# one God



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Do muslims and christians pray to the same God?The father of both religions is Abraham.I believe muslims,christians and jews pray to the same God.What are your thoughts?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

My belief is that there is only one God. One Supreme Being. Therefore, we all do indeed pray to the same God, whether we call him "God", "Heavenly Father" or "Allah", or whatever. Those are all titles, not proper names. I think the biggest divide isn't "are we praying to the same God", because you have to admit we are if you believe in only one true God, but rather, the fact that they reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, we may not all realize, or like to admit that we're praying to the same God (we just "dress him up" differently), but in reality, because Christians and Muslims believe in a singular God, we MUST, by our own definition, be worshiping and praying to the same God.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

NO.


> *Muslims do not speak of God as their heavenly Father*. In the Islamic faith, Allah is not only a different name for god; the deity it designates is far more impersonal than the God of the Bible. Fatherâthe very name that Jesus gave us as the designated name for use in prayerâis a name that simply does not fit Allah as depicted in the Quran.


http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/december-2013/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god/


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

It depends.... 

All 3 of those religions are based on Abraham, and if you read all their holy books they do include many of the same stories and people in them. There is a great deal of overlap between the three.

But if you were to put a pastor, a rabbi, and an imam in the same room and asked them if they all prayed to the same God, I'm not sure they'd say that they do.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

If there is one Supreme Being, as I was taught in church, then there is ONE Supreme Being,and each persons relationship with that entity is unique. Many roads to the same destination. I am not talking about those who worship cows, or snakes, or UFO's, or themselves, I am talking about those who sincerely strive to understand the overall divinity in the Universe.
Having said that, I do believe the narrow-minded fundamentalists of all stripes will claim different, but who cares. They're a very vocal, but in my personal opinion, a very deluded minority. Those very same folks are also responsible for much strife in this world.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

No, they do not. The Christian God is a triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. The Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God. Thus their god is a different god.

http://www.gotquestions.org/same-God.html


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Annsni said:


> No, they do not. The Christian God is a triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. The Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God. Thus their god is a different god.
> 
> http://www.gotquestions.org/same-God.html


How many gods do you believe exist if you acknowledge that they worship a different one?? Could it be that they just don't understand the nature of God? Could it be that there are folks in both religions who don't understand the true nature of God? How can one who doesn't truly understand the entity give you a true definition of that entity? The problem arises when everyone thinks they understand the true nature of the entity and everyone's understanding is different. That in itself doesn't mean they worship differing entities.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

It is a difficult question, that will have many answers and sometimes even the same person will answer it differently.

For example, you will read about the Judeo-Christian 'whatever' many times, but there can't be two religions any further apart than those two. Yet, some people (even on this site) believe that the two G-ds worshipped by those two religions (Judaism and Christianity) are the same.

I don't spend a lot of time questioning whether they are the same or not. Nor do I really care. To me, the every day actions of a person show a lot more insight to their 'true' beliefs than any quotes or rituals they may perform 2-3 times a year.

But if pressed for an answer, I would say no, it wouldn't be the same G-d. For the fact noted above, those that pray to the Wind G-d or Zeus, or any of the other multiple G-ds that have come into man's existence couldn't be wrong either, could they?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

thequeensblessing said:


> How many gods do you believe exist if you acknowledge that they worship a different one?? Could it be that they just don't understand the nature of God? Could it be that there are folks in both religions who don't understand the true nature of God? How can one who doesn't truly understand the entity give you a true definition of that entity? The problem arises when everyone thinks they understand the true nature of the entity and everyone's understanding is different. That in itself doesn't mean they worship differing entities.


There is one God. Did you read my link? The Bible tells us clearly who God is.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

thequeensblessing said:


> My belief is that there is only one God. One Supreme Being. Therefore, we all do indeed pray to the same God, whether we call him "God", "Heavenly Father" or "Allah", or whatever. Those are all titles, not proper names. I think the biggest divide isn't "are we praying to the same God", because you have to admit we are if you believe in only one true God, but rather, the fact that they reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, we may not all realize, or like to admit that we're praying to the same God (we just "dress him up" differently), but in reality, because Christians and Muslims believe in a singular God, we MUST, by our own definition, be worshiping and praying to the same God.





greg273 said:


> If there is one Supreme Being, as I was taught in church, then there is ONE Supreme Being,and each persons relationship with that entity is unique. Many roads to the same destination. I am not talking about those who worship cows, or snakes, or UFO's, or themselves, I am talking about those who sincerely strive to understand the overall divinity in the Universe.
> Having said that, I do believe the narrow-minded fundamentalists of all stripes will claim different, but who cares. They're a very vocal, but in my personal opinion, a very deluded minority. Those very same folks are also responsible for much strife in this world.


+ + + + + + + + +
verses?
John 8:41 -"You are doing the deeds of your father."
They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; 
we have one Father: God."

John 8:42 -Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me,
for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on
My own initiative, but-He sent Me.

John 8:43 -"Why do you not understand-what I am saying?
-It is-because you cannot hear My word."

John 8:44 -
"You are of-your-father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. 
He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because
there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks-a lie, he speaks from his own-nature,
-for he is a liar and the father of-lies. 

Matthew 7:13 - "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way 
is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it."

Matthew 7:14 - "For the gate is small and the way
is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. 

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and
the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Thanks Copperkid, however, the question wasn't whether they believe in Christ. It was whether they worship the same God. Using your own criteria as you list it (scriptural interpretation) there are many, many Christians who wouldn't be considered to worship the same God as you because they take those scriptures very different than you do. So whose interpretation is right? Well....that would be hijacking this thread.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

We only have one father.

But, apparently, we have a whole bunch of different mothers.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

thequeensblessing said:


> Thanks Copperkid, however, the question wasn't whether they believe in Christ. It was whether they worship the same God. Using your own criteria as you list it (scriptural interpretation) there are many, many Christians who wouldn't be considered to worship the same God as you because they take those scriptures very different than you do. So whose interpretation is right? Well....that would be hijacking this thread.


+ + + + + + + + +
John 10:1- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by 
the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, 
he is a thief and a robber."

John 10:9 -"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, 
he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."

John 10:10 -"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; 
I came that they may have life, and-have-it abundantly."

John 10:7 - So Jesus said to them again, 
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."

John 10:11 -"I am the good shepherd; 
the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."

John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one."

John 10:31- The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

It sure seems like if those religions all have the same god, then that god has multiple personalities!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> John 10:1- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by
> the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way,
> he is a thief and a robber."
> ...


Amen.

The entire earthly reason that Jesus was killed was because He claimed to be God. John 19:7 says "The Jewsanswered him, âWe have a law, and according to that law he ought to die *because he has made himself the Son of God.*â

If Jesus is not God, then the God of the Bible is not God. The Bible clearly teaches - and Jesus Himself clearly teaches - that He is God. Jesus says in John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, âTruly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 'I am' is the name of God (Exodus 3:14) and Jesus used that for Himself as well.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

No, not the same God at all. Islam is a mix of old Babylonian religions worshiping the moon god mixed with a perverse rewriting of the Bible. It is satan worship at its core.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

If you read about Islam you will discover they are to follow the God of Abraham which is also the God which Moses followed and is the Father of Christ.

Also if you read you will discover that if you are a follower of the God of Abraham but not a believer in Islam (e.g. Jewish or Christian) you do not have to convert to Islam nor die. But you are not allowed to convert others to your religion. OTOH if you are not a follower of the God of Abraham (i.e. a ***** or infidel) you have two choices, convert to Islam or die.

With that said I don't believe Muslims follow the same God as Christians and Jews because the 'rules' their god gives them is so much different that the other two religions which follow Him. You'd have to think God has multiple personalities.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/423/


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

watcher said:


> With that said I don't believe Muslims follow the same God as Christians and Jews because the 'rules' their god gives them is so much different that the other two religions which follow Him. You'd have to think God has multiple personalities.


Well, if that is the criteria, then certainly you would agree that Jews and Christians do not follow the same G-d. After all, the one main tenet to 'follow the Christian G-d" is to accept Jesus as Savior and since the Jews do not do that (religiously based on the fact that all the prophecies were not met and there is no mention of a 'second coming') then certainly they can't follow the same G-d.

I've seen many Christians eating cheeseburgers, yet I am told not to. So purely basing the criteria on 'rules from each respective G-d' obviously shows that Christians and Jews do not follow the same G-d.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Same God, different prophets. There are those who believe that Jesus was the SON of God, a messenger of sorts. The Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the actual begotten SON of God because "how can God have a son when he isn't married?" and the Jews are still waiting for the prophet of God. 

And there are a whole slew of other religions who worship a supreme entity, the creator of all that is living, the great spirit who sees all and is able to do all things. There is even a mention in the Bible about a shrine to "the God with no name".


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

I believe that the Christians, Muslims, and Jews all share the same God - and it is the God. 

In my (simplified) view, the Jews believe that they discovered the name of God, putting away the need for polytheistic models. The Christians believe that Jesus, embodying God, came to earth and redefined man's relationship w/ God. The Muslims believe that Jesus was one of many prophets, though a very important one among them. Then, in turn, Muhammed came along as the true conduit to God. 

Fighting amongst them is absurd. But, man being man, each version of worship feels like those who hold to one of the other versions need to be converted or killed.

I have faith in God, and I call truly faithful Jews, Christians, and Muslims among my brothers in faith, though I'm not sure where exactly I fit within their divisions.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Same God, different prophets. There are those who believe that Jesus was the SON of God, a messenger of sorts. The Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the actual begotten SON of God because "how can God have a son when he isn't married?" and the Jews are still waiting for the prophet of God.


See, this is where language translation poses a problem. If people believed that He was just a messenger, why would they say that it was blasphemy and want to kill Him? It's because "Son of God" was another term for God. It denotes equality with God in the language of the day.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> There is even a mention in the Bible about a shrine to "the God with no name".


+ + + + + + + + 

Acts 17:22- So Paul stood in the midst...and said,
"Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects."

