot do it because the system of life has devoured even our leaders in its corruption already , a juggernaut already having destroyed much [well descrbed ,but ignored] and inexhorably going to take billions of lives as it fails

Not sure what you mean, but our environment is already changing rapidly ,almost beyond control , and no significant attempt being made to do anything to stop it... and our inaction has likely already sealed our fate despite warnings being sounded all my lifetime.

Equality is indeed essential to peace, and absent from our present world...

As scripture points out, only one in a million will step outside the evil system that runs our lives , controls us , [the 'norm'] ...and their fate in this world is most likely capital 'punishment' , death.

Death of a saint however guarantees translation [spiritual freedom], whereas the death of the unloving ['sinners' of any 'faith'] guarantees only resurrection to yet another life [albeit that there is thus by then a ministry of perfected saints to create a system of life for many based upon Love alone]

elevator

I am not at all convinced. Am I supposed to believe that the way to understand something we imagine to be a metaphor is to scour the bible for similar word constructs to compare against? Creation is one of those ambiguous topics. You already asserted that literal interpretation is wrong; you asserted that replacing "day" with "age" is wrong, you asserted that imagining a creation event followed by evolution is wrong. You gave an example of how to get ungodly from chaff (which also, incidentially, can be translated as wicked, or those who fight against me), I am sure you can extrapolate this wisdom to explain creation? What about biblical morality? -Quite possibly one of the most ambiguous topics in the entire bible.

I am convinced that if you could dive into any significant literary works with the preconception that it was written by God, you would find plenty of evidence to support it. When a Muslim reads the Quran he would of course imagine the same thing about that book that you imagine about the bible. It doesn’t say anything about its actual truthfulness though. In fact, there is nothing to indicate the bible as any more truthful than the Quran, except if you read the bible with the preconception that it is!

Millions and millions of Christians and non-Christian bible scholars and readers do interpret it different from you though. Not only that; billions of adherents of other religions don’t even interpret the bible at all! They instead read a whole different set of holy books claiming truth at the exact same level as you do for the bible.

Again, it painfully lacks evidence. There is nothing to indicate that this will happen. Hindusim predict a similar scenario throughout the Kali Yuga. Observing increased populations, increased competition for limited resources, technological advancement, cultural differences, etc. it is not difficult to imagine the potential for spectacular conflict. The book of revelation is so vague that it could really be made to have foretold any future conflict of reasonable proportion. This, however, does not mean that such conflict was destined or foretold by God. Believers in the extra terrestials, for example, have predicted flooding, earthquakes, fires, temperature fluctuations, violent storms, etc. when the aliens visit us from outer space. We all know that flooding, earthquakes, fires, etc. will happen at some point in the future. When it happens, however, it is in no way evidence that aliens are visiting earth.

There is actually no evidence that anyone gets free (attains moksha). Similarily, there is no evidence that anyone is saved by God. Religious adherents of any religion imagine that God will show them mercy, but wishing something to be true is in no way an indication that it is true. I would absolutely love to see my loved ones again in some blissful heaven – however all evidence points towards this being nothing more than wishful thinking in the face of inevitable death.

So let’s keep Christianity out of it then. The doctrine of Moksha is far more consistent than the doctrine of the afterlife set forth in the bible. Should we not then, by your definition, imagine reincarnation to be correct?

What prophecies have come true? Tell me one prophecy that is not vague, ambiguous or statistically likely anyway.

You are going to the last book of the New Testament to explain the concept of stars as set forth in the first book of the Old Testament. Can Genesis be made consistent (methaphorically or literally) with scientific knowledge about astronomy, geology and biology?

There is nothing dogmatic about science. What determines the viability of a science is how well it is supported by empirical evidence. I suggest you read up on the scientific method and see how dramatically it differs from any dogmatic reasoning. If you’re thinking that subjects like Evolution are dogmatic; then only in the extent that there are no competing theories that even come close to presenting the kind of empirical evidence needed to break evolution as a scientific theory. If evidence came along to disprove evolution; sure it would be replaced immediately - much to the dismay of many scientists, but it is this reliance of empirical evidence rather than revelation that makes science inherently undogmatic.

Scientists lobbying? That’s a funny one. I bet you there are far more religious lobbyists out there than there are scientists. Think about the effort to bring creationism into school curriculums, for example, or the level of religiousness in high political positions.

