Be Suspicious of Religious Authorities Telling You What the Bible Says

Oops, that is correct, the princess of Wicca knows only of the spells that make the world tick.

Someone else brought the concept of sci-fi into the world of Fermi and Feynman.

CCNL:

"And how did the princess of Wicca get to be an expert in subatomic particle physics??"

You are the one who brought that in. PP did not make any inferences from your incoherent blathering.

And how did the princess of Wicca get to be an expert in subatomic particle physics??

Or maybe all of her readings of the noted sci-fi references somehow has replaced the works of Fermi, Feynman et al??

Pagan Place,

"Well, frankly, isn't that *what Biblical Christianity teaches?"

Certainly, that's the message too many people get out of it..."

Well if even one person gets that as the message it is one too many. My wife and I were married by a woman priest, which was a bit scandalous, at the time, to our parents. :^)

You do have a good point about the patriarchal nature of early Christians. They were more so than Jesus was. He seemed to have an Apostle Mary, and there were women bishops early on. As time progressed most traces of this earlier egalitarianism were obliterated.

I seems that the Ancient World (at least in the Mediterranean) was that way. The Romans did have some women town magistrates as, but I know of no Women Senators.

The Athenians were clearly even more patriarchal, than Romans, keeping their wives in quarters that sound like well appointed prisons. Constantine in the Eastern Empire adopted the Greek view.

Certainly the Hebrews were radical patriarchs as well.

It seems like the Celts were better with Boudica and other women high leaders in war councils and national decision making.

CCNL:

I couldn't have said it better than Pagan Place did.

Forward's excellent piece of science fiction does nothing to explain religion. It does a lot to explain compressed matter physics that you don't understand, and it is a fun read.

" CCNL
"And exactly why do we need "sci-fi" to explain religion? Or is religion simply the dated "sci-fi" found in the OT, NT and koran??"

Well, in this case, he was commending a sci-fi story as a means of explaining some *physics,* which had been otherwise brought into the religious discussion by... Who was that again? You. :)

Hi, Moderate and Lepi,

"Almost thirty years ago now, I married a wonderful young woman who had to divorce an abusive husband for reasons like you mentioned. The heck of it was that he said it was *her* fault for being "inadequate" in some inexplicable way. Pretty weird, I thought. Still, some of that garbage stuck on a certain psychological level, and it took couple of years for her to regain her confidence. She was always strong but it took time for the wounds to heal."

Well, frankly, isn't that *what Biblical Christianity teaches?" ...That everyone's "inadequate in some inexplicable way..." ....one that just happens to be something women are to be blamed for, cause of Eve?

Certainly, that's the message too many people get out of it, whether through a church preacher, 'studying' on their own, or sheer socialization.

"****************************************************************************************************
"That's pretty typical abuser behavior - make the victim think it's her fault, and you can keep up the abuse and she won't fight back. I bought into that line of cr@p for a while. Fortunately, I figured out that it was bullsh1t before it got me killed."

Yeah, unfortunately, you can see this even in some of the preaching, people claiming, "It's not religion or humans affiliated with it that are abusive.... In fact, I'm not spiritually abusing you now, I'm saying these things cause the arbitrarily-all-seeing-all punishing God 'loves' you, in all your innate inadequacy and wickedness."

It's called a 'psychological double-bind,' a technique beloved of torturers and propagandists everywhere.

I think it's in the text with basically its unitary model of how the world is: people find little else to emulate or understand their lives with than an idea there should be a ruling father, a submissive wife, a suffering child to 'save or be saved by' obedience to an authority... later...

Therefore I don't think it necessarily matters if it's 'studied' in groups or institutions or by solitary types making an authoritarian church of their own families: once you give a text that *kind* of authority, (and particularly when you exclude or subordinate all other forms and processes of literacy,) it's guaranteed that a certain number of these people will repeat and perpetuate the very cycles of abuse.