Acts 17:23 - "For while I was passing through and examining the objects
of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' 
Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you."

Acts 17:24 - "The God who made the world and all things in it, 
since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

Acts 17:25 - nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, 
since He Himself gives to all people-life and breath and all things;

Acts 17:26 - and He made from one-man-every nation of mankind to live
on all the face of the earth, having determined-their-appointed times and 
the boundaries of their habitation,

Acts 17:27 - that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope
for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Acts 17:28 - for in Him we live and move and-exist, 
as even some of your own poets have said, 
'For we also are His children.'

Acts 17:29 - "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think 
that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed
by the art and thought of man.

Acts 17:30 - "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance,
God is now declaring to men that all people-everywhere should repent,

Acts 17:31 - because He has fixed a day in which He will judge
the world in righteousness-through a Man whom He has appointed, 
having furnished proof to all men-by raising Him from the dead."


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

The problem comes when men try to define God and force others to believe as they do.
Unfortunately (currently) Muslims take this to the extreme, of course during the Crusades Christians took it to the extreme and it was not long ago that Protestants and Catholics were bombing each other in Great Briton, Mormons were under an extermination order in Missouri, and Puritans had to flee England to worship as they desired.

Since Mohamed set himself up as the final Prophet and there is no central authority in Islam, it will be a near impossible task to calm the more radical members.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

wwubben said:


> Do muslims and christians pray to the same God?The father of both religions is Abraham.I believe muslims,christians and jews pray to the same God.What are your thoughts?


The way I see it they all worship the same original god that was the god of Abraham but they formed 3 different religions with 3 different sets of rules/laws and 3 different perceptions of the god of Abraham. Later on the Jews, Christians and Muslims all spread out and split up into many, many different factions/sects/denominations with many different rules/laws - but the god of Abraham is still the 'root' god, the original basis of all their respective religions.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I can tell you what the answer is for those of us that don't believe in religion..


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> I can tell you what the answer is for those of us that don't believe in religion..


Believing or not believing in religion is not the same thing as believing or not believing in a god. A person can believe in a god but not believe in any religion. A person can believe in and/or practise some kind of religion but still not believe in any kind of god.

Religion is a form of politics and the government of a society with a worshipped deity as the head of state.


----------



## lordoftheweeds (Dec 27, 2012)

One God and his name is Thor, or Zeus. Depends on who you ask


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

That wasn't the question though. 

The question was do Jews, Christians and Muslims pray to the same god.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Trying to fit all religions under one God is popular among those wanting a one world religion. The Bible warns against that and for good reason. In the OT, God says "I am God and there is none like me, foretelling the end from the beginning". IOW, He told us of the end as far back as Genesis and clear on up through the prophets. It's all there and unfolding exactly as He said. Is that true of any other religious writing? Do you ever hear of prophecy being studied in the Quran or any other religious writing from early times? Even some Muslims will tell you prophecy in the Quran is so jumbled up so as not to be understandable to anyone. If they are the same, why are the most holy things in Christianity the most blasphemous in Islam and the most holy things in Islam the most blasphemous in Christianity? Anyone should be able to discern that something is seriously wrong. We in the US tend to view the Bible from our western perspective but we should focus on the ME. I challenge anyone to find a verse in the Bible where God promises destruction to any nation that is not Muslim today. I'll even go further. I challenge anyone to find one nation Christ Himself is fighting in at His return that is not Muslim today. Rome is mentioned several time in the Bible, but not once in regard to destruction. Where is the burden against Rome? It isn't there but the burden against Arabia is all over the Bible. Christ Himself said "Pergamus, thou art the seat of Satan". Where is Pergamus? Turkey. Is it a coincidence that Turkey recently became a Muslim nation and enemy of Israel?


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

There is only one. You can call him what you want, and worship him as you like. But if you don't know who he is, you are hosed.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

No my God is not allah and the only way to my God is through Jesus Christ. No changing me on this.

big rockpile


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If there is one Supreme Being, as I was taught in church, then there is ONE Supreme Being,and each persons relationship with that entity is unique. Many roads to the same destination. I am not talking about those who worship cows,


Hey! Don't you be dissin' the Great Horned Goddess! She doesn't like that ... :nono:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Rockpile, please don't take offense at this, and I, in no way, want to try to impose on anyone's understanding of or relationship with God - that's not a job He's asked me to do at this point in my education. If you have found your path to God, then I consider you a brother, no matter how you got there.

But, "Allah" is "God"...in Arabic. Just as "Yaweh" is "God" in Hebrew. There is, no doubt, a difference in the way that the different faiths find their route or conduit to God, but the difference between God, Allah, and Yaweh is one of language. When a Muslim says "Allahu Akbar", if he were speaking English, he would say "God is supreme". I've prayed with Muslims, and when they utter that phrase I cannot disagree. Rather, I just appreciate the sentiment of the statement as one that we both share across the language barrier. 

Unfortunately, there is a segment, albeit a small one, of the Muslim population that have perverted the name and the Word of "Allah". They've perverted the name and the Word of God, and that is something that we should all be offended by, regardless in which language we happen to speak His name.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

One God. But also, only one way to salvation. See http://biblehub.com/acts/4-12.htm


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

I agree with the sentiment that there is only one way to salvation, however, that wasn't the question.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Rockpile, please don't take offense at this, and I, in no way, want to try to impose on anyone's understanding of or relationship with God - that's not a job He's asked me to do at this point in my education. If you have found your path to God, then I consider you a brother, no matter how you got there.
> 
> But, "Allah" is "God"...in Arabic. Just as "Yaweh" is "God" in Hebrew. There is, no doubt, a difference in the way that the different faiths find their route or conduit to God, but the difference between God, Allah, and Yaweh is one of language. When a Muslim says "Allahu Akbar", if he were speaking English, he would say "God is supreme". I've prayed with Muslims, and when they utter that phrase I cannot disagree. Rather, I just appreciate the sentiment of the statement as one that we both share across the language barrier.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is a segment, albeit a small one, of the Muslim population that have perverted the name and the Word of "Allah". They've perverted the name and the Word of God, and that is something that we should all be offended by, regardless in which language we happen to speak His name.


The God of Christians is a triune God. Without that understanding, or saying that God is not Jesus and God is not the Holy Spirit - three persons in one God - then that is not the God of Christianity and is instead another god. We do NOT worship the same God.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

I believe that is semantics. God is all, according to all three of the mainstream monotheistic faiths. So, the Jews would believe that God was Jesus, if they believed that Jesus was what he claimed to be. The holy-spirit is, by definition, an intangible facet of God's being - it exists in all three understandings of God, whether it is called such or not.

The Christians believe that God took a bodily form and walked the Earth. The Jews believe that he promised he would but has not yet. The Muslims believe that what the Christians call God-in-the-flesh was just a prophet.

The distilled singularity of God is the same in all three beliefs.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I believe that is semantics. God is all, according to all three of the mainstream monotheistic faiths. So, the Jews would believe that God was Jesus, if they believed that Jesus was what he claimed to be. The holy-spirit is, by definition, an intangible facet of God's being - it exists in all three understandings of God, whether it is called such or not.
> 
> The Christians believe that God took a bodily form and walked the Earth. The Jews believe that he promised he would but has not yet. The Muslims believe that what the Christians call God-in-the-flesh was just a prophet.
> 
> The distilled singularity of God is the same in all three beliefs.


I will disagree. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If that is not believed, then we seek a different god.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Agree to disagree, I guess.

Personally, I don't understand the son-of-God or God-in-flesh thing yet. I believe that we are all His children, and that because He is all, then we are all part of Him - His flesh, if you will.

Again, I feel like I'm in the 2nd or 3rd grade as far as my education of salvation, and I've not been instructed to try to convert anyone or shape anyone else's faith. At least yet, and I am happy with the charge.

I may find truth in Jesus someday. I can't rule that out as only He knows what He has on the lesson plan for me tomorrow.

I guess where I find concern is what so are willing to do with what seems to me to be a semantic disagreement. Some Christians are willing to say that Jews, for example, who don't accept that God embodied himself in Jesus can never know God, their faith is no good, and they must be converted or damned. There are Muslims that are willing to say that Christians who put so much "stock" in Jesus and refuse to accept Mohammed as the supreme prophet can never know God, their faith is no good, and they must be converted or be damned.

I know God. That is not His way.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Paumon said:


> That wasn't the question though.
> 
> The question was do Jews, Christians and Muslims pray to the same god.


Yes. And so do a lot of others when in extreme circumstances but the question is who is He listening to? IMO there are a lot of people who claim the name of God who He isn't listening to because He is only on their lips not in their hearts.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I know God. That is not His way.


How do you know God and are sure that this is not His way?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Annsni said:


> How do you know God and are sure that this is not His way?


Faith.

That is the only way to know.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Faith.
> 
> That is the only way to know.


Is it a faith based in the Bible? Is it a faith based in what you feel?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Faith is based on Faith. 

The Bible cannot give me Faith any more than witnessing a miracle could. No written or spoken word, no matter how inspired, can pour Faith in an empty vessel.

Faith can't be proven, corroborated, marginalized, or disproven by anything.
I _believe_ He made it that way on purpose.

I _believe_ that Faith can say different things to different people, but still be true. He loves you just as much as He loves me. He has just as much time to work with you as He does me. He doesn't need to teach us, as a class, from the same page in the same lesson plan on any given day. He is not subject to common-core.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

So your faith has no basis in any sort of fact or revelation? If I have faith that the sky is green, does that make it true?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

I believe you're confusing Faith and belief.

Faith only comes from one place, and can only be found in one way - kneel, close your mouth, open your ears, and let Him be known.

Belief can be evidentiary. If I walk outside and see a blue sky, I believe the sky is blue. If the cones in my eyes are screwed up, and I detect green, then I can believe the sky is green. I can be wrong.

I can read the Bible, and choose to believe or not believe something written there. I can be wrong or right in the belief I arrive at. It may be unclean to eat shellfish. God could love me less if I do. But, I don't believe that. Faith tells me that he does love me and that his love is boundless. He's never asked me to ask his forgiveness for eating crab legs.

