Ah. but “this is the work of God: to believe in the one he has sent.”
We’re talking about the Christian bible. As far as I’m aware the Jews don’t use the word bible (which is a collection of 66 books). They have their own names for the Old Testament, and whatever else they feel like adding to it 
I’m about to knock off for the night (just as the Americans awake) but… um… what kind of proofs are you looking for?
You like proofs for Jesus existance, proofs for fulfilled prophecy, proofs for events taking place? You name a few areas you like and I can either answer back on here tomorrow, or over email. Either is cool by me.
Example 1 though- the bible claims the spirit of God (that’s the Holy Spirit) will come and dwell within people like myself, convict a person of their sin and testify to God’s existance. I agree with this, and I’m a really skeptical person (you’ll have to take my word for it on that one, but I honour God by not lying, so…). I’m not a big ‘touchy-feely’ person, but I can’t deny what he’s done in my life. Problem for non-believers: you need faith and repentance first.
Maybe not much of a proof to you, but there you have it.
** rumraisin… **
Whole bible in context… belief, coupled with repentance that leads to sanctification. Remember when God says “Be holy as I am holy.”? Belief is the beginning, but you still need to run the race.
Incorrect. What Christians call “The Old Testament,” Jews call The Bible. Sometimes they use the Hebrew word “Tanach,” but in English it’s called the Bible.
You have asserted, and now further clarified, that you can provide “proofs” of the existence of a specifically Christian God. That’s what I want to see. It’s not necessary to prove the existence of Jesus. I believe he was a historical person. I just don’t believe that he was God or that he performed any miracles. You can take your best shot with “fulfilled prophesies,” if you wish. I can tell you that I’ve heard them all before, though, and none of them really hold up to close examination, especially when such typically cherry-picked verses are placed back into their proper textual context.
All religions have their transformative stories. How is your experience more valid than someone who is transformed by Islam?
Maybe not much of a proof to you, but there you have it. **
[/QUOTE]
I can understand this. His4Ever has a similar if not identical problem – believing that God is a righteous and stern judge, she, and I gather you, feel that a mark of kindness and compassion toward others is to warn them about what He’s got in store.
In point of fact, an awful lot of people who feel as you two do are inclined to sit in judgment over the alleged sins of others, while excusing their own. It’s a risk you take to be “tarred with the same brush” – because those who fulminate about how sinful everybody else is are not at all well liked around here.
This is a nice perspective. Now, we do have a “rupture” – a divergence in basic assumptions – here. Only a handful of people on this board (you can easily figure out who) hold that the Bible is literally inspired and inerrant. The rest of us either (a) disregard the whole thing as superstition, (b) see it as a collection of works by Jews (and one Gentile, Luke) put together much like any other collection of ancient manuscripts, with editorial piecing-together and individual human perspectives, or © see the latter, but with God trying to work through the individual human authors to get a basic set of points across. I hold with ©.
And it’s not so much that He progressively revealed His attributes as that the evolution of human thought about Him finally got to the point where they could grasp what it was that He was saying all along. That’s why Jesus, teaching a doctrine completely at odds with Pharasiaic and Orthodox Jewish love of the Law, refers back to the Law and Prophets on a continual basis.
I can grasp this. He is our judge; it’s not our job to judge each other. But, my friend, Scripture repeatedly characterizes God as predominantly loving; His other attributes are stressed, to be sure, but, according to Jesus and Paul, in contexts that focus on His love. I have always loved the analogy of God to Father – it was Jesus’s preferred way to refer to Him. But you need in that case to take into account exactly what it is that a father does when he disciplines in love. And the sorts of things suggested as God’s judgment seen as discipline in love are emphatically wrong for that context. A loving father does not send his child to eternal torture; he does not punish with incurable diseases. Rather, these are the concepts of humans afraid of God – fearing the Big Bad Bogeyman in the Sky and how terribly he will punish stuff – which they therefore better avoid, and, having by willpower managed to usually avoid it, feel themselves better than those who are not taking the warning and “continue in their sin.”
I’m sorry, but what Paul said is that the Law is a paidogogos – the slave whose job it was to keep the youthful heir safe while he was on his way to and from school. It was not a schoolmaster; that’s a mistranslation.
Back up five and rework this. Like any other expression of sexuality, homosexual behavior can be sinful. But what you’re going for here is: (1) I believe that the commands about gay sex are to be applied across the board, not, as the context indicates, as condemnation of selfish gratification of lust with no thought for the other. So (2) God condemns all gay sex, and it is therefore lawless, and (3) I consider that all gay relationships are founded on gratification of lust, and therefore selfish.
You have two perfect examples, in another active thread here, of committed gay couples who are not geared to that sort of behavior. They would in my estimation be perfect counterproof against your assertion. If your interpretation is correct, then they are in fact sinning by committing to each other with the same sense of loving and desire for lifelong commitment that I have with my wife, because on your account God is opposed to all gay sex. I think He’s opposed to objectification of sex partners as merely means for getting rid of one’s horniness, not treating them as people with the same needs and hurts and desires and loves as oneself. And it doesn’t matter who or what those sex partners are.
[quote…sex before marriage, lying, stealing, looking at a woman with the desire to sleep with her (as Jesus says that makes a man an adulterer in his heart) is an incorrect use of the scriptures to you, then you need to ask yourself the reason of why the ten commandments were given in the first place.[/quote]
Memo: the Ten Commandments were given to the Jews. And we’ve had numerous cases of people breaking the Ninth Commandment in their zeal to convict others of breaking, in some farfetched interpretation, the Sixth.