There's really only so much to work with in any one book, whatever the intention: if you have to have one, then maybe a diversity of ways of studying is best, (though these things tend to homogenize, anyway: easy way to think you have a 'complete view' when you're just getting thesame thing in different flavors) ...and it's all too easy for abusers, spiritual, physical, political, or otherwise, to turn a 'kinder, gentler' submission to that authority to other ends.

And exactly why do we need "sci-fi" to explain religion? Or is religion simply the dated "sci-fi" found in the OT, NT and koran??

CCNL:

"The point of fitting the human race into the volume of a sugar cube for the "upteenth" time is..."

I recommend a sojourn with the Cheela to you. In Dragon's Egg, Robert L. Forward (a noted and productive physicist in gravitational measurement, who had eighteen patents in the area.) developed the physical concepts for a nuclear chemistry based on strong and weak forces. The Cheela were a hard science fiction concept, and flourished on the surface of a neutron star where they had a high civilization at 67,000,000 gravities. All the physics, to the limits of late twentieth century science, is correct. He described Dragon's Egg as "a textbook on neutron star physics disguised as a novel." It was a great read.

Kind of opens up your understanding on how the Creator allowed many opportunities for life in her creation. It might require a bit more flexibility than your usual insipid and inflexible cut-and-paste repertoire. But I am going to go ahead and recommend it to you anyway.

The point of fitting the human race into the volume of a sugar cube for the "upteenth" time is to put some perspective into the reality of the human race i.e. occupying a small space on a small planet floating around a star in an expanding universe of 6 x 10E22 stars.

CCNL:

"Do the math. Takes about 15 minutes if you know how to handle the math of exponents."

I have been known to do an exponent or two. But I am glad that you see I am so bright as to work out Alan Guth's inflation theory in "about 15 minutes". You know, when I was seventeen I thought I was that bright, too. So it is very refreshing to correspond with someone on your level of sophistication and taste.

All that said, what *is* your point?

lepidopteryx:

"I raised my daughter not to take that kind of treatment from anybody. ... She didn't give him a second chance."

Good for you, and good for her. Truth be known, probably good for her ex-boyfriend too if he got the message. We have sons and (sadly) no daughter and we have raised them to never be a part of that kind of situation. We did tell them of it so they would know what was out there in the world.

hamiltonfed34 - I disagree with you that sin blocks out God's love from us. God's continuing, unfailing love for us in the face of sin is demonstrated by His willingness to set our sins aside whenever we turn to Him with true repentance. It is we who fail to love God when we sin, not the other way around. "We may be unfaithful, but He is always faithful."

Hi Susan

I almost agree with your summary at the end of your article. I would say: "The simple truth of the Bible is that God loves all of His creation, and asks us all, of our own free choice, to love Him with all our being, and our neighbour as ourselves."

To say "God loves all of His creation" means that God wants absolutely every single human being to join Him in heaven at the end of time. He doesn't wish for any human being to be consigned to Hell. However, He is a loving father, not a dictator of our actions - and still less a mere glorified computer programmer, omnipotently micro-managing every single wish of our human hearts. He leaves it to each of us to either choose or reject His gift of grace by which we can be admitted into heaven.

To say God calls us to love Him above all else means we should always remember that we, as individual human beings, are insignificant in comparison with His divne power and glory, but that we are each so precious in His sight that He personally invited each and every one of us into a loving relationship with Him.

To say God calls us to love our neighbour "as ourselves" means we are to follow His divine example, in the person of Jesus Christ crucified, in putting our own desires aside to do good to others - to the best of our limited human ability.

How anyone can be said to follow God's call if they use the Bible to justify tyrannically abusing their partner is beyond me. This has been clear from each and every homily my priest has ever delivered on Paul's epistles.