Faith is always there for all of us. It is just a matter of whether we are willing to open up our vessel and let it pour in. Some have it, some don't, but the faucet is always on.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

The Bible tells us in Hebrews 11:1 just what faith is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

There are two aspects to faith: intellect assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true and trust is actually relying on the fact that the something is true. We can have faith that a chair will hold us because we know that the chair is solid. The belief is in the solidity of the chair, the faith is us sitting in it. I have faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior because I know that He lived a perfect life, died the death I deserved, rose from the dead in victory over sin and death and His perfect righteousness can now be credited to me and I can be saved. When we have faith in something, we know it is true because it is believable. We don't put faith in something that we know is not true or that which we don't understand.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I can read the Bible, and choose to believe or not believe something written there. I can be wrong or right in the belief I arrive at. It may be unclean to eat shellfish. God could love me less if I do. But, I don't believe that. Faith tells me that he does love me and that his love is boundless. He's never asked me to ask his forgiveness for eating crab legs.


So you're saying that it's not a problem that you disobey God as long as you feel OK about it? That your faith tells you that it's just fine to disobey what you see as a direct command of God because He's never asked you to ask His forgiveness for it?

Interesting.

See, I can read the Bible as a whole unit and see that God tells us that seafood is not unclean anymore (Acts 10). He now calls is clean. I can read that Jesus tells us that it is not that which goes into our mouths and stomachs that make us unclean but it is what comes out of the heart that makes us unclean (Matthew 15). If God had not declared seafood OK for us to eat, I would be in rebellion and sin if I were to eat crab legs. God DOES ask us to ask His forgiveness for disobedience and tells us that if we confess our sins that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Annsni said:


> I will disagree. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If that is not believed, then we seek a different god.


That's not even believed by all Christians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> That's not even believed by all Christians.


How can you be a Christian if you don't think Christ is the Son of God? Isn't that like being a vegetarian and eating meat all the time?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> That's not even believed by all Christians.


The term "Christian" was first given as a derogatory term to the followers of Christ. These followers believed that Jesus was the Messiah, God in flesh. If one doesn't believe that, then they are not a Christian.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Annsni said:


> So you're saying that it's not a problem that you disobey God as long as you feel OK about it? That your faith tells you that it's just fine to disobey what you see as a direct command of God because He's never asked you to ask His forgiveness for it?


No. You're putting my Faith in the context of your belief. I don't accept the Bible as the direct word of God. God does not need a book to speak to us any more than he needs a miracle to pour out Faith. He speaks to each of us, directly. All you have to do is kneel, shut your mouth, open your ears....

I have Faith that God's word is ever-present. It does not come in fits and starts and sentences and chapters. It is a constant hum that we only hear when we take those precious moments to turn off our worldly observances and lend him our ears. 

I believe that the Bible is the words of inspired men and of value to us as a record of man's views on and relationship with God. Many of the details, I believe, are by inspired (but imperfect) men injecting the direction of the church (the state(man)) of that time. 

The Bible has been translated, abridged, selected and had selections rejected. It has an end, and that "end" was written well before God's message to us was concluded. Countless people the world over have never seen it, nor could read the words on its pages if they had. I _believe_ the Bible (and Quran) is imperfect. Of immeasurable value, but imperfect.

God's word *is* perfect, and there is no mistaking it when you hear it. 

I'm by no means excused to do whatever I want. But I'm not always wise or strong enough to do what I should. *THAT* is why he has forgiveness.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> How can you be a Christian if you don't think Christ is the Son of God? Isn't that like being a vegetarian and eating meat all the time?


No, what was said was that Jesus was God in the flesh, much much different than saying He was the Son of God.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So your faith has no basis in any sort of fact or revelation?


_No_ faith or religion has any basis in fact. It's all, just, well, faith. 

Now, you can point to the Bible as a basis, but it's just a collection of stories and opinions made up by -- guess what? -- other fallible human beings in other ages. 

Heck, Christians didn't even have a Bible for decades or perhaps centuries after their religion was founded -- how did they know what to do without one? For that matter, how did they manage to _write_ it?! 

Now back to the original question: Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham, so yes, it's the same deity, although they worship him in such different ways, it's probably difficult to envision how they all sprang from one root.

But the same could be said of sects within the faiths. An alien watching a Roman Catholic liturgy and a "full Gospel" Pentecostal service rife with glossolalia and snake-handling probably would (incorrectly) conclude that the participants were worshiping different gods.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No. You're putting my Faith in the context of your belief. I don't accept the Bible as the direct word of God. God does not need a book to speak to us any more than he needs a miracle to pour out Faith. He speaks to each of us, directly. All you have to do is kneel, shut your mouth, open your ears....
> 
> I have Faith that God's word is ever-present. It does not come in fits and starts and sentences and chapters. It is a constant hum that we only hear when we take those precious moments to turn off our worldly observances and lend him our ears.
> 
> ...


My son and I are actually just studying the evidences for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Scriptures and I can only say that it is the most reliable document mankind has ever received. 

But you do not use the Bible so your only frame of reference for God is your idea of him? Your feelings? Your decisions about who He is and who He is not?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Trying to fit all religions under one God is popular among those wanting a one world religion. The Bible warns against that and for good reason.


The Old Testament also is pretty insistent that it's not OK to worship any other gods, which is probably why the idea of Christianity and a triune God didn't really catch on with the Jews. It was probably felt too much like polytheism! :teehee:

Hmm, now that I think about it, perhaps that helps to explain why Christianity was more eagerly embraced by the pagans -- they already were accustomed to the idea of having more than one God, or of God(s) appearing in unusual and/or human forms. (Greek and Roman mythology were ripe with stories about things like gods coming to Earth and frolicking with mortal women.) So the whole concept of God-the-son being born from the union of God-the-father and a human female probably wasn't outside of their comfort zone int the same way it might have been for the Jews.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> No, what was said was that Jesus was God in the flesh, much much different than saying He was the Son of God.


It is actually not. Remember the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy and eventually they crucified Him for declaring Himself the Son of God. They knew exactly what He meant. It doesn't mean that He was an offspring of God but God Himself.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Heck, Christians didn't even have a Bible for decades or perhaps centuries after their religion was founded -- how did they know what to do without one? For that matter, how did they manage to _write_ it?!


Actually, they did. They had the Old Testament and the New Testament was fully written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Additionally, they had the disciples/apostles/eyewitnesses directly in their midst or within writing/messaging distance. Here are a few verses that tell us they DID have Scriptures (a Bible) to use in the early church and the testimony of those who walked with Jesus:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the *Scriptures*, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the *Scriptures*, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, *most of whom are still alive*, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. "

2 Timothy 3:14-17 "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the *sacred writings*, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. *All Scripture is breathed out by God* and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

2 Peter 3:15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother *Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you*; *As also in all his epistles*, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, *as they do also the other scriptures*, unto their own destruction."


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> The Old Testament also is pretty insistent that it's not OK to worship any other gods, which is probably why the idea of Christianity and a triune God didn't really catch on with the Jews. It was probably felt too much like polytheism! :teehee:


Yet it is their own Scriptures that clearly show us a Triune God, starting with Genesis where God says "Let US make man in OUR image".



> Hmm, now that I think about it, perhaps that helps to explain why Christianity was more eagerly embraced by the pagans -- they already were accustomed to the idea of having more than one God, or of God(s) appearing in unusual and/or human forms. (Greek and Roman mythology were ripe with stories about things like gods coming to Earth and frolicking with mortal women.) So the whole concept of God-the-son being born from the union of God-the-father and a human female probably wasn't outside of their comfort zone int the same way it might have been for the Jews.


Which is not at all the teachings of Christianity.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Actually, they did. They had the Old Testament and the New Testament was fully written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Additionally, they had the disciples/apostles/eyewitnesses directly in their midst or within writing/messaging distance. Here are a few verses that tell us they DID have Scriptures (a Bible) to use in the early church and the testimony of those who walked with Jesus:


OK! I will concede that early Christians may have had documents that didn't survive the ages. 


> Yet it is their own Scriptures that clearly show us a Triune God, starting with Genesis where God says "Let US make man in OUR image".


I've heard it claimed that the First Commandment -- "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" -- also can be interpreted as an acknowledgement that there were, in fact, other deities (or at least that the person who concocted that commandment believed there were!). 



> Which is not at all the teachings of Christianity.


Really? Sure sounds like it to me!

l


> *Luke 1:26-38*
> 
> 
> 26 In the sixth month of Elizabethâs pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virginâs name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, âGreetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.â 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, âDo not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacobâs descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.â
> ...


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

And to which we can also add the following verses:

2 Peter 1:20 - But know this first of all, that no prophecy
of Scripture is-a matter-of one's own interpretation,

2 Peter 1:21 - for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will,
but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Annsni said:


> My son and I are actually just studying the evidences for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Scriptures and I can only say that it is the most reliable document mankind has ever received.
> 
> But you do not use the Bible so your only frame of reference for God is your idea of him? Your feelings? Your decisions about who He is and who He is not?


You keep asking me that *same question*, and if you ask me again, my answer will be *the same.*

Faith *does not come from any evidentiary source*. My Faith in Him comes from His ever-presence and word to me. I don't need a book to tell me who He is. I don't need a priest to ask His forgiveness on my behalf. I didn't need my parents to _pay a priest_ to dip me in special water to help me find my way to Him. He has always been there, and I finally...

...wait for it...

...knelt, shut my mouth, opened my ears, and let His will be.

You seem flabbergasted that I can find Faith that is not dependent on the words written in the Bible, but I find it alarming (ly predictable) that you can't seem to fathom Faith being able to exist without that framework to prop it up.

I do find immense value in the Bible. It represents thousands of years worth of wisdom and history that may have otherwise been lost had that book not been preserved. 