And the bible is not fiction? See the thing is that Dante and Shakespeare make no false assertions about the truthfulness of their literary works. How can a text misinterpreted by almost 2 billion Christians, and disbelieved by the remaining population of the earth be considered a works of literary depth? It would be all fine and dandy if you didn’t claim this book to be truth! If Dante didn’t admit that his Inferno, for example, was fiction, how would you prove that Dantes work was not true and the bible was?

No, you’re of course right. In fact, it seems as though you are one of the extremely few who have. Problem is; there is absolutely no evidence that you are any more right than I am, is there?

You are talking about empiricism in philosophy not in science. Empirical evidence used to establish scientific knowledge is experience of the natural world, evidence observable by the senses. The Liar Paradox has nothing to do with the establishment of any scientific theory. "Belief in empiricism" is therefore an absurd language construct. You don’t have to just believe it; you can examine it for yourself! You can’t do that with God. God’s existence is purely a matter of faith. And even if you believe it, it may be false. There is no testable prediction to test or evidence to examine. You have nothing except for personal belief and personal experience.

Well, that’s really exactly my point. Appealing to the supernatural really has not much use at all because there is no evidence for its existence; apart from alleged personal experience and blind faith. And most philosophical concepts, such as God and morality is changing. Different cultures have had different views of the supernatural, nature of God and creation as well as morality.

Which is great. I love to read books of great moral wisdom and I even take some of it to heart. The difference between us though is that I don’t imagine any such book to be the word of God.

It is really interesting that in order to make sense of the bible you must divorce yourself from the biblical canon as interpreted by any Christian denomination, and even divorce yourself from the Christian concept of God. We disagree on pretty much every single subject here and just keep going in circles. You put your blind faith in the biblical text. I don't. You think the bible is coherent, non-ambigious and consistent. I don't. You believe the bible is superior to any other book. I don't. You believe the bible reflects the will of God. I don't.

It is impossible to argue someone who claims an exclusive interpretation of the bible (as was the result with my Muslim friend). At least when you argue Christians or Muslims you can point to their holy book and show them what their book says. But with you, that is impossible, because any such attempt will automatically be met with an assertion that what I am reading is not what the bible is "really" saying and that popular interpretations of it is the result of sinners. It seems like I must read the bible with some kind of alice-in-wonderland mentality, with some kind of preconception that what I am reading is ultimate truth and that any ambiguity or inconsistency must be explained away by asserting lack of biblical knowledge or lack of access to the complete text. Blind faith in the bible as the ultimate authority is apparently a prerequisite for seeing the biblical truth.

I don't buy it.

ohmi

And I'm not selling it

juergen

But wasn't each of these traditions started by people who (given the benefit of the doubt) sincerely thought they had found the one true interpretation of scripture? I remember my pastor at the Reformed Church I attended always reminding us that Scripture interprets Scripture.

How could one possibly know, such as a person in your position, that you're onto the true interpretation? What kind of filter can you apply that existing traditions haven't applied or have mis-applied?

Would it mean that one of the characteristics of the One interpretation is the non-existence of contradiction in it? How could its truthfullness be distinguished from other interpretations that have no contradictions in them?

Is this the questions only thread?

ohmi

As I have said, the test of consistency with all scripture eliminates all modern [divided] creeds , there are none even close to the scripture [yet it is supposed to be used to reprove such divisions]

It is thus quite easy to eliminate existing religion of sinners without any interpretation other than what scripture itself offers ... 'reformations' have never completed their aim of reforming creeds, but unsurprisingly all contain elements simply copying past mistakes and propaganda.

The test then is the scripture itself, all of it, and it works , however it does take a long time.

There is only one truth of God [which fact alone proves the apostasy of divided religion] , thus, as scripture states, there is but one understanding of scripture [by means of all scripture integrated or by means of the holy spirit of truth , the spirit of God Himself]

I am not sure how you imagine that 'interpretations' can differ without contradictng themselves [and thus one or more would contradict the scripture too ... so I believe that one cannot logically have two different 'interpretations' without at least one of them being contradicted by scripture

-One cannot then have imho two different interpretations with do not contradict some scripture

No, but that would perhaps be a better way to proceed. with the discussion

ohmi

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

As is clear from the failure of many attempts to force the idea of the beginning of the universe onto Genesis, it just doesn't fit in the ways that have been tried ... since God has said that the world's ways are NOT the way to find out the truth ,it is rather bizarre at first sight that so many religionists ignore Him and plug away at 'theology'.

