Evangelical Support Group

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.

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...

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."

Phat, that is a good way of putting it.However, it is my point is that the marks and stains of human philosophy ans psychology (albeit archaic) are readily apparent in this collection of works called the Bible. I think it is a intellectually lazy to accept that it is "Holy" because the cover of the book says it is and someone wearing the authority of clergy vestments attest to it. Oh yea. Thanks for the gentle reminder. Sorry, I got carried away.

In my way of thinking, that is evidently the way God intended it be as God gave no clear sign that any particular scripture is divine. When one rests on the authority of the Bible's "musings" they are merely resting on the "opinion" of others.Even with the Bible as the "standard" humans are still able to substantiate beliefs that are widely divergent.Maybe God cares more about your personal musings and attempts to understand than your willingness to believe some packaged ideology. Maybe if we are going to be condemned, God is going to condemn us on the lack of trying, or the willingness to be seduced by the "salvation for the price of a bumper sticker" theology. Maybe God is going to reward those who engendered kindness without the promise of reward or threat of punishment. Be careful of hero worship. We are all susceptible, I know I am.

While I won't disagree with the flavor of that statement, the issue is: What is "Scripture"?I have always found it humorous that many people will swear on the Bible and proclaim it to be "Inspired Word of God" yet few will spend any effort understanding the origin and history of the "Holy Bible".Phat quoted a source that used Timothy and Corinthians as some sort of internal self-referential proof of the divinity of the Bible. The references to 2 Timothy is very weak (the Corinthians reference doesn't even apply). There has been much discussion and debate on the non-specific meaning of the original Greek words used for scripture (PASA GRAFH) in Timothy - why be so vague on such a vital and important issue?My overarching point is that God did not in any clear way identify what is to be considered Canon or even more importantly if there should be a Canon.The concept of Canon is purely a human inspired concept and process!If God modified several laws of physics to create a rainbow and make the Sun go backwards as a sign, why not some sign on the very critical issue of a Canon?One last point. If the Holy Spirit is real, why the need for a Canon? It seems that the need to formulate, promote and enforce a Canon may be a fundamental statement on the weakness or nonexistence of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can inspire why does this Spirit require some supposed Godly works?Separate issue... First I ask why would God require worship or oblation? Really. One of the more detestable aspects of human rulers, leaders and celebrities is the craving and need for worship and oblation.To attribute this base human behavior to God is clearly a sign of the anthropomorphizing of God. This is simply archaic and is a common feature of most primitive religions. I have heard of contemporary evangelical Christian Kids Camps that scare vulnerable kids into the loving arms of Jesus by frightening them with the eternal fires of Hell.

Phat made the same comment earlier. I often hear this statement and wonder what is the source for such an opinion. The evidence is counter.

You are saved by works; No you are saved by faith. (difference on this issue has spawned dozens of "spirit filled" churches)

​

Love your enemies; Kill and destroy your enemies but keep the young virgin girls for yourselves

​

God is mercy; Show no mercy do not spare the little children or the pregnant women.

​

God loves little children; How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones!

​

God of peace; God is a man of war and the Lord is his name.

​

Jesus is the prince of peace; Jesus says did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

​

God does not change his mind; God relents.

​

God is omnipotent and knows the future exhaustively; The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth

​

God is not a God of confusion; The Lord confused the language of the whole earth (because evidently God who created nebula 50 light years across was threaten by a unified world)

​

In a more global sense, key fundamental concepts such and heaven/hell and salvation *evolve* over the course of time.

​

For example, salvation in the OT is typically within the context of deliverance from physical oppression, famine or death. In the New Testament salvation is from eternal suffering and damnation in the lake of fire.

​

In addition, in the OT what little is mentioned concerning eternal salvation is clearly within the context of the "Men Only" club.

​

For example Ezekiel it is mentioned that "soul that sinneth, it shall die" (notice no hell). Now how do you gain righteousness and live? Well there is a list of male oriented items including:

​

Exekiel 18:16 writes:

​

... neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

​

This is excluding women from salvation. Compare to Paul "neither male nor female" statement.

​

Key concepts evolve without much notice by those who claim the harmony of the scriptures.

I didn't say there was no revealed word.I am questioning the concept of Biblical Canonization which everyone gets hung up on and consequently derive all sorts of bad theology. I am questioning that the Bible is somehow ordained by God and all other extrabiblical works are pale by comparison. For what ever reason God has never given a clear sign - the evidence provide so far is weak, if not ludicrous. As Jar said "that is a fact".To shed some light here is an analogy that I came across that might elucidated the error of Canonization. (OBTW if this is too off topic maybe I should make this new topic, let me know)Two set of engineering teams are tasked to create an autopilot to fly an airplane from LA to NY.