BUT, if I were leaving for a deserted island and I could only take one with me; the word of God in my ear, or the interpreted, abridged, selected volume of the thoughts of men who came before me, there would be one less book going into my suitcase. 

If I may be so bold, may I ask; in your studies of the "evidences for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Scriptures", did you learn both Hebrew and Greek so that you could read the text before it was colored by shoehorning into the English language, or are you just reading the version you bought at Barnes & Noble as translated and abridged by the scholars of King James? Where are you finding the "evidences"? In the written "findings" of parties who set out to prove that the Bible, as translated today, is historically accurate? How do you chose to rule-out the "findings" of parties who chose to prove it wrong and have "evidences" to the contrary?

Have you discovered that there seems to be no "acceptable" middle ground? That everyone seems to have chosen one side or the other: either the Bible (in English) is 100% literally accurate, or it is 100% myth and fairy tale.

Homer's Iliad was 100% fairy tale, until Schliemann found Troy. Overnight, the Iliad became a historical account, with some inaccuracies traced back to oral tradition, translation, and the lens of time.

I believe that the Bible is historically accurate - with appropriate caveats. I do believe that Moses delivered the Israelites from slavery. How they crossed the Red Sea is unimportant to me. Certainly, God could have parted the waters. Perhaps he did. To me, though, that detail is unimportant. The message is the same either way: God will deliver His from suffering, in His time, and in His way. 

I do believe that God created all. I believe that He could have done it in six days, if that was His chosen way. But I don't believe that that is how He did it, and I believe there is room for that belief in the word. For instance; in English, the bible says that the universe was created in six "days"- six "mornings" and "evenings" to bookended "days". But, when Moses wrote down in Genesis the oral traditions that were passed down him, he didn't know the word "day". In fact, Moses didn't speak English at all. Not a lick - in case that didn't come up in your studies of "the evidences". In fact, Moses put the oral traditions to paper in _Hebrew_, and the word he used was "yahm". In contextual Hebrew, yahm could be translated "day" no more or less accurately than it could be translated to "period" or "era". How long is a period? Heck, how long is a day when the hour hasn't been created yet?

Who is to determine which understanding is correct? Are you willing, as you appear to be, to allow a scholar chosen hundreds of years ago, by a "king" with no other virtue than his pedigree, decide that understanding for you? 

The answers and the "evidences" are not so clear or easy to find as some would like to believe.

But, being accepting of varied understanding doesn't seem to sit well with many. Some want others to accept their understanding of the word, and are all too willing to proclaim that anyone who has a different understanding is damned to eternity in hell. 

And that, brother, is precisely why I've had to eschew religion. 

I can fellowship with a Christian as well as I can a Jew or a Muslim. But the moment that the judgments start being tossed around, I leave the room. I hunger for fellowship, but I don't _need_ it. At the end of the day, we are all alone with God in His creation. There is no communal salvation, and no one can save me or ---- me. I can't save my wife, and she can't save me. The best we can do for each other is share our honest thoughts on God on quiet evenings on the back porch. 

And I will pray for you.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl, truer words were never spoken and you have become my new hero.

:bow: :bow: :bow:


----------



## Megan Marie (Apr 8, 2011)

Annsni said:


> I will disagree. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If that is not believed, then we seek a different god.


Jesus, a Jew, worshipped the God of Abraham. You're saying his followers worship a different god than Jesus himself did?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You keep asking me that *same question*, and if you ask me again, my answer will be *the same.*
> 
> Faith *does not come from any evidentiary source*. My Faith in Him comes from His ever-presence and word to me. I don't need a book to tell me who He is. I don't need a priest to ask His forgiveness on my behalf. I didn't need my parents to _pay a priest_ to dip me in special water to help me find my way to Him. He has always been there, and I finally...
> 
> ...


Oh, I can fathom it. I speak with people regularly who have come up with their own beliefs and live by them. I know people who have said "God told me to...." and yet it is clear that God didn't tell them to. 



> I do find immense value in the Bible. It represents thousands of years worth of wisdom and history that may have otherwise been lost had that book not been preserved.
> 
> BUT, if I were leaving for a deserted island and I could only take one with me; the word of God in my ear, or the interpreted, abridged, selected volume of the thoughts of men who came before me, there would be one less book going into my suitcase.


See, I would take the books - because they are God's very words to us. I value it that much. 



> If I may be so bold, may I ask; in your studies of the "evidences for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Scriptures", did you learn both Hebrew and Greek so that you could read the text before it was colored by shoehorning into the English language, or are you just reading the version you bought at Barnes & Noble as translated and abridged by the scholars of King James? Where are you finding the "evidences"? In the written "findings" of parties who set out to prove that the Bible, as translated today, is historically accurate? How do you chose to rule-out the "findings" of parties who chose to prove it wrong and have "evidences" to the contrary?


Yes, I've been studying Greek and Hebrew, textual criticism and translational ideologies. I have friends who are currently translating the Bible from the original languages into other languages as well. I actually don't use the KJV most of the time but will use it when discussing doctrine with people because it tends to be the common denominator for so many people. I have not found any valid evidences contradicting the fact that the Scriptures are the most provable historical document in history. 



> Have you discovered that there seems to be no "acceptable" middle ground? That everyone seems to have chosen one side or the other: either the Bible (in English) is 100% literally accurate, or it is 100% myth and fairy tale.


Actually no, I have not. I do not believe that the Bible in English is 100% literally accurate because we cannot have 100% literal accuracy when translating from one language to the other. However I believe that the Bible as we have it today is 100% the Word of God and is trustworthy. I believe that the original autographs were without error and we can be assured that our Bible today is probably as accurate as possible. With over 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone (almost 30x the manuscript evidence of the next most supportable ancient writing that we have today), we can know that what we have plenty to work with.



> Homer's Iliad was 100% fairy tale, until Schliemann found Troy. Overnight, the Iliad became a historical account, with some inaccuracies traced back to oral tradition, translation, and the lens of time.


Yet, we know that there are only 643 manuscripts of this writing - just a fraction of what we have for the Bible. Do you doubt the Iliad as much as you do the Bible?



> I believe that the Bible is historically accurate - with appropriate caveats. I do believe that Moses delivered the Israelites from slavery. How they crossed the Red Sea is unimportant to me. Certainly, God could have parted the waters. Perhaps he did. To me, though, that detail is unimportant. The message is the same either way: God will deliver His from suffering, in His time, and in His way.
> 
> I do believe that God created all. I believe that He could have done it in six days, if that was His chosen way. But I don't believe that that is how He did it, and I believe there is room for that belief in the word. For instance; in English, the bible says that the universe was created in six "days"- six "mornings" and "evenings" to bookended "days". But, when Moses wrote down in Genesis the oral traditions that were passed down him, he didn't know the word "day". In fact, Moses didn't speak English at all. Not a lick - in case that didn't come up in your studies of "the evidences". In fact, Moses put the oral traditions to paper in _Hebrew_, and the word he used was "yahm". In contextual Hebrew, yahm could be translated "day" no more or less accurately than it could be translated to "period" or "era". How long is a period? Heck, how long is a day when the hour hasn't been created yet?


There is actually no Hebrew word "yahm". There is "yam" which means sea but I believe the word you are looking for is "yowm" which is the Hebrew word for day. Yes, you are correct that it can also be translated as period or era but that is if the word is used alone. However, in the Hebrew language, if "yowm" is used with an ordinal number, it requires it to be a literal day. Adding in the "evening and morning" (notice the order of the words - Hebrew days are measured from the evening to evening and no where does anyone start an age with "evening") assures of of the meaning - a literal day.



> Who is to determine which understanding is correct? Are you willing, as you appear to be, to allow a scholar chosen hundreds of years ago, by a "king" with no other virtue than his pedigree, decide that understanding for you?


I do not count on a scholar from a hundred years ago although they were some of the best translational experts of the day. 



> The answers and the "evidences" are not so clear or easy to find as some would like to believe.


Actually, they are. 



> But, being accepting of varied understanding doesn't seem to sit well with many. Some want others to accept their understanding of the word, and are all too willing to proclaim that anyone who has a different understanding is damned to eternity in hell.
> 
> And that, brother, is precisely why I've had to eschew religion.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the prayers. God knows I need it!! But I'm grateful that not only has God given us His Word as our guidebook for faith and practice, He has also given us His life through His death on the cross and now indwells in the heart of every believer. I don't need to listen to the wind because His Words are right here in my hands. I don't need to worry that I'm hearing right because I can measure any thoughts I have to the Scriptures that He has preserved for us to this day. He is a mighty God!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Megan Marie said:


> Jesus, a Jew, worshipped the God of Abraham. You're saying his followers worship a different god than Jesus himself did?


No - because Jesus and His followers knew who He was. 

Matthew 16:13-20

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, âWho do people say that the Son of Man is?â And they said, âSome say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.â He said to them, âBut who do you say that I am?â Simon Peter replied, âYou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.â And Jesus answered him, âBlessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.â Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."


----------



## Megan Marie (Apr 8, 2011)

Annsni said:


> No - because Jesus and His followers knew who He was. "


So the God of Abraham changes, depending on whether or not you recognize Jesus of Nazareth as The Christ?

You have Jesus and another Jew in the Temple, but since Jesus recognizes himself as The Christ while the other Jew does not, the god previously worshiped as One in that Temple splits into two?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Megan Marie said:


> So the God of Abraham changes, depending on whether or not you recognize Jesus of Nazareth as The Christ?
> 
> You have Jesus and another Jew in the Temple, but since Jesus recognizes himself as The Christ while the other Jew does not, the god previously worshiped as One in that Temple splits into two?


LOL - cute. 

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same God we worship today. He is a triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If someone says that Jesus was a good guy but not God, then we have a problem. Then we have a different God than the God revealed to us in Scripture, don't we?


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

*Hebrews 11:1*
_Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen_.

