Evangelical Support Group

Thanks for keeping an eye out, Percy! I changed my mind and opened the topic at Post#37. I still want everyone to understand that this support group is based on the Belief Statement in message 14, but I was happy to let Nator correct me in regards to defining logic.Belief is not always logical if it ignores rationality, but I am leaning towards presuppositionalism anyway, so I am allowed to be irrational!

I really didn't want to question the Belief Statement, but I suppose that I owe you some sort of a debate since I opened up the topic!Fully inspired means that the Holy Spirit is the agent which brings the scriptural meanings alive.
I googled a few sources to find what the conservative fundamentalists mean, and found this: Personally, I don't believe that the Bible is word for word inspired, but I DO believe that the book is thoughtfully inspired and is a result of human authors having spiritual inspiration to write what they wrote in the context of the times that they were in having been inspired by God. (either directly or through others)What does "without error" mean?Here is what I found concerning that: Personally, I agree with truthlover in message 18 when he says that people should be led by the Spirit and not by the wording of the scripture itself..What does "the infallible rule of faith and practice" mean? Here you go making me think again! I want the belief statement to stand as an assumption for the purpose of this thread. I suppose that what that means to me is to do my best and to have a daily communion with God. While it certainly won't make me infallible, it may well allow what I say to have the unction of the Holy Spirit behind it so that I don't sound stupid or arrogant!BTW what did you think of my rebuttals to Spongs assertions? message 36 Edited by Phat, : correction

Again, you provided lots of words, but no information or content.If you actually read the supporting assertions you posted all they say is that if you are willfully ignorant you will not find problems.It says that there is No Error if you can possibly makeup some explanation for the contradictions regardless of how conv.I thought your response to what Spong said were just more willful ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have thought that if I had grown up in Spong's congregation, I just might have remained a Christian. Or at least a believer in God.I greatly admire him.

Phat this John Shelby Spong is indeed interesting, with a fresh and insightful viewpoint.The problem I have with contemporary Christianity is that it is really just a reformed Bronze age belief system.A belief system that is a reformulation or variation on the symbolism and paradigms of a prior time when superstition reigned supreme and humans were largely ignorant of the workings of universe. Bronze age beliefs such as

Sacrifice of life as gift to god

Blood for atonement of sins

Control of nature and the outcome of history as a consequence of the combination of obedient behavior and supplication of prayers (i.e. spells)

The vision of god as a warrior

​

All have roots themselves in even more primitive beliefs and are common themes in most primitive religions. They appeal to the small part of the brain since that is their origin.

​

Just as a snap shot I look at the dichotomy of these two statements:

​

Dr.J. Vernon McGee writes:

​

Christ was the perfect sacrifice. He was sinless, so He was able to qualify for God’s requirement of a perfect offering. Yet, He took on our sins so that when we put our faith in Jesus, His righteousness is imputed to us. It’s like we are swapping places. The Lord takes our sins, and we take His righteousness of Jesus Christ.

​

And

​

Spong writes:

​

The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

​

One has to ask why the omnipotent creator of the universe requires "a perfect offering" a "perfect sacrifice".

​

Spong identifies the practice of offering sacrifice as a primitive concept. The NT example takes that concept and improves upon it (a variation) and makes it more palatable for the more modern civilized world.

Spong is one somewhat extreme example, but just one.There actually is searching and questioning going on in "contemporary Christianity" and I would be more than happy to point you towards such sources.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It seems to me that was one thing that Christ accomplished. He put an end to things like human sacrifice. We now take communion instead of having an actual blood sacrifice. Christ was also a King that embodied the idea of achieving peace by peaceful rather than by military means

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I'm still puzzled. I mean, God is a personal entity, so if God is not evident as a personal entity, what exactly is evident ?And Romans 1:21 seems tk make it clear that they acually know not only that some sort of "divinity" (in a loose sense) exists, but that a specific God exists: Isn't the problem that Romans seems to indicate that everyone knows that God exists, but that such an interpretation is manifestly false ?

I don't want to nitpick but this is relevant to my point - and it does suggest that the belief statement is just a little misleading. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, refers to "Scripture" without making it clear what it means. If the writer really is Paul (something widely doubted) then he would be unlikely to have included any of the NT books. Even today - as Jar often points out - there is no universally agreed Christian canon. So it is certainly open to doubt whether the works referred to are "the Bible".1 Corinthians 2:12-13 doesn't even refer to written works. This is a clear falsehood. Rather than reading with an unbiased eye, to come to this conclusion you need to read the Bible with the overriding assumption of inerrancy. So this doctrine - which is not even in the Apostle's Creed, must be taken as superior to the Bible.Taking these points together it seems that rather than the Bible dictating doctrine, doctrine dictates the reading of the Bible. The stretches of 2 Timothy and Corinthians above are hardly unusual or even the worst examples I have seen. That isn't want Evangelicals would have you believe.