What the scripture says is that there is a time for knowing ,and for most people it is not now, so God does not lift the scales [from the world] off most people's eyes for now , He does not need more than the few [Matt 7:14] for now, since the priesthood must be readied first else they could not serve the countless many [billions] of all nations resurrected later.

Men thus have begun almost all their understanding from presumption [relative knowledge] and the view of Genesis that it is talking of the beginning of the universe is just one of such presumptions ... but only a few men have bothered to question that presumption And it is an interesting situation, one I still spend a little time looking at despite not being especially interested in creation [study takes many years and there are items pertaining to this time and the future which I have not yet resolved, which seem more important than creation to me at this time]

Most who put their faith in the relativism of science and [disproven] completeness of deduction seem mostly to content themselves with the easy task of disproving religious creeds to their satisfaction, never going the step further and seeing if there is a consistent meaning to scripture if one removes the religious presumptions NOT made in scripture ...

Clearly God will not let His declared plan be disturbed by men, we are not in any way free to do that , nor do those who yet believe that they are free even try [lest they find out that they are not]

So your hope that I will extrapolate from scripture is in vain, I have some insights and results from studying Genesis, but they would not be of use to you since they are merely 'leading lines' for investigation , not results.

God undertakes to explain all things to all eventually, and explains why men will not know now, no matter their faith in relativism ... the answers are beyond time and thus much is beyond our puny experience and thus our language ... men actually bizarrely refuse to investigate many things by our relativism , and live our lives in denial of the absolute truth within , it is a poor start to understanding, one born doomed to failure because it is 'built on sand' ... the only joy then is building a consistent picture from within , but the work one soon sees is more than one can do in a lifetime, we are mostly dependent then upon God for resurrection [which is when most come to knw all truth, according to scripture]

elevator

I am glad we have gotten far enough in our discussion for you to admit this. I am not going to accept your "truth" based simply on your good word. Your word may indeed be good, but just because you allegedly get this wisdom from the bible does in no way qualify it as automatic truth. In fact, evidence suggest the exact opposite - there is no reason to assume the truth of any holy books. Such skepticism, I maintain, is after all a good thing. It seems as though the only two qualifiers you have to determine the bible as truth over all other religious books is the fact that 1. you believe it, and, 2. you feel that when interpreted correctly it makes sense. This, you must concede, doesn't exactly paint your favorite piece of literature in a flattering light as far as its value as truth is concerned.

In my humble opinion, it is almost a shame to limit ourselves to accept one book as the ultimate manifestation of truth, when there are a world of books out there, on various philosophical and religious subjects, that seems to address many of the same subjects as the bible, but without the prerequisite of having to believe in a particular supernatural entity to ultimately understand its content.

You have talked a lot about reverence for love and sinner-Christians. Morally, many people feel they get more in return from reading literature such as Khalil Gibran's popular book "The Prophet" than they do from the the bible. What about Mahavira, one of the Jain tirthankaras, who many feel surpassed the morality of the bible in a sigle sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being". Imagine how clear and concise such a moral commandment is compared to the "need for intense study" approach needed for biblical comprehension.

ohmi

The scriptures were not written to be comprehended by the many at this time, it explains that. [Much of the scriptures say to whom they are addressed]
God does not require more than the specified few as priests at this time , the many are redeemed later [after death and resurrection frees them from unlovingness of this world.
God undertakes to teach all truth to all men Himself , so the study of the scriptures is in no way required , it is wholly a matter of whether one is moved to understand what the saints and prophets wrote or not.

elevator

You have made so many claims throughout this discussion, but you have nothing but your personal belief and biblical quotes to show for it. This is the classical circular argument: "How do you know God exists? Because the bible says so. How do you know the bible is right? Because it is the word of God". There is no evidence that your book is superior to any other piece of literature (contemporary or ancient), there is no evidence that this book was inspired, mediated or authored by God (any more than any other book). There is no evidence God exists at all (any more than any other God). The Muslim, for example, could present the exact same evidence as you for his holy book (Quran) – claiming it is both coherent and consistent in its truth claims; given that it is read and interpreted correctly. If this is correct, then I must remain agnostic, because you claim I cannot understand the Bible and my Muslim friend claims I cannot understand the Quran. If I were to take both of you seriously I must reject both until such time as one of you provide proof beyond the unintelligible. In fact I must reject all holy books making similar claims about access to divine wisdom. In the light of this, can’t we just extract the wisdom from these books as we do from any other book and ignore the alleged divine or supernatural aspect? Afterall, the wisdom is real, but the claim to supernatural authorship, mediation or inspiration is not (at least unproven).