I am a Christian and I have read and re-read what everyone has written. I do not feel educated enough to argue these points but I do believe "faith" is exactly what the scripture says. I have total faith in God.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Megan Marie said:


> So the God of Abraham changes, depending on whether or not you recognize Jesus of Nazareth as The Christ?
> 
> You have Jesus and another Jew in the Temple, but since Jesus recognizes himself as The Christ while the other Jew does not, the god previously worshiped as One in that Temple splits into two?


Nope. Jesus is the Tree of Life and He was in the garden in Genesis. God put 2 angels with flaming swords to keep people away because it was not time for the Savior. Jesus was Melchizedek in the OT. Not as Savior yet, but as high priest. He blessed Abraham. That is why Christ told his opponents that Abraham lived to see His day, he saw it and was glad. The Bible is so rich in knowledge that we only scratch the surface. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Jesus is the living Word. Believe or not. The choice is yours, but trying to bring other gods under the umbrella of the true God has been tried for millennia by many groups and it always fails. God will not stand for it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't need to listen to the wind because His Words are right here in my hands. I don't need to worry that I'm hearing right because I can measure any thoughts I have to the Scriptures that He has preserved for us to this day.


Well, now, here is where things get a bit dicey, because the newer part of the Scripture Ann uses -- the New Testament -- sometimes contradicts the older part -- the Old Testament or the Hebrew Talmud.

So if St. Paul had used Ann's method of checking the validity of his revelations -- by comparing them to the instructions already given by God in the Talmud -- he surely would have realized that there was no way it could be OK for Jewish people to eat cheeseburgers (or to neglect to circumsise their male offspring). Jewish law was rather clear on those points. No? 

Paul was, in essence, doing the same thing that Gunmonkey is doing here: Declaring that his direct, personal revelation from God corrects or supersedes ancient religious laws and customs. Of course he has no proof that he's right, any more than Paul did. 

In fact, the only difference between Paul and Mr. Monkey is about two thousand years of tradition following the acceptance of Paul's revelations as truth (at least by the segment of the population that embraced Christianity. We'll come back to this in a minute). 

It's entirely possible that Gunmonkey's ideas will also find a following (it looks like he's converted Paumon already!  ), and that in some alternate time/space dimension, it's 3014 and a devout "Xian" is pouring over "The Epistle of St. Gunmonkey to the Homesteaders." 

Ann probably doesn't find it especially noteworthy that God doesn't mind if she consumes the occasional cheeseburger, but then she wasn't raised and indoctrinated in a tradition that considered it an abomination. To understand how the Jews must have viewed Paul's pronouncements, imagine if our modern-day Pope one day emerged from his Popatorium and declared that God told him gay marriage is OK -- that it's not the gender of the participants that's important, but rather the sincerity of their devotion to each other, or some such. 

Undoubtedly a sizable number of Catholics would be horrified and outraged by this pronouncement (they'd probably shriek, "It goes against the Bible!" -- just as first-century Jews likely decried Paul's ideas as counter to the Talmud). Probably the church would split as a result, with some believers following the radical Pope while the rest clung to traditional beliefs. (Which is probably very close to the way Christianity branched off from Judaism.)


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> It's entirely possible that Gunmonkey's ideas will also find a following *(it looks like he's converted Paumon already!  )*, and that in some alternate time/space dimension, it's 3014 and a devout "Xian" is pouring over "The Epistle of St. Gunmonkey to the Homesteaders."


:hysterical:

No - not a convert. I am God so I don't convert to the beliefs of mortals and I don't need to follow anyone, but as God I can have many mortal heroes and heroines to approve of and I approve of the way Gunmonkey thinks in this matter.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Paumon said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> No - not a convert. I am God so I don't convert to the beliefs of mortals and I don't need to follow anyone, but as God I can have many mortal heroes and heroines to approve of and I approve of the way Gunmonkey thinks in this matter.


+ + + + + + + + + 
Romans 1:19 - because that which is known about God 
is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Romans 1:20 -
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, 
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, 
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Romans 1:21 -
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, 
but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 1:22 -
*Professing to be wise, they became fools.....*


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

ANybody around here use Dr Bronner's Soap? you can read the bottle, "We are all one, One God, One Love All-One All" you can't stop reading...as you lather up with the fresh organic peppermint goodness you start to feel the zing of Life is Good and the love just starts to groove.


----------



## Megan Marie (Apr 8, 2011)

Annsni said:


> LOL - cute.
> 
> The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same God we worship today. He is a triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If someone says that Jesus was a good guy but not God, then we have a problem. Then we have a different God than the God revealed to us in Scripture, don't we?


If god changes depending on the state of mind of those regarding god, then you have many many different gods, and every one shouting that theirs is the right one.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> ANybody around here use Dr Bronner's Soap? you can read the bottle, "We are all one, One God, One Love All-One All" you can't stop reading...as you lather up with the fresh organic peppermint goodness you start to feel the zing of Life is Good and the love just starts to groove.



Ohh, I love Dr. Bronners. That peppermint gets to tingling, and you get to grooving.....

I also have used the other 'flavors' but by far the peppermint is the best. Just a nice gentle breeze will get it going.......

As to the one love, one G-d, each to their own I think. One may believe that their way is the only way and good for them, but it's like a good book. Perhaps it just doesn't sit well with other......


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

wyld thang said:


> ANybody around here use Dr Bronner's Soap? you can read the bottle, "We are all one, One God, One Love All-One All" you can't stop reading...as you lather up with the fresh organic peppermint goodness you start to feel the zing of Life is Good and the love just starts to groove.


It doesn't taste nearly as good as it smells.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

All one! All one! All one! The documentary I saw on netflix about him was pretty interesting... [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQumvXzLOvg[/ame]


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Actually the commandments didn't state that they could not worship other gids but "thou shalt have no other gods _before_ me". Also that followers are not to make graven images in order to bow down to them and worship them. 

As for Jesus being god in the flesh, why would he pray to himself? Why would he tell his followers that his father could send legions of angels to destroy those who would crucify him. Again, why would the Bible say he was made a little lower than the angels so that he might obtain a more excellent name than theirs? This can be debated until we are both blue in the face but we never will see the other's point of view.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Well, now, here is where things get a bit dicey, because the newer part of the Scripture Ann uses -- the New Testament -- sometimes contradicts the older part -- the Old Testament or the Hebrew Talmud.
> 
> So if St. Paul had used Ann's method of checking the validity of his revelations -- by comparing them to the instructions already given by God in the Talmud -- he surely would have realized that there was no way it could be OK for Jewish people to eat cheeseburgers (or to neglect to circumsise their male offspring). Jewish law was rather clear on those points. No?
> 
> ...


Actually, none of the New Testament contradict the Old Testament. Christ came to fulfill the law and He did (Matthew 5:17-18). When He was on the cross, He said "It is finished" - and thus was the fulfillment of the law - the final sacrifice needed for sin. Romans 10:4 tells us "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." No longer do we look to the law for our righteousness but instead to Christ. There is no contradiction but a fulfillment.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> Also that followers are not to make graven images in order to bow down to them and worship them.


Another thing Islam does. They bow 5 times a day towards the black stone in Mecca. They believe if they go to Mecca and walk around the black stone 7 times, their sins are forgiven.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Technically they pray to their prophet Mohammed's grave. But yeah, it's marked by a stone.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Actually the commandments didn't state that they could not worship other gids but "thou shalt have no other gods _before_ me". Also that followers are not to make graven images in order to bow down to them and worship them.


Actually, the Hebrew term is not a preposition but instead a noun. It means "faces" or basically to have other gods in God's presence. 



> As for Jesus being god in the flesh, why would he pray to himself? Why would he tell his followers that his father could send legions of angels to destroy those who would crucify him. Again, why would the Bible say he was made a little lower than the angels so that he might obtain a more excellent name than theirs? This can be debated until we are both blue in the face but we never will see the other's point of view.


He prayed to the Father - not to Himself. Each time you read Jesus praying, He prays to His Father. 

I think you have confused some verses but I believe you are quoting from Hebrews 1:3-4 that states: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."

and Hebrews 2:5-9 that states: For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere,

âWhat is man, that you are mindful of him,
 or the son of man, that you care for him?
You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.â
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

(Note that verse 6 is quoting Psalm 8)

I do not understand your issue with these verses.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> Technically they pray to their prophet Mohammed's grave. But yeah, it's marked by a stone.


Christ said "Do not worship Artemis or that which fell from Zeus. He also calls it an image. It was a black stone, a meteor the same as the stone Islam bows to. In the Bible it says they will build an image to the beast of the end times. Much of the Bible has already been fulfilled to the letter. I hear preachers say they're waiting on the deadly wound to happen but it happened in 1924 when the Ottoman empire was destroyed. The Bible also says the deadly wound will be healed and it is happening right now. The old Ottoman empire is being rebuilt and Iran has already agreed to let Turkey be the seat of the new Islamic Caliphate.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> Romans 1:22 -
> *Professing to be wise, they became fools.....*


But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 5:22


sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

And I just want to say that for myself I indeed hear God most clearly and purely in the wind. No religion, no pomp, no priest, no jots or titles(tittles?), no catechism. 

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split, and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. Matthew 27:50-52

I talk with and am friends with people from many different beliefs. I also read a lot of books from different beliefs. You know what? I start seeing common threads through all. And a LOT of good and really cool evolving. Having the right names and labels don't mean much to me anymore, and it really is like Dr bronner sez, we are all one, in the One God(Goddess, universe, Thor, cosmic flow). We (can) walk in Beauty, Beauty is all around us. The wind speaks Beauty, the waves bring Beauty, the rain reveals Beauty, the Sun grows Beauty. 

Ah, peppermint!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Annsni said:


> He prayed to the Father - not to Himself. Each time you read Jesus praying, He prays to His Father.


If Jesus is God why would he pray and why would he pray to himself. My point is that Jesus is not God. 

I did merge Hebrews 2:7 and 1:4. My mistake. I haven't kept in the word as much as I should.