At the time Timothy and Corinthians were written there was NO BIBLE or even the thought of creating a Bible.Scripture simply referred to those general Epistles, Gospels and other inspirational writings and most definitely did not refer to the "Bible". It would also include all of those works that never made it into one of the Canons and even those works specifically excluded.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

GDR my point it that it is a variation, or really an abstraction, on a old and primitive theme. The origins are still firmly rooted in a time when demons and superstition ruled the thoughts of men. The concepts are common to many early religions that formed as humans transition from hunter/gathers to agricultural city-states.Viewed objectively the concept of communion sounds so strange and surreal. If you were to explain the concept to say an alien being or some otherwise objective intelligence, I believe they would find the notion extremely strange, archaic and quaint, in much the same way viewers of the "Planet of the Apes" series found the description of Ape religion. Christ's message was not necessarily about peace...

Would it have included those? A large number of those writings never made into the Bible, many of them being rejected as either heretical or apocryphal. Would they still be considered "Scripture"? And if not, then, without the foresight of the future Council of Nicea, how could the writer(s) of those epistles know what "Scripture" was supposed to be?As I understand the Jewish viewpoint, Scripture refers to the Torah and to the other books which largely makes up what Christians call "the Old Testament". I would expect the writers in question to have had the same understanding.The questiont that I'm raising is whether they would have also considered the numerous new religious writings to also be "Scripture". Kind of like whether Chick Pubs tracts should be considered "Scripture".Corollary question: just exactly when did New Testament writings come to be considered "Scripture"?

Good and often missed point. I once heard a hymn on the radio with the chorus "If the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it is good enough for me" A spoof no doubt, but when you question the beliefs of some "inerrant world of god" believers, you sometimes wonder...I believe the whole concept of Canonization is human flawed, notwithstanding effective from a practical point of view.The Canon served the same purpose we have technology standards today. It served to promote the religion far and wide and allowed people to convert to the religion without doing much homework. You can't sell something, unless you have a nice tidy package.Many reverent Christians do not know anything about the history of the formation of the Christian Canon, even those who proudly profess it to be the "Word of God" - most just assume the references are in order.When I think of the Canon, I am always reminded of the phrase of the good Dr Ian Malcolm "you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it."

We often forget that Judaism was a dynamic, evolving religion even past the time of Jesus. The Tanakh was still in flux during the first century CE and accounts of the period seem to show that it had only 22 Books and not the later 24 Books we are all familiar with.In addition, if you read all of the passage from 2 Timothy 3, what is being discussed is most definitely both the older texts that all would have been familiar with but also the teachings of the writer and others. It is an exhortation to continue learning and to look critically at EVERYTHING presented. It is basically saying, "Be all you can be!"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have to get off this trip of consistently using these catch-phrases that you use. Have you ever had a personal encounter with God? Are you saying that because you have or have not, I must fall into your paradigm and world view for how things are? None of us have experienced the same things in our lives.This is what annoys me about your assertions concerning my beliefs. I have seen and experienced things that you have not. Just as God is not contained in the box that the fundamentalists have built for Him, my reality is not limited to observation and replication. I did not create a little godlet in my mind based on dogma that I was taught. I actually had experiences and witnessed events that helped form the belief paradigm that I currently have.You often label much of it as silly or inane. That is your opinion and your right. You might note, however, that the possibility of a supernatural "war" of sorts may well blind your conscience and rationality to the status quo. Things are not always as they seem. Why? Because I did not agree with him? You have to understand that Spong, yourself, and other contemporary Christians have a world view and a belief system just as I do. As you yourself have said, there is a possibility that you may be wrong about it....just as there is that possibility that my belief system may be wrong. You have a valid point. To blindly accept dogma without questioning it is certainly allowed, and I would guess that God certainly foreknows that humans will always question. He gave us the ability to do so...so it is illogical to assume that He does not want us to question what we have been taught.A literalist always begins their world view with scripture and attempts to reconcile everything else through that lens. Most logical people will allow themselves to question the validity of the Bible and so end up having human wisdom and experience as the lens through which they view religion, God/human interaction, and life in general. Literalists, in contrast, staunchly and stubbornly stick with the Bible as the lens...perhaps because they see everything ever written as human philosophy and trust that this book is somehow a reliable and accurate source of wisdom.Is it willful ignorance to believe that the authors were inspired by God? Why must humans view their recent philosophies as so enlightened? Why must we scoff at the possibility that there is, indeed, a spiritual war going on...for what purpose as yet undetermined?It makes sense to question why God would ever create a freewill angel who would then fore knowingly fall from communion with the omnipotent source of truth.For the purposes of this topic, however, the belief statement stands as the map through which we explore a vast virgin spirituality within our collective minds.