Orthodox Christianity, False Teachers, Faith, and Reason

[Foxfyre]

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

I would see theological problems with that.
And that is the kind of thing that we would have friction over.
You said I bear false witness against you.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I asked you to quote me specific words from previous quotations that you accused me of being in error and of hurting people. And because you refused to do so, I did accuse you of bearing false witness.

But this we can work with.

So specifically what do you have a problem with in the above that you quoted? All of it? Something in it? What exactly do you have a problem with?

I disagree with you that we will have friction over it, however, as I do not require, and I do not believe God requires, you to accept my beliefs or my interpretation of scripture without question. And it takes two people to quarrel over anything.

But we can certainly see where our differences are. So pick a phrase in context and let's examine it.

 

[Chuckt]

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

I would see theological problems with that.
And that is the kind of thing that we would have friction over.
You said I bear false witness against you.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I asked you to quote me specific words from previous quotations that you accused me of being in error and of hurting people. And because you refused to do so, I did accuse you of bearing false witness.

But this we can work with.

So specifically what do you have a problem with in the above that you quoted? All of it? Something in it? What exactly do you have a problem with?

I disagree with you that we will have friction over it, however, as I do not require, and I do not believe God requires, you to accept my beliefs or my interpretation of scripture without question. And it takes two people to quarrel over anything.

But we can certainly see where our differences are. So pick a phrase in context and let's examine it.

I posted some articles I wrote on C.S. Lewis once on the internet on another unnamed board and the users in England had a problem with me even though I don't think any of them were old enough to have read all of his books. His time on television span a lot of years and he wrote books that our local Christian university library doesn't even have.

Dr. Norman Geisler says a lot of great things about Clive Staples Lewis in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I think Lewis' problem starts with his view on Inspiration. Geisler says that Lewis is neither Orthodox or Neo-Orthodox but calls Lewis a Liberal-evangelical and Geisler says that he uses the term as a paradoxical one.

Geisler gives a list of the various views on inspiration:

Extreme Fundamentalism - Verbal dictation through secretaries
Orthodox - Verbal inspiration through prophets
Liberals - Human intuition through natural process
Liberal-Evangelical - Divine elevation of human literature
Neo-Orthodox - Human recording of revelational events
Neo-Evangelicals - Inspiration of only redemptive truths or purpose

So when I look at someone like C.S. Lewis being called the greatest apologist of the 20th century, I just have to pause because, "What has he given us?"

I set the bar higher than Lewis does and I set the bar higher than you do.

I don't accept it. I can't work with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would see theological problems with that.
And that is the kind of thing that we would have friction over.
You said I bear false witness against you.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I asked you to quote me specific words from previous quotations that you accused me of being in error and of hurting people. And because you refused to do so, I did accuse you of bearing false witness.

But this we can work with.

So specifically what do you have a problem with in the above that you quoted? All of it? Something in it? What exactly do you have a problem with?

I disagree with you that we will have friction over it, however, as I do not require, and I do not believe God requires, you to accept my beliefs or my interpretation of scripture without question. And it takes two people to quarrel over anything.

But we can certainly see where our differences are. So pick a phrase in context and let's examine it.

I posted some articles I wrote on C.S. Lewis once on the internet on another unnamed board and the users in England had a problem with me even though I don't think any of them were old enough to have read all of his books. His time on television span a lot of years and he wrote books that our local Christian university library doesn't even have.

Dr. Norman Geisler says a lot of great things about Clive Staples Lewis in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I think Lewis' problem starts with his view on Inspiration. Geisler says that Lewis is neither Orthodox or Neo-Orthodox but calls Lewis a Liberal-evangelical and Geisler says that he uses the term as a paradoxical one.

Geisler gives a list of the various views on inspiration:

Extreme Fundamentalism - Verbal dictation through secretaries
Orthodox - Verbal inspiration through prophets
Liberals - Human intuition through natural process
Liberal-Evangelical - Divine elevation of human literature
Neo-Orthodox - Human recording of revelational events
Neo-Evangelicals - Inspiration of only redemptive truths or purpose

So when I look at someone like C.S. Lewis being called the greatest apologist of the 20th century, I just have to pause because, "What has he given us?"

I set the bar higher than Lewis does and I set the bar higher than you do.

I don't accept it. I can't work with you.

I can't work with somebody who keeps reading into my words stuff I didn't say and didn't even hint at. I didn't mention C.S. Lewis in the quoted passage. I didn't mention Geisler in the quoted passage. I didn't mention different approaches to theology in the quoted passage. I don't believe C.S. Lewis was ever on television though some of his literary works have been.

You quote my words and say you have a problem with them. I ask you what your problem is specifically and you start talking about a lot of other unrelated stuff.

Is that what they teach you to do in your church? To be as vague and noncomittal and confusing as possible?

So again you say you can't talk to me, can't work with me, and declare me inferior to you and your heroes. And I say you previously accused me of teaching error and of hurting people and I still say unless you will address what I actually said, you are bearing false witness.

My church teaches that is a sin. Does your church teach that?