----------



## sugarspinner (May 12, 2002)

thequeensblessing said:


> My belief is that there is only one God. One Supreme Being. Therefore, we all do indeed pray to the same God, whether we call him "God", "Heavenly Father" or "Allah", or whatever. Those are all titles, not proper names. I think the biggest divide isn't "are we praying to the same God", because you have to admit we are if you believe in only one true God, but rather, the fact that they reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, we may not all realize, or like to admit that we're praying to the same God (we just "dress him up" differently), but in reality, because Christians and Muslims believe in a singular God, we MUST, by our own definition, be worshiping and praying to the same God.


Although I usually avoid all such discussions as this, somehow I feel drawn in here. It is difficult but let's try to put it in simple terms. 

If I plant potatoes in my garden and you plant beans and we both refer to that planting as The Vegetable, does that make them all the same? Are we eating the same thing when we eat those veggies? There are many gods (note the small g) in this world; money, fame, power, etc., there is only one God. Yes, our God (Jehoveh Jireh, Amighty, Omniscent, Omnipresent, Heavenly Father, Everlasting, Yahweh, I AM ) is the same as the Jewish God because our God is the same God as He who created all that is and who picked the Isrealite people as His holy people. He also destined the Gentiles to be included in his kingdom. Our God is a personal God who created man for his own enjoyment. He communicates with His people and protects them. Does that sound like the Allah of Islamic worship? 

Would it make it easier if we always called God, Jehoveh or Yahweh?


----------



## Megan Marie (Apr 8, 2011)

sugarspinner said:


> If I plant potatoes in my garden and you plant beans and we both refer to that planting as The Vegetable, does that make them all the same? Are we eating the same thing when we eat those veggies?


But if you have an oak and one person takes the acorns and one takes the leaves and another takes some branches, they might all say "Oh no, it's not the same thing!" but it's all from the same root.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Actually, none of the New Testament contradict the Old Testament. Christ came to fulfill the law and He did (Matthew 5:17-18). When He was on the cross, He said "It is finished" - and thus was the fulfillment of the law - the final sacrifice needed for sin. Romans 10:4 tells us "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." No longer do we look to the law for our righteousness but instead to Christ. There is no contradiction but a fulfillment.


If that's the case, why did Paul promptly begin writing a new set of rules? And why do modern-day Christians point to Paul's rules to explain why some things -- for instance, homosexuality -- are still wrong, although others -- like eating cheeseburgers -- apparently are OK now. 

So it appears the law _sometimes_ has been abolished, but in other cases, the OT rules still apply. No?

Although ... I have heard a few Christians make the case that they can do anything they please and it's OK, because they've been Washed in the Blood, or some such. All is forgiven! That seems a bit too convenient for my tastes, but, well, whatever gets ya through the day, I guess ... :hohum:

(Actually, it appears Christians already were making this argument back in Paul's day, and it seems to have given him a severe case of dyspepsia. He did devise a clever solution, though, by proposing that we could identity the people actually on the path to Glory by their good behavior!)

Incidentally, while reading a biography of Anne Hutchinson, I came across a passage about one of her female contemporaries who was so troubled over the question as to whether she was among the Elect that she drowned her child to settle the matter, reasoning that by doing so she would know the destination of her eternal soul, and no longer would be tortured by uncertainty. (To which I say, "Yikes!") :teehee:

So, Ann, let's cut right to the chase here. Of course, you're under no obligation to answer my question if you're not so inclined, but I'm genuinely curious:

Given that the Old Testament/Talmudic law has been abolished, and we're looking to Christ for our righteousness now, and He never said anything (as far as I can recall) condemning homosexuality, is it OK to be a practicing gay person now?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

copperkid3 said:


> *Professing to be wise, they became fools.....*


You are so predictable and took the bait. :hysterical:

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist temptation to throw some sneering comment out of your peanut gallery.

:nana:


:hysterical:


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> If Jesus is God why would he pray and why would he pray to himself. My point is that Jesus is not God.
> 
> I did merge Hebrews 2:7 and 1:4. My mistake. I haven't kept in the word as much as I should.


Because Jesus is not the Father. 

Get back in that word! Seriously - I don't always read my Bible like I should but I exhort myself to as much as possible and I do the same for you. Let's BOTH read the Word more!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> If that's the case, why did Paul promptly begin writing a new set of rules? And why do modern-day Christians point to Paul's rules to explain why some things -- for instance, homosexuality -- are still wrong, although others -- like eating cheeseburgers -- apparently are OK now.


Homosexuality was not wrong because of the law - it was wrong because it is against God's creation. The WHOLE law has been fulfilled but the moral law is still a good guide of how we should live.



> So it appears the law _sometimes_ has been abolished, but in other cases, the OT rules still apply. No?


No. The law has been fulfilled. 



> Although ... I have heard a few Christians make the case that they can do anything they please and it's OK, because they've been Washed in the Blood, or some such. All is forgiven! That seems a bit too convenient for my tastes, but, well, whatever gets ya through the day, I guess ... :hohum:
> 
> (Actually, it appears Christians already were making this argument back in Paul's day, and it seems to have given him a severe case of dyspepsia. He did devise a clever solution, though, by proposing that we could identity the people actually on the path to Glory by their good behavior!)


Good works do not save us and bad works do not ---- us. Instead, it is whether we are washed with the blood of the Lamb, trusting in Christ for our salvation. If one is saved, yes, they can sin and still be saved but on who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit does not DESIRE to sin. Yes, we will still sin and we still do things that we should not do but it hurts us, we know it is wrong and we desire to do what is right. We don't desire to do what is right to earn salvation but instead to please our Father in heaven. Just like I do things for my husband or children just because I love them and don't do them to earn my marriage or name as "mother", it is the same with our lives as believers. 

It wasn't just Paul who spoke of knowing who is saved by their actions - Jesus did this too. In John 10:27, He says "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." In John 14:23, He says "Jesus answered him, âIf anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." The Fruit of the Spirit is taught by Paul but it is grounded in what Jesus taught us. 



> Incidentally, while reading a biography of Anne Hutchinson, I came across a passage about one of her female contemporaries who was so troubled over the question as to whether she was among the Elect that she drowned her child to settle the matter, reasoning that by doing so she would know the destination of her eternal soul, and no longer would be tortured by uncertainty. (To which I say, "Yikes!") :teehee:


How would that show the destination of her eternal soul? I think it instead shows a wreckless indifference to life - and a more clear indication of the state of her heart. That's heartbreaking.



> So, Ann, let's cut right to the chase here. Of course, you're under no obligation to answer my question if you're not so inclined, but I'm genuinely curious:
> 
> Given that the Old Testament/Talmudic law has been abolished, and we're looking to Christ for our righteousness now, and He never said anything (as far as I can recall) condemning homosexuality, is it OK to be a practicing gay person now?


You keep saying that the law is abolished - it is not. Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. There is a difference. One breaks it, subverts it and overthrows it (the definition of the word used in the Greek - _kataly&#333_ but instead, the law is fulfilled, meaning completed, carried through to the end. 

As for Jesus and homosexuality, remember something: He didn't have to teach the Jews that homosexuality was wrong because they already knew it was by their moral law. However, He spoke against adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9), and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These were all terms of sexual contact outside of marriage. Jesus also taught us what marriage was in Matthew 19:4-6 (all in the same conversation of adultery and immorality and here Jesus is quoting Genesis 3 and back to before the law to creation). So yes, homosexuality is still wrong and it is reiterated in the New Testament by both Jesus and Paul.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So yes, homosexuality is still wrong and it is reiterated in the New Testament by both Jesus and Paul.


Yup, kinda thought so. 

The nice thing is that this is a free country, and you can hold and practice your beliefs while I can practice mine. Well, at least I can if Christians see fit to allow me to marry the partner of my choice! :teehee:

But as long as you stick to enforcing your rules within your families and churches, and leave me and mine alone to do as we please, you and I have no argument.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> How would that show the destination of her eternal soul? I think it instead shows a wreckless indifference to life - and a more clear indication of the state of her heart. That's heartbreaking.


She was troubled by not knowing whether she was among the Elect. By killing her child, she believed she had settled the question -- she knew for certain that she was going to h-e-double-hockey-sticks. She didn't have to worry about it anymore. 

This is one of the dangers of religion, IMO: when you begin to step away from reality, and believe in invisible sky beings and like, you're susceptible to going horribly astray.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Just to be clear, is it still OK if I eat a ham and cheese sammich?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Yes Oggie. You can have lobster and Swedish meatballs, too!

Incidentally, I suspect this interpretation has a lot to do with the fact there are more people interested in consuming, say, shrimp cocktail, than there are in having gay sex. 

The long and short of it seems to be that everything's OK now, unless it's something we don't like -- then it's still wrong. Sorry! 

But, it's their religion and they can make up whatever rules they want, I guess! :shrug:


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Some Swedes look tasty, but they rarely have enough fat on them to make a decent meatball.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

The more I learn the less I know.


----------



## Megan Marie (Apr 8, 2011)

Annsni said:


> He didn't have to teach the Jews that homosexuality was wrong because they already knew it was by their moral law. However, He spoke against adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9), and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These were all terms of sexual contact outside of marriage.


Why didn't they know that sex outside of marriage was wrong? Seems that was pretty well covered in Leviticus.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> She was troubled by not knowing whether she was among the Elect. By killing her child, she believed she had settled the question -- she knew for certain that she was going to h-e-double-hockey-sticks. She didn't have to worry about it anymore.
> 
> This is one of the dangers of religion, IMO: when you begin to step away from reality, and believe in invisible sky beings and like, you're susceptible to going horribly astray.


I don't understand - if she was afraid of where she was going, and I'd expect that hell would be the worst case scenerio, why not seek something better? 

But I agree - this is the danger of religion. That's why I don't have religion. I have Jesus and His Word. Significant difference.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Megan Marie said:


> Why didn't they know that sex outside of marriage was wrong? Seems that was pretty well covered in Leviticus.