If I may say so, these perversions of Sacred Scripture are what usually follow from trying to read the texts in isolation from the teaching authority of the Apostles personally taught by Jesus, and the Church which they built and preserved with the help of the Holy Spirit. As a Catholic, I trust that when the successor of St Peter (the Pope), or the Council of the Church (the bishops in communion with the Pope), speak on a matter of faith or morals, the Holy Spirit is speaking through them. If some other religious leader speaks in contradiction with the teachings of the Church, what warrant do I have that they are speaking through the Holy Spirit? (I should also say, it was definitely the Holy Spirit that guided me into the Holy Catholic Church, after having been baptised and raised an Anglican.)

Perhaps one should read the bible as one does any other great work written by those who lived more than two centuries ago. The bible can be read by itself, as is true of Dante, Shakespeare, or Homer, but why ignore the thoughts of brilliant persons who have also read them?

There exist many brilliant analyses of all bible passages; reading them will almost certainly increase your understanding and enjoyment.

themoderate :
lepidopteryx:

"I'm now married to a fantastic man, as well as having many wonderful male friends."

Almost thirty years ago now, I married a wonderful young woman who had to divorce an abusive husband for reasons like you mentioned. The heck of it was that he said it was *her* fault for being "inadequate" in some inexplicable way. Pretty weird, I thought. Still, some of that garbage stuck on a certain psychological level, and it took couple of years for her to regain her confidence. She was always strong but it took time for the wounds to heal.

Now we have grown children who simply cannot understand that kind of thing, or how a man could permit himself to do things like that. I hope your marriage is as wonderful as ours.
****************************************************************************************************
That's pretty typical abuser behavior - make the victim think it's her fault, and you can keep up the abuse and she won't fight back. I bought into that line of cr@p for a while. Fortunately, I figured out that it was bullsh1t before it got me killed.

I raised my daughter not to take that kind of treatment from anybody. When she and her ex-boyfriend got into an argument that culminated with him pushing a bookcase down the stairs, she immediately loaded her dogs and her clothes into her car and came to my house to stay until she found another apartment. She didn't give him a second chance.

Bios :
Good for you, butterfly.

Has your view on religion changed?
*************************************************************************************************

My religion has changed. I was already finding that Christianity didn't fulfill my spiritual needs, and when I left that church after following the pastor's advice almost cost me my life, I didn't go to any church for a long time after that. I read a lot about different paths, and basically adopted those aspects that I felt fed my spirit and left the rest behind - I've always liked buffets better than planned dinners anyway.
Several years later, I was dating a man who was Christian, and I tried again to find a home in a Christian church, for his sake, but to no avail. I eventually discovered my local Unitarian congregation, and for the first time, felt at home in a church. It was through a class on the diveine feminine and goddess religions at the UU church that I realized that I had been Pagan for decades and just didn't know that there was a name for my beliefs.
So I am now a Pagan Unitarian.

Paul was one of the founders of Christianity along with M, M, L, and J, great embellishers all.

Was Paul homosexual? I don't have the foggiest idea. Some say sex of any kind was not important to him because his "hero" was about to return to earth and he had therefore more important matters to attend to.

With respect to a sugar cubes and the current human race: The space humans occupy is basically the vibration space carved out by our vibrating subatomic particles. We therefore are energy without much real substance i.e. the volume of a sugar cube weighing 550 million tons. Just an interesting bit of physics to keep life in perspective plus it gives some credence to the Big Bang theory. Do the math. Takes about 15 minutes if you know how to handle the math of exponents.

lepidopteryx:

"I'm now married to a fantastic man, as well as having many wonderful male friends."

Almost thirty years ago now, I married a wonderful young woman who had to divorce an abusive husband for reasons like you mentioned. The heck of it was that he said it was *her* fault for being "inadequate" in some inexplicable way. Pretty weird, I thought. Still, some of that garbage stuck on a certain psychological level, and it took couple of years for her to regain her confidence. She was always strong but it took time for the wounds to heal.

Now we have grown children who simply cannot understand that kind of thing, or how a man could permit himself to do things like that. I hope your marriage is as wonderful as ours.

Good for you, butterfly.

