Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jazzns' History of Belief
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 136 of 140 (638792)
10-25-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by GDR
10-25-2011 5:12 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
Why isn’t I don’t know an acceptable answer. If I ask a scientist what it is that caused the singularity to suddenly expand at time =0, he might come up with theories, but it would be honest to add that ultimately he/she doesn’t know. I can come up with theories about hell but ultimately I don’t know,
I don't know is perfectly fine when we really don;t know.
The issue is only that, in the absence of knowledge about the consequences of a choice, it is unethical to hold a person to that choice. If I ask you to pick Door 1 or Door 2, and I don't tell you that Door 2 leads to a watery grave, you didn't really choose to be killed, did you?
If we have no idea what our alternatives are when it comes to heaven and hell, then we cannot reasonably be expected to make a decision. We might as well flip a coin. It's unethical to then force us to stick with a choice for all eternity when we never knew the real stakes.
but I do trust in a loving and just God.
Why do you think he's loving and just? Are the Old Testament stories not actually about him at all? If not, what's their relevance? If so...how is he loving and just if he commits mass child murder?
I understand the entire Bible in context to be a metanarrative that is the story of God relating to His image bearing creatures. His call to us is that we reflect His image, the image of love and justice into the world. An overview of the metanarrative would run like this. Creation — Israel and the Prophets — Jesus — the church — the renewal of all things. That metanarrative that is the Bible is made up of a series of narratives, (as well as some poetry, drama etc), as told by a number of different writers throughout history. These narrative are told by a number of writers inspired to write the stories of the people of the era and their understanding of their own times and histories. As a result, the entire Bible is written in a way that is both personally and culturally influenced. Yes I believe that God’s revelation is involved and is reflected in the stories, but so are the influences of the pagan nations around them. Sometimes they actually worshipped other gods but often they simply transferred other beliefs on to Yahweh, in ways that suited their own purposes. The societal means of getting rid of undesirables was public stoning and so when it suited their purposes some bright light would suggest that this is what Yahweh wanted. If they wanted to slaughter their neighbour to take the land and/or goods, then again someone would suggest that Yahweh wanted this done and it would become part of the story.
So then the stories of injustice committed by Yahweh are wrongly attributed to him, and weren't actually him? They were either the acts of men acting in what they thought was his name, or just made up?
Is Yahweh incapable of revealing his true nature and contesting the bloodthirsty imagery? If so, why do the unjust misattributed portions of the Bible remain? Jesus seemed a bit more friendly and loving, but wouldn't an omnipotent deity be able to eliminate the bad, inaccurate stuff?
God’s solution to the problem was Jesus. In reading through the Gospels we can see that the vast majority of quotes by Jesus have an OT reference. Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures and at the same time gave us teaching that allows us to sort out what was of God in those scriptures and what was of man.
So the Flood never happened, the killing of the firstborn and other plagues of Egypt never happened, and all the genocide and war in the OT was just men who claimed to have God on their side?
If you disbelieve that much of the Bible, why do you believe any of it?
Back to hell then, (figuratively speaking ). Let us for a second assume that the God of the OT that sanctioned genocide and public stoning represented an accurate picture of the God that created us. I find the idea repugnant. Why would I worship a God like that? Why would I want to spend eternity with a God like that? If that is heaven I don’t want it.
I agree. My rejection of Christianity was not primarily moral, but if I had not already rejected it on rational grounds, The above would be very close to my moral reason for rejection.
I believe in a God who believes that as part of wanting us to be kind and just wants us to be forgiving. For some the idea of giving up the need for revenge is unthinkable yet that would be a characteristic of this renewed creation. I have often been told on this forum that I’m weak for having to have a sky Daddy to look after me. There will be those whose pride just won’t allow them to accept a world characterized and ruled by Jesus, a man whose idea of leading was to wash the feet of His followers. Would it be the act of a loving God to force people into a situation for eternity that they choose to reject?
But it very clearly sounds like you're basing your belief in God on what you want God to be, not on any form of evidence. You want to believe God is just and good, and so you're basing your concepts on those desires rather than Christian tradition or scripture. Or so it seems to me from your words here.