They did but this was a law they were breaking. The context of Matthew 19 was divorce - something that was being used and abused. Additionally, we see that Jesus had to address adultery in person (John 8) and so it is clear that this WAS a problem with the people following Him.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't understand - if she was afraid of where she was going, and I'd expect that hell would be the worst case scenerio, why not seek something better?


Beats me! :shrug:

I'd have to guess that according to the beliefs of her time, she couldn't ever be certain that she was among the elect, and so figured that she could at least be sure she WASN'T! Seems the uncertainty was the thing. Putting the matter to rest, so to speak.

Of course, today we'd say that even if she drowned her child, she could ask forgiveness for her sin, and no matter how heinous it was, she would be forgiven, and would have a shot at Heaven. Apparently that wasn't an option in the 1700s!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Beats me! :shrug:
> 
> I'd have to guess that according to the beliefs of her time, she couldn't ever be certain that she was among the elect, and so figured that she could at least be sure she WASN'T! Seems the uncertainty was the thing. Putting the matter to rest, so to speak.
> 
> Of course, today we'd say that even if she drowned her child, she could ask forgiveness for her sin, and no matter how heinous it was, she would be forgiven, and would have a shot at Heaven. Apparently that wasn't an option in the 1700s!


+ + + + + + + 
Wouldn't it be wonderful to actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN?!!! And you can.
So could she . . . the written word of G*d was the same back then as it is today.
G*d is the same yesterday, today and forever.

HE hasn't changed; neither do HIS promises. 

1 John 5:9 - If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater;
for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.

1 John 5:10 -
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; 
the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he 
has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

1 John 5:11 - And the testimony is this, 
that God has given us eternal life,
and this life is in His Son.

1 John 5:12 - He who has the Son has the life; 
he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

1 John 5:13 - These things I have written to you 
who believe in the name of the Son of God, 
so that you may know that you have eternal life.



There's a world of difference between having a religion & having a 'relationship'.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> Wouldn't it be wonderful to actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN?!!! And you can.
> So could she . . . the written word of G*d was the same back then as it is today.
> G*d is the same yesterday, today and forever.
> ...


Amen Copperkid! You took the words out of my mouth!!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Calvinist angst can get pretty raw...every Christian branch has their own spin so just citing verses doesn't help a lot when someone is caught in toeing a line.

I got a job at a Christian camp in the kitchen. Being that I'm an avid recycler in the land of recycle/dumpster dive/organic hippy I've been begging scraps for the chickens(which uh, well, *you know*). Anyways, the question of waste is being revisited in the mix of the kitchen endeavoring to be jesus to the world(really! its cool!). I was mopping with the kitchen intern and he said it was cool that I was using some of the garbage to feed my chickens (all uneaten served food must be thrown away when returned to the kitchen, by law). I told him it made me actually sick body and soul to see perfectly good food go into the garbage, when there is so much hunger. He agreed and said it was always a peeve of his that the church is reluctant to address waste--ie, GLUTTONY is one of the seven deadly sins.

How much suffering does our waste...and gluttony, cause? Even if we're oblivious?

When I was at the Starbucks at Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle on a cold day, I watched a barista take the free samples of coffee out to the homeless on the sidewalk. I heard the manager tell them to keep the coffee brewing, it was a cold day for them. Nice way to work around the rules.

I believe gluttony is the "worst" sin, if there can be one. It is at the core of every other deadly sin. No self control, others be damned, all for me. It is innocuous because we dismiss it as having a sweet tooth, that murderers or homosexuals are the worse problem. What does God say in the revelation 3? 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm&#8212;neither hot nor cold&#8212;I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, &#8216;I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.&#8217; But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

There ya go...God himself would rather have ya be a cold sinner than a half-butt chow hound at the church potluck while another poor sot asking for groceries was turned away because "they''ll just sell them for crack".


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> Calvinist angst can get pretty raw...every Christian branch has their own spin so just citing verses doesn't help a lot when someone is caught in toeing a line.
> 
> I got a job at a Christian camp in the kitchen. Being that I'm an avid recycler in the land of recycle/dumpster dive/organic hippy I've been begging scraps for the chickens(which uh, well, *you know*). Anyways, the question of waste is being revisited in the mix of the kitchen endeavoring to be jesus to the world(really! its cool!). I was mopping with the kitchen intern and he said it was cool that I was using some of the garbage to feed my chickens (all uneaten served food must be thrown away when returned to the kitchen, by law). I told him it made me actually sick body and soul to see perfectly good food go into the garbage, when there is so much hunger. He agreed and said it was always a peeve of his that the church is reluctant to address waste--ie, GLUTTONY is one of the seven deadly sins.
> 
> ...


Actually, God wants ALL to come to Him and He will change them. It just takes some people longer than others to be changed. 

We have the same rule at our camp about food and so we try to limit what food goes out to the tables. But whatever does come back goes into "piggy" which will then go to the local pig farmer. Piggy just doesn't like egg shells (from hard boiled eggs) or citrus. 

I think the biggest thing is that we all need to develop a heart for those who are in need. I've done a number of things to try to help and our church actively tries to help as well. We also work with a local mission that is amazingly awesome and I think they do a most efficient job of helping those in need in our area (so it's best for us to assist and support them than for us to come up with our own thing). Heck, at our new building, there is a bus stop right at the corner and I want the teens to make a couple of benches for people to be able to sit on.  I hate seeing them having to stand there waiting!

I don't think gluttony is the worst sin (which in reality is selfishness) but I do think that only thinking of ourselves is not healthy for us or what God wants from us. Helping the least of these is vitally important and I can honestly say that I've probably been more blessed giving what I have away than keeping it!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Wouldn't it be wonderful to actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN?!!! And you can.
> So could she . . . the written word of G*d was the same back then as it is today.
> G*d is the same yesterday, today and forever.


That may be true (I have no idea) but religion changes down through the ages. The Calvinists as I understand it took to heart Paul's teaching that you could tell who the Elect were by their good behavior. The Anne Hutchinson bio indicated that people of the day spent a good deal of time and energy trying to determine whether they (and their neighbors, heh) were actually among the Elect, or mere poseurs. Other ways religion has changed: I've heard that the idea of 'The Rapture,' popular today in evangelical circles, didn't really catch on until the 1800s. 

But I digress. Getting back to the subject of whether Christians really are living under a new covenant ... I find it interesting that Paul establishes a doctrine that when a person accepts Christ, he becomes a new creature, having received an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, out of the other side of his mouth, Paul spouts a whole host of rules and decrees that Christians are supposed to follow. It's as if he doesn't quite trust the Holy Spirit to do his job._ If you have God inside of you, do you really need Paul to tell you what to do? _

OTOH, perhaps the Holy Spirit actually _wasn't_ doing such a great job, because a careful reading of Paul's epistles suggests the early Church was a mess -- full of gluttony, drunkenness, adultery and even incest (!). (I'll resist the temptation to make an obvious comparison to the modern Church, where divorce rates among believers are no better than in the population at large.) 

This, to me, suggests that Paul's ideas about salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit weren't valid, the proof being, as it were, in the pudding. I think Paul _wanted_ his doctrine to be true -- I think he was troubled a good deal by the bad behavior of his fellow Christians, and spent a lot of time and energy trying to get them to straighten up and fly right. But wishing doesn't automatically make it so. 

The funny part is, most Christians really don't believe this "new creature" stuff, either -- at least not to the extent that they would leave their child alone with a convicted pedophile even if they had 100% absolute assurance that he had accept Christ and underwent the promised transformation. Oh heck no! (Not just "No," but "Heck, no!") :hysterical:

The other problem with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that he doesn't seem very reliable. If the Holy Spirit tells Annsi one thing and me another and Gunmonkey a third thing, whom shall we believe? Assuming all parties sincerely believe they heard God's voice? The abolishment (or, if one prefers, fulfillment  ) of the Old Covenant took it off the table as far as having a definite set of rules to refer to. It's easy to see how Paul was compelled to step into the vacuum and start making a new rule book to settle sticky questions. Christians merely substituted Paul's rules for the former Old Testament ones, and continued tripping merrily along the path of legalism, right into the present age.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> ...The other problem with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that he doesn't seem very reliable. If the Holy Spirit tells Annsi one thing and me another and Gunmonkey a third thing, whom shall we believe? Assuming all parties sincerely believe they heard God's voice? The abolishment (or, if one prefers, fulfillment  ) of the Old Covenant took it off the table as far as having a definite set of rules to refer to. It's easy to see how Paul was compelled to step into the vacuum and start making a new rule book to settle sticky questions. Christians merely substituted Paul's rules for the former New Testament ones, and continued tripping merrily along the path of legalism, right into the present age.


As I said I would, when the judgments starting being tossed around, I left the room. But Willow's point drives to the heart of what I believe is an extremely important truth about not judging others' Faith. 

He has plenty of time to speak to us all individually. The messages may seem contradictory, but that is only because we're not as smart as the Teacher. If we defer our Faith to some written word, we allow it to be co-opted by the person who, trying their best to convey their message from God, put those words to paper. There may be wisdom to be found in their words, but we'd all be better served to focus on the lesson plan He's put before us.

An example of how the Bible factors in my Faith, within one of the contexts this discussion has taken:

I believe that homosexuality if a sin. Homosexuals are sinners. It's written there, and I believe it.

But, then, He reminds me that I'm a sinner too, and I should keep my nose in my own lesson plan, and let Him worry about the other children.

The sinful nature of homosexuality is written about so strongly by those inspired men who's papers made it into the Bible. I do believe them when they say God told them that it was a sin. But I believe that the criminal punishment of homosexuals, the societal censorship, the _law_ that made it into their papers came from the worldly influences around them. The church was the state, and the holy "leaders" were also the authors of law. The book is filled with words inspired by Him, but peppered with politics that man's dirty fingers put in there. 

The laws of man can be enforced by man, but God doesn't need our help enforcing his law. If you steal from or kill your neighbor, then the state should punish you for the damage your acts did to your neighbor, and God will punish you for the damage you did to your soul. Living a homosexual life doesn't harm your neighbor in any way, so the laws of man, the state, should have no say in that. That is between you and God.