Has your view on religion changed?

Bios :
Haha..clear enough.

I hope you still trust men.
***************************************************************************************************
Of course - the fact that I married an a$$ the first time doesn't mean that all men are like that.
I'm now married to a fantastic man, as well as having many wonderful male friends.

Haha..clear enough.

I hope you still trust men.

Bios :
Lepi,

Concerning your comment at 04:55, could you pinpoint the moment where you realized that that was it and you had to leave? Was there such a moment for you?
****************************************************************************************************
The moment he threw a television at me.

testing 123 testing 123

CCNL:

"Basically "saint" Paul was a "prude"."

First he didn't exist, then he was a homo, now heaven forfend even worse than either being non-existent or non-standard, he was a "prude". Then again, he may actually now be compressed into the volume of a sugar cube...

Err... What exactly is your point, anyhow?

"Women were created to be a helpmate.."
"Yes, women are to be subject to their husbands.."

Is this what you really think, advocate? Maybe you wouldn't think the same if you were a woman.

Basically "saint" Paul was a "prude". An excerpt from Professor Bruce Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10).

Simply add Paul's (and Advocate4Good's) thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

And did the plagiarizing Islamic scribes use "prude" Paul's ideas about women in the koran? Absolutely, much to the horrific suffering of these women which continues today!!!

Wow, that was an eyeful. I was waiting to read how you helped these women from their abusive husbands, but got off on Protestant and Catholics, but never really addressed the issue of relevance, where you began. Perhaps that will be in your next article as a continuation.

I’m leaving my opinion off for enduring the read. Women were created to be a helpmate, but not by being a floor mat. Yes, women are to be subject to their husbands, but only when husbands are following the examples of the Lord, loving and showing their wives respect and honor as the weaker (lesser strength) vessels, (as contributing to the usefulness of the husband) they will automatically reciprocate in like manner when shown love and honor, as the husband is doing his part without controlling or being abusive.

Advocate4Good

now lets talk about the beautiful scent.

it is highly related with intake, inspiration, music, movies, speech, worths, treatment, address, lecture, house, cloths, bed and food.

should it be evaporating, evanescent, fragrant, oil, alcohol? the matter is beautiful scent. the matter is the presence to present.

in case of no water, with sand. in case of no sand, with brick (baked mud). and always beautiful scent.

CCNL,
Dannish Trademark in OnFaith

with just substitution of a few words from the text of Minister Brent Walker, Baptists may walk all around Anatolia. i sometimes think about what it is to baptise five times a day.

five times a day, hands, face, arms, feet, neck, ears, nose, mouth and head are watered. and all of these parts are matching with vocabulary of prophets and nations and their patterns.

we thank to Australia for this optical character recognition : ).

haveing scanned all, the 81st Oscar Awards have been matched with "The Reader" of Kate Winslet and Mickey Rourke's "The Wrestler".

at least Jacobsons are known as Wrestlers and we know about "Andreas" the Reader and "the TAilor", in case i have not mistaken. i shall read the texts while watching these two cinematics.

to beloved people around World Trade Center Twin Towers, have St Thomas and St Mark been counted in?

lets see the denmark ireland genetics to awaken to speak, in Canaan and Iran region.

last night i did see six or more Samurays, japanese knights, in a gate to light. i thought about "Samuel Ray".

with attention to SAmuel Mors and John Morse, the new mission in NASA to find new Earths, to search for Stars and Suns in Cygnus-Lyra region, to be launched on 6th of MArch from Florida Canaveral.

thanks to Lyra-Landers (ireland) for they made coffee available for a chat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George

" ... I picked up the pieces
And put them back where they belong ..."

this is to Washington Post OnFAith, thanks for every moderation and article.

CCNL,
Dannish Trademark in OnFAith,

tell me how are You doing "in now sense"?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87t4i_denmark-2009-believe-again-brinck-e_music

here and now, all children are in.