My understanding of hell is that it is an existence that is characterized by the hearts of those that reject the renewed world characterized by the love as expressed through Jesus. For most of us that sounds like an existence that would be unpleasant in the extreme but for many it seems that either that, or even final and total death, would be preferable, to an eternity with God.
Why must the choice be eternal? If we can never really know at the point of decision (ie, during our lives) what the consequences of that decision will be, then would it be the act of a moral, just and caring God to force us to follow through with the decision for eternity, even if we were to change our minds in a dozen, a hundred, a thousand, a million years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 10-25-2011 5:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by GDR, posted 10-26-2011 11:06 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 137 of 140 (638820)
10-26-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Rahvin
10-25-2011 8:08 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
Rahvin writes:
The issue is only that, in the absence of knowledge about the consequences of a choice, it is unethical to hold a person to that choice. If I ask you to pick Door 1 or Door 2, and I don't tell you that Door 2 leads to a watery grave, you didn't really choose to be killed, did you?
If we have no idea what our alternatives are when it comes to heaven and hell, then we cannot reasonably be expected to make a decision. We might as well flip a coin. It's unethical to then force us to stick with a choice for all eternity when we never knew the real stakes.
The way you want things to be would deny the opportunity to choose unselfish love. If we choose to love unselfishly because of what it will mean to us in the future then it is no longer unselfish love but selfish love. The choice isn’t directly about choosing hell or not, it’s about choosing who or what you love. Is it all about me or do I find joy in the joy of others?
Rahvin writes:
So then the stories of injustice committed by Yahweh are wrongly attributed to him, and weren't actually him? They were either the acts of men acting in what they thought was his name, or just made up?
Is Yahweh incapable of revealing his true nature and contesting the bloodthirsty imagery? If so, why do the unjust misattributed portions of the Bible remain? Jesus seemed a bit more friendly and loving, but wouldn't an omnipotent deity be able to eliminate the bad, inaccurate stuff?
I covered this in my last post. He eliminated the bad inaccurate stuff through Jesus. The OT stories stay as they are because it was what was already written, and besides it tells the story of the Jewish people, warts and all. Encapsulated in that is the narrative of a loving God.
Rahvin writes:
So the Flood never happened, the killing of the firstborn and other plagues of Egypt never happened, and all the genocide and war in the OT was just men who claimed to have God on their side?
If you disbelieve that much of the Bible, why do you believe any of it?
Here is a quote from the book Miracles by C S Lewis.
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
I don’t pretend to know the origins of all of the ancient scriptures but I believe that we can learn from them. When we stand back from the whole metanarrative we can see that there is a thread of redemption flowing through the whole story. When we put the biblical account of history up against other historical accounts we can see that there is an ongoing evolution within mankind, as erratic as it is, towards a kinder and more just humanity. No doubt there is a long way to go, but barring some major calamity this world looks like it has quite a few good years left in it so there is still lots of time for God working through mankind to bring about a truly kind and just world.
Even in Galations 4 Paul treats the story of the sons of Abraham as an allegory.
quote:
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
Rahvin writes:
But it very clearly sounds like you're basing your belief in God on what you want God to be, not on any form of evidence. You want to believe God is just and good, and so you're basing your concepts on those desires rather than Christian tradition or scripture. Or so it seems to me from your words here.
Actually, I contend that my view is pretty consistent with traditional Christian orthodoxy. Objectively we know that The Bible exists. We come to our own conclusions about how it should be read and what relevance it has. I believe that it is immeasurably relevant and it is to be read in the context of the God story written through human minds and history and conditioned by the cultures in which they were written.
Rahvin writes:
Why must the choice be eternal? If we can never really know at the point of decision (ie, during our lives) what the consequences of that decision will be, then would it be the act of a moral, just and caring God to force us to follow through with the decision for eternity, even if we were to change our minds in a dozen, a hundred, a thousand, a million years?
I suggest you might want to read The Great Divorce by C S Lewis. It is a short and easy read with an allegorical account of heaven and hell. IMHO God honours our choices.