 

[Chuckt]

Is that what they teach you to do in your church? To be as vague and noncomittal and confusing as possible?

So again you say you can't talk to me, can't work with me, and declare me inferior to you and your heroes. And I say you previously accused me of teaching error and of hurting people and I still say unless you will address what I actually said, you are bearing false witness.

My church teaches that is a sin. Does your church teach that?

I'm not here to change you. That is why we pray, "Thy will be done" instead of "my will be done".

You didn't answer my questions before and therefore the conversation goes nowhere.

It takes two to make a fight and I don't really wish to fight.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is that what they teach you to do in your church? To be as vague and noncomittal and confusing as possible?

So again you say you can't talk to me, can't work with me, and declare me inferior to you and your heroes. And I say you previously accused me of teaching error and of hurting people and I still say unless you will address what I actually said, you are bearing false witness. When you accuse me of error and of hurting people, but will not say what my error is, that is also bearing false witness.

My church teaches that is a sin. Does your church teach that?

I'm not here to change you. That is why we pray, "Thy will be done" instead of "my will be done".

You didn't answer my questions before and therefore the conversation goes nowhere.

It takes two to make a fight and I don't really wish to fight.

I not only do not wish to fight with you, I will not fight with you. I have asked you four times now to repeat the questions you say I did not answer. You have accused me of not answering them several times but refuse to tell me what questions I have not answered. You have accused me of teaching error and of hurting people but will not tell me what I have said that is in error. When you accuse me without evidence, that is bearing false witness.

I am not here to change you either. I am here to have an adult discussion of concepts of Christianity, false and right teaching, logic, and reason.

So here again is what I posted

I said

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

And in direct response to that quoted comment you said:

I would see theological problems with that.
And that is the kind of thing that we would have friction over.
You said I bear false witness against you.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

So I am asking you one more time, and it is a sincere question: What theological problem do you have with my words I quoted in this post? Please focus on this one thing and please be specific.

 

[Chuckt]

So I am asking you one more time, and it is a sincere question: What theological problem do you have with my words I quoted in this post? Please focus on this one thing and please be specific.

We won't see eye to eye.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I am asking you one more time, and it is a sincere question: What theological problem do you have with my words I quoted in this post? Please focus on this one thing and please be specific.

We won't see eye to eye.

Perhaps not, but if you all you wish to do is to complain about, accuse, or attack people without ever telling them how you think they are wrong, then you don't give anybody a chance to see eye to eye with you about anything. Again I wonder if that is what your 12 pastors and your elders and all the people you admire as great theologians teach you to do. If so, you are in a very scary church that should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Chuckt]

So I am asking you one more time, and it is a sincere question: What theological problem do you have with my words I quoted in this post? Please focus on this one thing and please be specific.

We won't see eye to eye.

Perhaps not, but if you all you wish to do is to complain about, accuse, or attack people without ever telling them how you think they are wrong, then you don't give anybody a chance to see eye to eye with you about anything. Again I wonder if that is what your 12 pastors and your elders and all the people you admire as great theologians teach you to do. If so, you are in a very scary church that should be avoided at all costs.

I did explain and you don't acknowledge it.
Other times I feel you've been hiding by not answering my statements and questions and turning from your beliefs to hide what you believe and asking questions instead of posing your beliefs.

I'm not into the apocrapha, I'm not into higher criticism that believes that Jesus never existed or if He did, the theologians have to reconstruct him from the Bible. I have a higher view of inspiration of scriptures and inerrancy. I believe the words of the Bible are God breathed and not literature. I don't accept many ideas outside of scripture because you are going beyond scripture and reducing the authority of Jesus.

Modernism is a polite term for it all which I am not. It is called liberal and my definition for liberal is that it liberates people of any notion of God to the degree it is practiced.

When you set a presedent that you can go beyond scripture, then what is wrong with Jim Jones who went beyond scripture?

 

[Foxfyre]

We won't see eye to eye.

Perhaps not, but if you all you wish to do is to complain about, accuse, or attack people without ever telling them how you think they are wrong, then you don't give anybody a chance to see eye to eye with you about anything. Again I wonder if that is what your 12 pastors and your elders and all the people you admire as great theologians teach you to do. If so, you are in a very scary church that should be avoided at all costs.

I did explain and you don't acknowledge it.
Other times I feel you've been hiding by not answering my statements and questions and turning from your beliefs to hide what you believe and asking questions instead of posing your beliefs.

I'm not into the apocrapha, I'm not into higher criticism that believes that Jesus never existed or if He did, the theologians have to reconstruct him from the Bible. I have a higher view of inspiration of scriptures and inerrancy. I believe the words of the Bible are God breathed and not literature. I don't accept many ideas outside of scripture because you are going beyond scripture and reducing the authority of Jesus.

Modernism is a polite term for it all which I am not. It is called liberal and my definition for liberal is that it liberates people of any notion of God to the degree it is practiced.

When you set a presedent that you can go beyond scripture, then what is wrong with Jim Jones who went beyond scripture?