DAvid Plotz : jude jews
A LAyperson : Los Angeles, St Francis
Brad Hirschfield : sacred sects

Looking over your site, I get a feeling of frustration. So many people who have degrees and credentials related to Christianity, and yet, every one of them is completely wrong.

The Gospels were written for one purpose: to FOOL people into joining an End of the World cult based on a general resurrection of all the dead. For two centuries before Jesus, the Pharisees had been trying to add comments about an ultimate resurrection to Judaism. Conventional Judaism said, basically, focus on this life and let God worry about the afterlife. So, to get around this, they invented a silly story about a resurrected Jesus observed by over 500 people and said, "Prove that we're lying."

So many college degrees. So many Christians who write books and think they know what they're talking about, and you're all the victims of a ridiculous End of the World cult that shouldn't fool a high school graduate. My comment is, shame on you all. There was NO resurrection of the dead, and the world did NOT end. We KNOW Christianity is false. Augustus Caesar used the title "son of theos," son of the Divine Julius Caesar, because the Roman Senate issued a proclamation of divinity for his adopted father. To attract new members raised under the Emperor cult, the gospel authors used the same language to describe Jesus. Son of theos, Savior, has a kingdom, etc.

Chuck,

Who do you think wrote the bible?

Lepi,

Concerning your comment at 04:55, could you pinpoint the moment where you realized that that was it and you had to leave? Was there such a moment for you?

“I believe the Bible is inspired.”

“Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would your anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person?

“I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=Peter

more “logic”?

“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible Bible.

I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

CCNL: Bible "thumpers" really should not cite 2 Peter as being some authoritative musings of the simple preacher man and/or the Apostles.

If the Bible isn't accepted entirely, there is no basis to accept any of it. God is sovereign in perpetuation of His word, not man.

From Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown.>

Peter testifies to authorship, plus, he died before 130.

"You know what? Here's the simple truth of the Bible: God loves you and we are all called to love one another. The rest is commentary."

Actually, that's not the quotation. It goes like this: Treat others as you would wish to be treated. The rest is commentary."

I believe it was the Rabbi Hillel who said that in response to a question about what is contained in the Bible.

I commend your work with battered women and am grateful that you have taken the time to love them. As I read the Bible I am struck by the way Jesus broke in upon the laws that were so steeped in tradition, when he elevated the rightful place of women in His ministry. Through Jesus Christ we find Him lifting women from their iron-fisted domination to their original position given them in the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman. Here in the text, Eve was called a "helpmate". Upon first reading, the reader may be lead to believe that she was simply Adam's companion and assistant. However, the passage indicates that she stood on even ground with Adam. She was, upon further investigation, his "life saver".

Some may argue that the order of creation determined her position, but was not "dirt" created before Adam? If the created order gives power and/or position, then is not "dirt" superior to man? The Bible can and does interpret itself. Man and woman were created equal. Therefore, woman's submission is not in regards to order, class, power, or division. Women are subject to and in the same way as man, to their Creator. Her value is immeasurable and without reservation. She is lifted by Jesus to her rightful position, one of equality, of authority, and the right to life free from bigotry and maligned submission by uneducated and ill-learned men... those of faith or no faith.

Yes, I am a Christian, a man, and a Baptist minister in the South. My wife is my equal, my life-saver, and my companion in this life. She is a pearl of great price, a confidant in times of need, a tower of refuge and strength, she is a rock and a gentle wave. AND, she has the right to leave me should I usurp her right to a free life by trying to hang a shackle around her neck. If I were to strike her I would expect her to report it to the authorities and leave me. No woman deserves mistreatment.

It is a pleasure to read your post.

"You know what? Here's the simple truth of the Bible: God loves you and we are all called to love one another. The rest is commentary."

The rest is "commentary?" Really? I'm supposing, of course, when you speak of the "rest" you are referring to holiness, righteousness, sin, wickedness, rebellion, and hell...to name a few.