When you read the Gospels it is clear that the Jews in the time of Jesus did not understand what a messiah would actually do or be like. With hind sight we can go back through the Hebrew scriptures and understand Christ’s messianic life and message which ran contrary to the then popular notion that a messiah would be a military leader that would defeat their enemies and rebuild the physical temple. Jesus brought a very different message.
The Christian message is that all creation will be renewed under the headship of Jesus the Christ. Yes, there are all sorts of clues about how this plays out but I suggest that, in the same way they didn’t understand what God’s Messiah would look like 2000 years ago, we don’t have an accurate picture of just how things will look whenever this act of re-creation happens. I’m not going to claim that I know who will be part of all this and who won’t. I just know that I’m prepared to accept on faith that however things look in the end it will be just.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2011 8:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(2)
Message 138 of 140 (664698)
06-04-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Phat
10-25-2011 11:05 AM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
Hey Phat, I was digging up a link to this thread for someone and I realized that I never responded to you. Very sorry about that. Between going to school and playing with kids, my time for message boards if very volatile.
I would say that my beliefs lie upon a tangent to the spectrum of "closer or further" from god. In short, I reject the question.
This got me to thinking what rejection of such a question would mean. For me, staying in the agnostic "I don't know" place is more sane than outright rejection...simply based upon absence of evidence. When I try and "talk with God" I am well aware that His presence is not usually confirmed through any feelings...but to reject the possibility of His reality requires a bold step of faith in a direction I choose not to go. In short, I think that I reject the idea of being OK with the possibility that God didn't exist.
I still struggle with this notion that I need to be described by what I don't believe. Although I first rejected the term atheist, I currently accept it but only because it just seems like a useless intellectual struggle to fight it. Plus, it is plainly a useful word for communicating to others.
But under the hood, the core of my current belief is not that I believe that god does not exist. It is also not that I don't know. The first is a usless extreme. The second implies ignorance and unwarranted uncertainty.
I simply DO believe in things that are evidenced. Anything else is irrelevant, boring, not worth my intellectual effort to consider. My current activity regarding god and the bible are simply of personal and historical interest now.
So its not as much of a "bold step" that you claim because I am not taking a firm position whatsoever concerning god. In fact, I am taking quite a mundane position. It might be more accuratly described by the phrase "meh?"
Which for me means why reject an unknown? I think the difference between Jazzns and myself is that he was unafraid to reject a concept that was not real to him...I was fearful of even considering such a possibility.
Why accept an unknown? That would be a better question and more from the perspective I am coming from.
I really like your line of reasoning, here. These are great questions! Perhaps one answer is that we don't have an infinite amount of time to decide. Which begs the question of how much time is enough?
In the math of infinity, no matter how much finite time people are given to "decide", an infinity of suffering is still immesurably unfair and cruel. A lifetime of a million years is just as small as a lifetime of 75 years when measured against the scale of eternity.
And imagine if we are able to one day extend our lifetimes reliably to 100 years. For the hardliners, a person in the past who died a sinner of plague at the age of 18 who did nothing more than lie to his parents will spend eternity, ETERNITY mind you, in the same torment as some future person who spend his century on earth commiting the worst possible moral outrages. Indeed, how much time is enough?
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Phat, posted 10-25-2011 11:05 AM Phat has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 139 of 140 (664736)
06-04-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by GDR
10-24-2011 8:58 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
As I said to Phat, I am sorry that I dropped your post. School and life got hectic. I know we have another disucssion going on elsewhere but I thought I would at least give you the courtesy of a reply in case you wanted to continue.
Do we believe in a world characterized by love, peace, joy, forgiveness, mercy, truth etc, as taught and lived by Jesus, or do we believe in a world characterized by the concept of "looking out for number one" or maybe "if it feels good do it".
None of which has anything to do with being "closer" to god whatever that means. Its a false dichotomy; a false spectrum perhaps.
I have a very definite answer for that. I don't know! The fundamentalists on this forum like to spell out in perfect detail what's going to happen. All that the Bible is clear on concerning our future is that in the end the Earth will be renewed in a great act of re-creation and that we will have resurrected bodies. In some way the heavenly dimension and our earthly one will be brought together. I have not the foggiest idea of when or how. There are those who will be a part of that and it appears there will those who won't.