The first team, the canonical team, decide to use very precise devices to measure the vehicles position, velocity and acceleration at a given point of time. They take this data and calculate the exact necessary position of the control surfaces (ailerons, rudder and elevator) in order to navigate the plane to NY. The engineers and pilot have great faith in the measurements and so they set the control surfaces to a fixed (canonized) position. These engineers remain steadfast in their measurements/calculations and refuse to allow anyone to question them regardless of changing conditions. With an air of certitude they retire to first class for a gin and tonic for there remainder of the flight.

​

The second team, the feedback/filter team, take a different approach. They decide to put less faith on earlier measurements and take a new measurement every minute or so. The still use earlier measurements in their calculations but factor in the new measurements, this smooths out the data. They also apply a coefficient of confidence on certain measurements depending on the perceived accuracy of the source. This process is called filtering. Now based on this, they periodically adjust the control surfaces accordingly and remain vigilant. These engineers freely admit that at any given time they are never *exactly* on the right course, but they know by correcting for errors and folding in new information they are generally heading in the right direction.

​

Which plane do you want to fly in....

Yes. Thanks for clarifying. And if these people were raised in an Islamic cultures and "heard over the years the Koran is the Word of God" they would believe that. Therefore these very folks would or would not suffer eternal hell just as a result of geography.

That response is not logical. One can certainly believe that the written Canon is purely humanly inspired and still believe that God imparts wisdom.I can even make the opposite case. If "God imparts wisdom to those who search" why is a physical book necessary. Written language is human-to-humans transfer of knowledge. Cop out. You failed to explain why signs were given for other much more minor circumstances. Where these signs (including miracles) to a wicked and adulterous generation? Equinox provided a good rebuttal to this. There are valid religious experience of all strips. Muslims make the very same claim, with the same sincerity, and the same certitude. From your framework I realize you can't answer that.However I thought I had good answer with support...

And what do you have to say for those who were ardent born again, spirit filled, Christians that converted to another religion or became agnostic. Those exist in probably equal numbers. That question goes both ways.The data shows overwhelming that there is a large correlation between adopted religion to surrounding culture (this incidentally implies that residency in hell depends significantly on geography).There are converts from one to another, sure, but this only proves that perhaps they have the ability to delude themselves in more than one way.Then there are those in all religions, including leading evangelical leaders, that abandoned their religion because they felt that intellectual honesty is more important than loyalty to a false system of beliefs. My fallacy detector always goes - ding ding ding - when I hear someone say "there are only one of [insert number] things to choose from".I am not sure what you mean by "met" God, but let me take a shot at it and suggest some others possibilities....

Maybe many people have "met" God, but he is not quite as exclusive as some "scriptures" suggest and God interacts with people however they envision them.

​

Maybe no one has "met" God, not because God doesn't exist, but because God has chosen not to reveal Gods true reality for whatever reason.

​

Maybe many people have a real experience of "meeting" God but the are really meeting with a deceiving evil spirit whose intent is to mislead.

​

Maybe "meeting" God has a physical neurological basis.

First I apologize for the description "delusional" it was inappropriate in civil discussion.Now on with the show.... What point? Let me retrace the conversation. So I thought, maybe incorrectly, that you were making the claim that since "innumerable converts from other religions" is some form of confirmation of your religion beliefs.I am just stating the obvious... there are converts each way, conversion from a different religion to Christianity does not validate Christianity. You are ignoring reality, there is maybe a fractional percentage - apostasy is very rare.But as an aside seems to me like a hell of way to run a universe where a sentient being is going to suffer eternal damnation and punishment, by the benevolent creator, just because they were born on the wrong continent or into the wrong family.If conversion is your metric of performance though, consider Islam as the fastest growing religion today - and some Christians do convert very sincerely. Nope sorry - false dichotomy. Yes, but correct me if I am wrong, your theology requires salvation through Jesus *only*. There are many people, as Equinox pointed out, that have religious experiences that are aligned with their beliefs systems which exclude Jesus.Now for my own false dichotomy.If you believe your religious experience confirms the validity of your Christian view (and removes all doubt) and if your religion theology is exclusive as your good book clearly says, then either:

You have to discount the religious experiences of other people that have a different religious view (that even maybe anti-Christian), as counterfeit.

​

or

​

Conventional Christian theology is wrong (or popularly interpreted wrong).

​

or

​

????

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

OK.... Did you not just do, what you stated as annoying???Your experience is uniquely genuine and removes all doubt! However, people of other faiths that have religious experiences are just experiencing an exhortation or redirection towards your one true view of God. You just minimized, maybe even trivialized, other peoples religious experiences.Do you have any evidence to back this ostentatious claim? Without some form of evidence your position is extremely arrogant and/or ignorant of the varieties (or vagaries) of religious experience!

First you have to answer the question if *any* are right!Within the realm of religious doctrine is is very doubtful that any are correct. So maybe you are just voting the least wrong.