Your article states: "Religious authorities are often NOT helpful in reading the Bible"; however, you make bold claims that you, personally, are helpful...even writing a book about it? hehehehe For some reason I find that very hypocritical of you, especially sense you make no bones about your bigotry towards white male Christians.

While God does love us, and we are called “to love one another” it is not commentary that Jesus died on the cross to set sinners free from sin, death, and the grave and offer them true life of the Spirit of God: being born again. Setting oneself up as a teacher is a very scary thing to do in light of Judgment Day. Perhaps you should reconsider.

SavedGirl :
The Bible is clear that God's intention iis for the wife's to submit to there husband's. Most cases of battering ocurs when the woman trys to be the boss.
****************************************************************************************************

I HOPE you're being sarcastic.

The Bible is clear that God's intention iis for the wife's to submit to there husband's. Most cases of battering ocurs when the woman trys to be the boss.

Bible "thumpers" really should not cite 2 Peter as being some authoritative musings of the simple preacher man and/or the Apostles.

From Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use as a source of historic Christian scripture.

Interesting comments on bible studies with battered women. What I always find so puzzling is the fact that these women stay with their abuser. Unbelievable in today’s society. Even more unaccountable is trying to understand why they stuck to the bible regardless of what they just suffered.
They are still slaves...to the bible.

What would it take for these ladies to free themselves from the abusive mindset?

Why would anyone show the bible to these ladies after what they suffered, instead of offering some enlightenment to free them from their own ambiguity?
Therapy would be highly recommended. But going back to the bible?? Aren’t we just replacing one craving for another? It surely doesn’t solve the subjacent problem.

God's love for you is not dependent on your repentence. Your reception of His love is.>

Where does the Bible teach this? Blessing is reserved for believers.

He doesn't stop loving them.>

God loves us but our sin and rejection of Him prohibits our experiencing that love. Perish or salvation?

(2Pe 3:9) The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Education is a fine thing, except that it tends to steer people toward some questions and away from others. Any clergy-led Bible study faces the same risks - You are led toward what someone else thinks is important. A clergy-led study may not be geared toward where you are in your Christian development or gloss over details that are relevant to where you are in your life. I have learned many fine things from meeting with trained members of the clergy – they enhance my individual study, but cannot replace it.

Not too long ago, I attended a religious retreat where we were each given a cheap paperback New Testament and were told by the priest in charge that when we read from it, we should take a pen and underline the passages that spoke to us as individuals. Such an idea was almost a heresy to me – writing in a Bible! But I undertook this task and read the entire New Testament over the course of a month, underlining as I went. Reviewing the passages I underlined was (and is) a moving and rewarding experience for me. God speaking to my immediate needs, hopes and desires.

I also had a chance to look in the priest’s Bible. Some of the passages he highlighted were underlined only once, others twice, and still others three times. Every time a passage was underlined more than once, each underline was in a different color ink. I asked him what this meant and he said that every couple of years he would take this particular Bible off the shelf and repeat the exercise of underlining the passages that spoke most to him, each time in a different color ink than the previous times. Sometimes the same passages stood out to him and other times new passages that hadn’t made as great an impression stood out in a way they hadn’t before. Sometimes passages that he had underlined before didn’t make as great an impression as during a previous reading.

Everyone has needs, challenges and hopes that are individual not only to that one person, but to where that person is in his life. Individual study allows the Bible to speak to your current needs as well as your current level of Christian knowledge. As you change and grow in your faith, experience and knowledge, the Bible will continue to speak with new emphasis and conviction. The Bible does not change, but as we change the Bible is able to speak to us in ways that it could not before.

So what do the scriptures say to you?

SUSAN BROOKS THISTLETHWAITE

You wrote, "Be Suspicious of Religious Authorities Telling You What the Bible Says".

How true.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ken16: "You can't receive love until it is first given. God's love for you is not dependent on your repentence. Your reception of His love is. Many reject His love, He doesn't stop loving them"

Reminds me of:
"Learn to hide your strikes from your opponent and you'll more easily strike his hide."
"When you doubt your powers, you give power to your doubts."
"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions."
"When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack."