Frankly I find that speculating about the next life interesting but what it is that really matters is where my heart is now and where it will be for the rest of life. That's all I can control. What happens after I'm gone is something I will deal with then. For now, I just pray that I will be given a heart that desires humble justice and kindness, and hopefully I will respond to that still small voice. If I do that the rest will look after itself.
Thats an honest answer. And surprisingly not too far off from where I am except for the whole praying part. What matters is there here and now and how we act while in this life. Its the praying part that is extra. I guess its not more of a waste than the other things we do on a regular basis that tend to be meaningless. I just don't think there is anything about what you said that requires god to be in the picture.
I think that it is quite possible that after a life time here living selfishly it may be impossible for us to actually have a change of heart after we shuffle off but I don't pretend to know that to be the case.
First off, the selfishness you mention is assumed. I certainly have not gone out on any while endorphin benders of any sorts since the change. If anything I have tried much harder to contribute to this world because I recognize that it really is the only one we have.
Second, similar to Phat, I find it a bit mind boggling that according to "humble justice", that anyone could rightly entertain the notion of eternal punishment based on ignorance and mystery. It would be one thing if god were to come down, lay down the law, and have people knowingly reject him. But to expect that we must make the right decision in pure ignorance when the stakes are eternity is the height of absurdity.
As a followup to the theme of my original questions, what is hell going to be like for those that do go there? Is it forever? How bad/painful/lonley is it? How do you know?
Once again, I don't know. My understanding though, is that it would be an existence where the primary characteristic of the society would be the love of self.
There is a society in "hell"? I am genuinly puzzled by the things you said you are ignorant of (duration, pain, lonliness, etc) and yet what you chose to mention that it will be a place characterized by "love of self"?
Truthfully though, you seem to believe hell exists in some manner and I can guess that you mean the people will go there for some length of time. Perhaps longer than they were alive on this earth? Is that a proper characterization of your position?
If you HAD to place a wager, would you bet on me going to this place after I die?

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 8:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 06-07-2012 12:38 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 140 (665008)
06-07-2012 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jazzns
06-04-2012 4:56 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
GDR writes:
Do we believe in a world characterized by love, peace, joy, forgiveness, mercy, truth etc, as taught and lived by Jesus, or do we believe in a world characterized by the concept of "looking out for number one" or maybe "if it feels good do it".
Jazzns writes:
None of which has anything to do with being "closer" to god whatever that means. It’s a false dichotomy; a false spectrum perhaps.
Well...yes and no. I see it this way. In this life we establish a trajectory for the direction in which our choices take us. Every time we commit an unselfish act something changes inside our heart so that next time being unselfish comes just a little bit more natural for us. The converse of course is true when we act selfishly. Eventually loving selfishly or unselfishly just becomes natural for us.
So, when I ask which type of world we believe in, I’m not asking anything about what we give intellectual assent to, but about which world is it that we choose in our heart. In the end then I would say that every act of unselfish love does draw us closer to the God’sworld that will come about with New Creation and as a result does draw us closer to God.
GDR writes:
I have a very definite answer for that. I don't know! The fundamentalists on this forum like to spell out in perfect detail what's going to happen. All that the Bible is clear on concerning our future is that in the end the Earth will be renewed in a great act of re-creation and that we will have resurrected bodies. In some way the heavenly dimension and our earthly one will be brought together. I have not the foggiest idea of when or how. There are those who will be a part of that and it appears there will those who won't.
Frankly I find that speculating about the next life interesting but what it is that really matters is where my heart is now and where it will be for the rest of life. That's all I can control. What happens after I'm gone is something I will deal with then. For now, I just pray that I will be given a heart that desires humble justice and kindness, and hopefully I will respond to that still small voice. If I do that the rest will look after itself.
Jazzns writes:
Thats an honest answer. And surprisingly not too far off from where I am except for the whole praying part. What matters is there here and now and how we act while in this life. Its the praying part that is extra. I guess its not more of a waste than the other things we do on a regular basis that tend to be meaningless. I just don't think there is anything about what you said that requires god to be in the picture.