My first step, as outlined above, is to start with the two that Jesus said to keep first and foremost. If I ever get them right, I’ll worry about the rest of the list.
Good, so far. Now, what is the role of Judgment as regards a Christian. Well, look at Romans 8:1 for starters. Then apply the Parable of the Sheep and Goats to it, and then the Matthew 7 passage.
That’s my point. Christ’s Atonement saved us from judgment. But we can invoke judgment on ourselves by failing to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, or as we would do unto Him. And in particular by sitting in judgment over others, for as we judge, we will be judged. Judge, therefore, in mercy and compassion, as you would have Him judge you. Look for opportunities to help and guide, rather than condemn.
Jesus chose to undergo the Crucifixion in Atonement for our sins. I too take a hard line on sin – I’m opposed to allowing it to fester in one’s own life, and to judging the sins of others. I take that from what Jesus taught.
In case it never came clear, those of us who advocate the doctrines of “liberal Christianity” are not “relaxed towards sin” – we’re doing what God commands – rooting it out of our own lives, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and refusing to denounce the sins of others, if sins they be, because only He knows the hearts of others and what judgment if any they deserve.
Loving God with your whole being and loving your neighbor exactly as you do yourself, doing unto others as if they were Christ – these are not “relaxed Christianity.” They’re the toughest job going. Having a handy-dandy rulebook that says “gobear committed anal sex, and kissed a man; he’s guilty of Leviticus 18; Freyr ignored God’s revelation of Himself to him; he’s guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit” and so on – that’s easy, and of course it’s super easy to find ways to interpret the rules so that there are loopholes for yourself.
If you can read, with compassion, the descriptions of gay people’s lives (somebody might link to the “when I recognized I was gay” and “typical gay lifestyles” threads in IMHO and particularly to the gaybashing thread in MPSIMS, for the reading pleasure of Reactor and others) – and then say that their love and the abuse they’ve undergone – at the hands of your and my co-religionists, for the most part! – is justified, then you are convicted of having no love for your fellow man in yourself by your own words. From what I’ve seen of you, I think that you will see things differently. I encourage you to read those threads.
Let’s talk more on this.
Polycarp -
While I understand what you are saying, I find objections to it.
It might be instructive if we could find some things that you feel are genuinely sinful, and see how to respond to them. Should we be non-judgemental towards gay-bashers, for instance, or is that something that can certainly be condemned? Are we sitting in judgement unrighteously when we condemn people for not allowing women to speak at church meetings?
Also keep in mind that speaking to condemn the unjust judgement of others involves a judgement that they are wrong.
If we can never sit in judgement on others, then there is no way for us to testify that anything is wrong. Where do we draw the line, and what is our justification when we do?
Regards,
Shodan
You said that you do not trust those who reason with faith rather than logic or ‘reason’. And I said I do not trust those who love without faith.
Most athiests, I am sure, has faith in those they love, so why would they disagree with me?
Zoe
Lucky you. And I am not being sarcastic at all. There are those that love on their own terms. Some downright mean about it. And their lack of faith in those they love can be cold.
Then it’s not love.
I saw one of those billboards too (unless it was the same one) a while back while on a trip to SC. I was driving and I was extremely irritated, though luckily not to the point of driving off the road.
It never ceases to amaze and annoy me at how small, narrowminded groups of people seek to control what the population in general is allowed to do in private!
Love according to DtC? How quaint, but irrelevant. Like I said, I do not trust such faithless love, but I do would not go so far as assert it not being love.
Reasoning without reason? Gee, why would I not trust that?
I know atheists who have religion and call it their faith. Just like my feelings about the people I love are, in most respects, unrelated to my feelings about religion, god, etc. Having faith in other people (if you choose to call it that; I don’t but I suppose it’s just semantics) is perfectly plausible without faith in god. I don’t see why you’re tying the two together.
read the part I bolded in your quote.
I don’t understand this; can you explain? An atheist denies the existence of any gods. Religion is the worship of a god. How does an atheist “have religion?”
You bolded the entire quote, Spite. Would you prefer to try and shed some light on whatever misunderstanding we’re having?
MLS, religion is not necessarily the worship of a god, that’s how. At least in their view. Although you can check a dictionary and see definitions of religion that don’t include god either. Check out this site Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, perhaps that’ll explain it somewhat. (Lest this become a tangent, I should explain that a couple of my friends are Ethical Humanists; I’m not one myself. I don’t really disagree with anything they say, I just don’t feel the need for a religious community and I just dislike services.)
My bad. I was refering to my first quote.
Polycarp, I am doing my best not to quote your entire last post. I’ll refrain for now, but may have to do so if others keep attempting to refute your exacting mention of Christ’s word.
I did not think you could possibly elevate yourself in my own inflated opinion of you. You have done so and I am humbled by your sense of generosity and decency.
I am sitting here at my keyboard, literally stunned by your compassion. Would that we all had such precise understanding of your salvation’s path.
OK, Spite. Although I still don’t see the faith/love connection. (Did I just… yeah, I’m gonna leave that as is.)
Uh… well, that would be the Bible Dio. 
…which would be EXACTLY the problem, since you can’t cite the thing in question.
“Jay “The Great” Gatsby not only existed, he loved Daisy Buchanan.” “What’s your source?” “Uh… well, that would be The Great Gatsby.”
Just for the record, I hope everyone understands that my “Uh… well, that would be the Bible, Dio” comment was in jest.