The Sphinx ('Mystery Men' 1999)

fuzzygruf :
Rick Warren's Saddleback Church preaches that battered women should not divorce their husbands, because that is contrary to the Bible.
****************************************************************************************************
Been there (not Saddleback, but one just as bad), done that, got the torn, bloody t-shirt.
When I approached my then-pastor to ask for helpl moving out after deciding to leave an abusive husband, he told me that I shouldn't leave, I should pray for him. I had promised for better or for worse, and this was for worse. If I stayed and prayed, then he might have a change of heart and "get saved." If I left, and he never "got saved," he would go to Hell and I would be partly to blame for his eternal damnation. So I stayed. And I prayed. And it damn near got me killed. My life didn't get better until I got off my knees and onto my feet.
That was when I decided that I would not seek advice from preachers anymore. If God had a message for me, then he/she/it/they could tell me him/her/it/themselves in plain English or forget about it.

Here is something to thing about since it is true: God is not a loving God, God is Love.

Love is not an attribute of God, Love is God's Very Being.

I was taught in second grade that God is Love but I had no idea that it was and is quite literal until God the Father came into my heart to reveal His Presense.

It is up to the individual person how they wish to study the bible but as far as someone telling someone else what something means, this should be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak, remember Jesus did say, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you", maybe we should believe Jesus.

The Holy Spirit can work in someone's life however the Holy Spirit wishes to work and the Holy Spirit's work will somehow be individualized to that person.

The biblical scholars of Jesus's day, at least some of them, were deaf and blind, so to speak, to what Jesus taught, lived and died for, this is still true today.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Studying along with the likes of Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Pagels (On Faith panelists), one develops a synopsis for the flaws and errors of Christianity.

To wit: (for those eyes that have not seen)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

"I don't quite believe this statement. God doesn't love unconditionally. I must repent, and meet God on His terms to receive his love."

You can't receive love until it is first given. God's love for you is not dependent on your repentence. Your reception of His love is. Many reject His love, He doesn't stop loving them.

newcreation08: "You know what? Here's the simple truth of the Bible: God loves you

I don't quite believe this statement. God doesn't love unconditionally. I must repent, and meet God on His terms to receive his love. Repentence is a condition of that love. My sin keeps me from His love, that's why repentence is necessary.

Now, God may allow blessing upon an unbeliever, this is talked about in the book of Job. Why do the wicked prosper? God is allowing the prospering through his permissive will. God does not grant his love and blessing to the wicked.

Does that make sense or am I off on the theology?

Posted on February 18, 2009 11:52

fuzzygruf: Rick Warren's Saddleback Church preaches that battered women should not divorce their husbands, because that is contrary to the Bible.

I agree with this. Rick Warren is an immature Christian proven by his lack of biblical knowledge.

It is good to be suspicious. It is also reasonable to note that almost no one can "read sacred texts" on their own. Almost everyone relies on translators at a minimum, sometimes a series of translators and since the texts are ancient, finding someone who you can trust to bring them into the modern world is a big plus.

"You know what? Here's the simple truth of the Bible: God loves you and we are all called to love one another. The rest is commentary." ---- Well said, and true. Thanks for posting.

Here's the simple truth of the Bible: God loves you and we are all called to love one another. The rest is commentary.

Wow - according to you the simple truth of the Bible doesnt have anything to do with mans fall into sin or the redemption of man through His son Jesus. Yours is a social gospel and is really no Gospel at all.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not justifying the people you outlined above who twist or mangle the scripture to say anything they want to promote, but I am saying that simplifying the true Gospel message to "God loves you and we are all called to love one another" ... puts you in the same catagory as those you are writing about.

Rick Warren's Saddleback Church preaches that battered women should not divorce their husbands, because that is contrary to the Bible. And they say that this is "America's Preacher"?