We aren’t that far apart but I’d like to draw a bit of a distinction when you say that it is about how we act in this life. Jesus talks about this when He talks about those who make a big show about their piety in front of others. Here’s a parable. Jack heads off down to the soup kitchen on a Saturday afternoon. The night before at a staff party he made sure that his boss knew about this wonderful charitable side of him as there was a promotion coming up that he hoped to get. In the meantime Jill, who was at the same party also goes to help at the food bank without mentioning it to the boss. The act is still the same but in John’s case it wasn’t an act of unselfish love and it might even be considered the opposite. In Jill’s case she is there unselfishly because of actively loving those less fortunate than herself.
The point is, as imperfect as that metaphor may be, is that it isn’t about what we do but what our heart ultimately desires. We aren’t in a position to understand what is really in someone else’s heart. John in the above case may well have been raised in an abusive unloving home and has been physiologically damaged and as a result actually is acting unselfishly but at the same time has a desperate need for recognition. As I said, I believe that in the end perfect justice will prevail and it isn’t our job to judge.
Jazzns writes:
First off, the selfishness you mention is assumed. I certainly have not gone out on any while endorphin benders of any sorts since the change. If anything I have tried much harder to contribute to this world because I recognize that it really is the only one we have.
...which may make your contribution more unselfish than it would have previously. I would add though that my understanding of Christ’s message is that the world we live in is an integral part of the re-created world to come and that we are to be good stewards of the planet as it has eternal ramifications.
Jazzns writes:
Second, similar to Phat, I find it a bit mind boggling that according to "humble justice", that anyone could rightly entertain the notion of eternal punishment based on ignorance and mystery. It would be one thing if god were to come down, lay down the law, and have people knowingly reject him. But to expect that we must make the right decision in pure ignorance when the stakes are eternity is the height of absurdity.
I just don’t accept that our choices are made in ignorance and mystery. Unless we are mentally ill we all have the ability to choose between love and hate, mercy and vengeance, forgiveness and unforgiveness, or love of self at the expense of love for others. As I said to Rahvin if God were to come down in the way you suggest it would take away our free will and our opportunity to love sacrificially. We would always be in the position of Jack telling his boss about his volunteering in the soup kitchen.
It isn’t a head decision, it is a heart decision.
Jazzns writes:
There is a society in "hell"? I am genuinly puzzled by the things you said you are ignorant of (duration, pain, lonliness, etc) and yet what you chose to mention that it will be a place characterized by "love of self"?
Truthfully though, you seem to believe hell exists in some manner and I can guess that you mean the people will go there for some length of time. Perhaps longer than they were alive on this earth? Is that a proper characterization of your position?
The Bible isn’t really very much about hell. The modern problem is that the church has in many instances turned the Gospel message into a question of personal salvation. I’m not saying that isn’t part of it in the sense that if we truly do believe in Jesus, (which again, does not mean intellectual assent to his the Bible stories but you acknowledge Him as King and believe in His message of love, forgiveness, mercy, justice etc), the He is with us through our hearts and minds in establishing that trajectory towards more and more perfectly loving our neighbours as much as or more than ourselves.
The Gospel message is that Jesus has established His Kingdom and desires that we become now a part of that kingdom that ultimately stretches beyond this age, and that as a part of that Kingdom we have the job of loving and serving this created world and all of its inhabitants, as well as telling the Jesus story.
Jazzns writes:
If you HAD to place a wager, would you bet on me going to this place after I die?
I am in no position to judge anyone. However if I have to place a bet I would say no. It appears to me that what you have rejected is something that you rejected for mostly the right reasons. I don’t see you as rejecting the message of love as we receive through Jesus, but the much more ambiguous message that is received by attempting to understand the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God which can lead to a different idea of God altogether.
I do want to add to that though, that Jesus understood the message of love through the Hebrew Scriptures. It is all there, including loving God and neighbour and even loving your enemy. I just want to be sure that it is clear that I am not saying that the Jewish faith worships a tyrant as opposed to the loving God of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews and it is important that we understand Him in that context. It only comes out that way when we try to turn the Bible into something that I don’t believe God ever intended.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jazzns, posted 06-04-2012 4:56 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024