Okay whatever you say, king of spain. I’m weary of the debate. A physical experience of actually seeing the earth from space or satellite photograhpy isn’t the same as a spiritual experience, such as let’s say a near death experience. Why would the Bible warn of possible deception if there was no chance of certain experiences being deceptive? Things aren’t always as they seem in this life, same goes for spiritual experiences. Anyway, I can’t explain it any better. Perhaps someone else will come along who can.
Of course experience is deceptive. Experience in high school taught me I was an unlikable, unlovable piece of worthless scum. I get the distinct impression that’s not true. That’s why Christ advised the disciples and instructed us to think. Christ’s own ministry included a lot of time clarifying and expounding on existing scripture. For example, take Mark 7:18-23 where He expounds on and in the end transcends Jewish dietary law. Christ encourages us to study and look at the roots of the Law and scripture. Surely if we stop short at the literal words on paper, it could be argued that we going against what He as taught us.
CJ
It’s true that experience can be deceptive and that perception through pretty much all five of our physical senses can be led astray (optical illusions play on this), however, when it comes down to a simple choice of believing a wealth of physical evidence (I’m not talking about lekatt’s NDEs yet), or believing an ancient, written document that appears to conflict with the wealth of observed evidence, which is the sensible option?
For example on the one hand we have the Bible that is interpreted as saying the Earth is ~6000 years old, on the other hand, we have a geological record that is not at all consistent with such a view, for example, we have layer upon layer of sedimentary rock, containing within each layer preserved evidence of ecosystems - there’s simply no way that this could have formed in such a short space of time.
Obviously the world isn’t 6000 years old, so therefore there must be another way to interpret those scriptures besides literal.
In the case of lekatt’s NDEs - I’m pretty skeptical about them myself, but I’d probably have treated the writer of Revelation (attributed to John) just as warily, very probably more so - we can’t examine lekatt’s experiences, so we can’t declare them invalid, especially on the authority of a document that we’re having a hard time establishing the authority of.
So…if some verses aren’t meant literally, can we all decide on which ones they are?
Somehow, I doubt it…
Grim
What I meant was,
shouldn’t everyone decide which verses are meant literally?
Or is that an impossibility?
If by that you mean agree then I would say that it would be impossible - and would add that it would be undesirable; one of the attractions of (modern) Christianity is that it encourages a personal relationship with God, and that, by its very nature means that there will be a plethora of interpretations and understandings and ways of relating, all of which provides a fuller understanding of the nature and character of God…
Grim
I understand your frustration, and I’m sorry, but I’m actually not trying to debate you. For now I’m just trying to understand your position. I know you think it’s obvious, but I honestly don’t understand it. Apparently I’m very stupid, okay?
All right. So physical experiences can be trusted, even to the point where they contradict the apparent literal meaning of the Bible. But spiritual experiences cannot.
You said to pray to God for help in understanding the Bible. That’s a spiritual experience, right? How do you know when that can be trusted?
I truly don’t know how to explain that. After talking to people on this board I think my brain is fogged up. I see now that people can come up with continual questions and interpetations and so on and so on. I wish I could answer your questions. The answers may be in me somewhere but I have no idea how to explain it. If Joe_Cool were here, I’m sure he’d be able to answer you. I’m lousy at debating. I guess you just have to take a leap of faith and come to God. Sorry I’m unable to satisfactorily answer your questions.
He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he’s a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Don’t have reference at present).
But, I feel I have come to God.
Yet, I disagree with you.
His4Ever wrote:
Blessed are they who will put aside their brains and open their hearts.
God bless Libertarian.
Dear Mangetout, I thought Peter wrote Revelations.
I understand your skepticism concerning NDEs, if I had not experienced it I probably wouldn’t have believed it myself. I was an agnostic at the time.
Spiritual experiences need to be weighed like everything that happens to us in life. But, the only skeptics I know of, are those who have not experienced a NDE.
Ask some hard questions if you wish, there is nothing to hide.
Love
Leroy
“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw — that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” — Revelation 1:1-2
“Blessed are they who will put aside their brains.”
Sounds like a sig to me!
Thats actually from Revelation 22:22.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven; brains and hearts - horses for courses.
H4E I do appreciate your tenacity in this thread; it’s far easier to fire off questions than it is to face them; please be assured that the purpose of this debate (at least for me) is not to ‘win’, but rather to understand (which is why I’ve tended to ask the same sort of question over and over).
I also appreciate that it’s tough to be the recipiant of all the questions, H4E, and I hope I haven’t been too confrontational. I do hope you can find the time to answer my last question though, where I point out the contradiction isn’t the vinegar but Christ’s words.
Well, thank you, though, H4e, and I agree with Mangetout.
[little question to the side]
Why would Luke leave out the bit with the kind soldier offering Jesus a drink?
Luke being the story teller, you’d think he would keep that one.
Is the author of John the only one to mention this or do others as well?
[/little question to the side]
Latro - all of the gospels are necessarily selective, as is any biographical writing. Certainly, it is reasonable ask why each of the evangelists made the choices which he did, and this will affect our intepretation of the gospel he offers us. But the fact that the evangelists made different choices doesn’t necessarily cast doubt on the accuracy or veracity of what he chooses to put in.
(Of course, it doesn’t prove accuracy either.)
I don’t know how to explain it. We have four gospels to show different aspects of what happened, I assume, and different aspects of Jesus. If they all had the exact same words, why have four gospels? I don’t know why the words are recorded differently other than the writers were telling it from their perspective. Sometimes one writer will leave out something another gospel writer includes (talking about the four gospels here). I believe the gospel of Luke, if I remember correctly, doesn’t mention the crown or thorns, but some or all of the others do. I don’t consider that to be a contradiction. Yes the writers were fallable humans, but I still believe God wrote the Book through the pens of these fallable humans. I don’t know how else to answer you. Someone who has done much deep study with much prayer would probably be able to explain the seeming contradictions better than I. I just have faith that it is God’s word and the seeming contradictions are because I don’t yet know how to rightly interpret a lot of things. That’s about all I can tell you, Revtim.