Throughout written history, man has tried to subject those around them to their beliefs, and used their message from Him as their mandate to do so. The Bible says that every word in it is true, proclaiming itself the indisputable authority over all. As does the Quran. Yet they're at odds with each other.

The lazy children take their chosen tome, the work of other children who came before them, consign to it verbatim, call their homework 'done', and use it to exert authority over the other children. The quiet children, just interested in taking their lessons, try to glean the true wisdom from both books, and focus on the lessons that the Teacher is directly putting in front of them.


----------



## Old John (May 27, 2004)

*ASATRU...*

Well, after being a very active Catholic/Christian up to the age of 40 years, I lost that set of Beliefs, completely. And, I became a Polytheistic Pagan, or Heathen as we call our selves.I did not do it in one jump, but in a series of Enlightenments. 

Our specific branch of Paganism is called "Asatru", meaning "True to the Aesir, that is, the Family of Teutonic Gods that we follow". We sort of lump the Aesir and the Vanir together under one title.

And, I now follow the Ancestral Gods and Goddesses, of the Northern European or Teutonic Folk, the Gods called "The Aesir and the Vanir".
Odin, Thor, Frey, Tyr, Braggi, Ullr, Heimdall, and Balder are a few of the Northern or Teutonic Gods. Polytheist, It means Many Gods and Many Goddesses. There are more.
Frigga, Freyja, Sif, Nanna, Zisa, and Idunna are a few of the Teutonic Goddesses, that we pay Homage to. There are more. 
We pay Homage to the Northern Gods and Goddesses with various Feasts throughout the year. Each of the Days of the week is also related to various of the Gods and Goddesses.

I still have a very strong Conservative, Moral Code to live by, the Moral Code of Our Belief System.. And I've done my very best to Adhere to it for the past 35 years.
And, I do Not disparage anyone else's' Belief System either.

If you are Curious, you can do a Web-Search for" Asatru". There are thousands of Web-pages, explaining our Belief system.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

^ Few people realize that the names of the days of our week come from some of those gods. Historically I think "religion" is fascinating, our burning desire to explain why we're here.  It's a timeless quest.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> That may be true (I have no idea) but religion changes down through the ages. The Calvinists as I understand it took to heart Paul's teaching that you could tell who the Elect were by their good behavior. The Anne Hutchinson bio indicated that people of the day spent a good deal of time and energy trying to determine whether they (and their neighbors, heh) were actually among the Elect, or mere poseurs. Other ways religion has changed: I've heard that the idea of 'The Rapture,' popular today in evangelical circles, didn't really catch on until the 1800s.


Actually, I don't know where you got the ideas about Calvinists knowing who is elect by behavior because I've never seen that teaching myself. Yes, we can know that we are chosen by God but it's not because of behavior.  The rapture is spoken of in Scripture so it's not a new teaching and even soon after Jesus' ascension, they were looking for His return. 



> But I digress. Getting back to the subject of whether Christians really are living under a new covenant ... I find it interesting that Paul establishes a doctrine that when a person accepts Christ, he becomes a new creature, having received an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, out of the other side of his mouth, Paul spouts a whole host of rules and decrees that Christians are supposed to follow. It's as if he doesn't quite trust the Holy Spirit to do his job._ If you have God inside of you, do you really need Paul to tell you what to do? _


There are not new "rules" but guidelines for life. Yes, of course we need Paul and the Scriptures to guide us because the Spirit uses the Word of God to teach us. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is inspired by God and is suitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righeousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped to do every good work. The Scriptures are important because it is the way that God speaks to us.



> OTOH, perhaps the Holy Spirit actually _wasn't_ doing such a great job, because a careful reading of Paul's epistles suggests the early Church was a mess -- full of gluttony, drunkenness, adultery and even incest (!). (I'll resist the temptation to make an obvious comparison to the modern Church, where divorce rates among believers are no better than in the population at large.)


The Holy Spirit was fine but it was sinful man that was the problem. Even today, people know what the Bible says but refuse to listen to it. That is not the Spirit's fault or the Bible's fault but man's fault.



> This, to me, suggests that Paul's ideas about salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit weren't valid, the proof being, as it were, in the pudding. I think Paul _wanted_ his doctrine to be true -- I think he was troubled a good deal by the bad behavior of his fellow Christians, and spent a lot of time and energy trying to get them to straighten up and fly right. But wishing doesn't automatically make it so.


Very true. My husband is a pastor and we've dealt with many people who are walking in sin - and knowingly doing it! There are days I want to bang my head against the wall but I know that God is working on them and if they are willing to follow Him, their lives will be so much better! God loves them even when they mess up but there is hurt and heartache and pain in disobedience and we've been working with a number of people to overcome what is going on in their lives. Paul's ideas on salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was spot on - and so was his teaching on our sinful nature. He even speaks of himself doing the things he doesn't want to do and not doing the things he aught to do.



> The funny part is, most Christians really don't believe this "new creature" stuff, either -- at least not to the extent that they would leave their child alone with a convicted pedophile even if they had 100% absolute assurance that he had accept Christ and underwent the promised transformation. Oh heck no! (Not just "No," but "Heck, no!") :hysterical:


The "new creature" doesn't mean that a person becomes sinless and as I said, we still fight the old nature as well as long as we are in this body. No, I wouldn't leave my child alone with a pedophile but I will love them, pray for them, befriend them and support them as they fight that sin in their lives. We don't change in an instant to become perfect and sinless - until we see Jesus face-to-face.



> The other problem with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that he doesn't seem very reliable. If the Holy Spirit tells Annsi one thing and me another and Gunmonkey a third thing, whom shall we believe? Assuming all parties sincerely believe they heard God's voice? The abolishment (or, if one prefers, fulfillment  ) of the Old Covenant took it off the table as far as having a definite set of rules to refer to. It's easy to see how Paul was compelled to step into the vacuum and start making a new rule book to settle sticky questions. Christians merely substituted Paul's rules for the former Old Testament ones, and continued tripping merrily along the path of legalism, right into the present age.


Actually, the Spirit will never contradict Himself but we can absolutely project on the Spirit things that are not of Him. A friend of mine told me that God told him to marry this girl. We all told him it was gas. He refused to listen and married her, only to have her cheat on him multiple times before she finally left him. 

What if we don't know if it is God telling us what to do? If you'd like, I can post my husband's sermon next week because he's going to be teaching on that very thing this week. 

But Paul didn't make a new set of rules. He gave us instructions and guidelines but they are not rules that we follow to garner grace or favor with God. I'm reading a book right now called "Taking God at His Word" by Kevin DeYoung and I love his quote here:

"Finally, as a prophet, God has decisively spoken in his Son. He has shown us all we need to know, believe, and do. There is nothing more to say. And yet, God keeps speaking through what he has already said. âThe word of God is living and activeâ (Heb. 4:12); and when the Scriptures are read, the Holy Spirit still speaks (3:7). So, yes, God still speaks. He is not silent. He communicates with us personally and directly. But this ongoing speech is not ongoing revelation. âThe Holy Spirit no longer reveals any new doctrines but takes everything from Christ (John 16:14),â Bavinck writes. âIn Christ Godâs revelation has been completed.â In these last days, God speaks to us not by many and various ways, but in one way, through his Son. And he speaks through his Son by the revelation of the Sonâs redeeming work that we find first predicted and prefigured in the Old Testament, then recorded in the Gospels, and finally unpacked by the Spirit through the apostles in the rest of the New Testament".


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I never realized before this thread how much I don't like the word actually.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I never realized before this thread how much I don't like the word actually.


Actually, now that you mention it, I searched the word 'actually' on this page and it appears 18 times! Oh wait - actually, now 21 times. :grin:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Annsni said:


> The rapture is spoken of in Scripture so it's not a new teaching and even soon after Jesus' ascension, they were looking for His return.
> 
> .


You will find zero references to the Rapture as defined today before the mid 1800's
Its a very new idea taken mainly from one verse that was never interpreted to mean that before the 1800's

I really wish more people would learn the history of the Bible and of their religion.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> You will find zero references to the Rapture as defined today before the mid 1800's
> Its a very new idea taken mainly from one verse that was never interpreted to mean that before the 1800's
> 
> I really wish more people would learn the history of the Bible and of their religion.


I'm sorry but you are confusing the concept of a pre-tribulation rapture with the general concept of the second coming of Christ and His taking the saints with him to heaven. Yes, the pre-trib rapture is a later doctrine and one that doesn't have full support in the Scriptures. However, the early church absolutely taught of the rapture as we can see in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians and later in extrabiblical writings of Justin Martyr and others.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Actually, the Spirit will never contradict Himself but we can absolutely project on the Spirit things that are not of Him. A friend of mine told me that God told him to marry this girl. We all told him it was gas. He refused to listen and married her, only to have her cheat on him multiple times before she finally left him.


From my perspective, this is the second most serious problem with religion (the first being the tendency of religions to try to have their beliefs incorporated in secular laws). 

Frankly, I have enough trouble trying to navigate through life while clinging to cold, hard, objective reality (or attempting to -- I can still become self-delusional at the drop of a hat if I really, really want something to be true!). :hysterical:

I can't imagine even trying to pull it off while throwing some invisible sky beings (who might or might not exist) into the mix! :runforhills:

But here's something I can be fairly certain about: We all -- regardless of creed, skin color or gender -- bleed red. We all have hopes and dreams and fears. Virtually all of us have been wounded in some way; some more so that others, of course. We're all here for such a very short time ... the blink of an eyelash in the great sea of time, really. What were we put here for if not to help each other? 

I do not think the great questions of theology will ever be answered to our complete satisfaction. We can't know for sure what -- if anything -- lies Beyond until we get there, and of course, by then it will be too late.  So for the most part (this discussion being an obvious exception) I'm content to leave that which is unknowable in the realm of the Unknown, and to concentrate on things of which I can be surer, and what I can do in the here and now to live a good life, and not harm others along the way.


----------