Chuckt, when somebody asks me what my problem with them is, and I actually have a problem with them, I tell them. Plainly, honestly, and without obfusication, dodging the issue, or innuendo. I believe Jesus of Nazareth strongly set that very example for us to follow. So when I ask you to quote me my words that you have a problem with, that is what I am asking for. You continue to accuse me, but you will not tell me my 'sin'. That Chuckt is wrong. It is unChristian. And if your church teaches you to do that, your church is very, very wrong.

I am not "into the Apochrypha" either, my favorite study Bibles don't include it, and I don't teach it other than as a curiosity of ancient Christian literature. But it exists. To deny that it exists or that it is included in the Bible that many devout Christians use is absurd. To object to it being mentioned is equally absurd.

Is your problem with me that I acknowledge that an Apochrypha exists? Is that threatening to you?

I certainly have NEVER made an argument that Jesus never existed. I have been quite up front that he not only existed, but the scriptures contain eye witness testimonies that he existed. I have quoted many of his words. I have been pretty up front that I have a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ and that is very important to what I believe and who I am. Whatever could I have said to suggest to you that I do not?

I have repeatedly said that I respect the faith of those who consider the Bible to be 'God breathed' and to be without error. I would not do anything to try to dissuade you from something that gives you that kind of comfort. But it can be 'God breathed' and still be literature can it not?

I have been called to teach those who want to believe but cannot accept the Bible as many interpret it in the 21st Century. But they can hear and understand if they are given opportunity to see it through the eyes of those who wrote it. And because this does not require them to set aside their God given intelligence, logic, and reason, the Bible becomes a living book to them and the God of the Bible is no longer an incomprehensable, angry, vindictive Being and they come to invite Him into their lives and seek to know and hear Him better.

I'm sorry that you believe that to be error and 'hurting people' but I belong to a Church that does that magnificently and baptizes dozens of new adult believers every year--believers who are full of the Spirit and who are going out and spreading the Gospel and relieving human suffering all over the world. How can that be a bad thing?

 

[BreezeWood]

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction.

... are you certain, as true as the above is so also has it an ability proven through history to be the very nemesis (a source of harm or ruin) within its scriptures that are not for the purpose to lead mankind to the Everlasting but to the ruin of "Armageddon" -

simply, where in the Bible does it refer to the Triumph of Good over Evil, that is the Tenant for the Existence of the Almighty God above all others.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.'


my concern also is the effect "scriptures" have for those that do take them as inerrant when in fact they are unsubstantiated conjecture (as verse 26) and when left unchanged prevent the stated goal to reach the Everlasting by their inaccuracy. - as subjected by Religious orders to their impressionable parishioners.

as I implied before as what I have stated is nothing new, is when if ever will the Bible ever return to be living and a flowing path forward as a quest for Remittance than its present state of being a Latin or dead language of Religion that is incomplete.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction.

... are you certain, as true as the above is so also has it an ability proven through history to be the very nemesis (a source of harm or ruin) within its scriptures that are not for the purpose to lead mankind to the Everlasting but to the ruin of "Armageddon" -

simply, where in the Bible does it refer to the Triumph of Good over Evil, that is the Tenant for the Existence of the Almighty God above all others.

Yes, there are many who have pulled 'proof texts' from the Bible and used them to lead people astray and/or bludgeon them into submission. I do not believe that God condones that. I do not believe the Bible sanctions that.

Also, nowhere anywhere in the Bible does it suggest that God's work here on Earth is completed or that the ultimate triumph over evil has yet occurred. There are numerous passages alluding to that day when the Christ will return with his avenging angels and dispel all evil. But I think we are not intended to know the time or hour that will occur and we are not privy to know exactly HOW it will occur. The ancient prophets did the best they could to describe it with the words available for them to use, but as with much of the scripture, we no doubt have lost something in the translation over the millenia.

I do not condone using some people's version of God, Jesus, or the Bible to control or hurt people. I hope God uses me to enlighten people that our job is to arrange the meeting between the mortal and the Divine, and then allow God to take it from there.

Does that cover it? Or did I fail to address something here?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre wrote

The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction.

To which Breezewood responded

... are you certain, as true as the above is so also has it an ability proven through history to be the very nemesis (a source of harm or ruin) within its scriptures that are not for the purpose to lead mankind to the Everlasting but to the ruin of "Armageddon" -

simply, where in the Bible does it refer to the Triumph of Good over Evil, that is the Tenant for the Existence of the Almighty God above all others.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.'


my concern also is the effect "scriptures" have for those that do take them as inerrant when in fact they are unsubstantiated conjecture (as verse 26) and when left unchanged prevent the stated goal to reach the Everlasting by their inaccuracy. - as subjected by Religious orders to their impressionable parishioners.

as I implied before as what I have stated is nothing new, is when if ever will the Bible ever return to be living and a flowing path forward as a quest for Remittance than its present state of being a Latin or dead language of Religion that is incomplete.

I look at the fruit they bear, Breezewood. I see people from some of the most fundamentalist, legalistic, and dogmatic traditions--people who insist that the Bible is inerrant in every detail exactly as it is translated into English--who are introducing Christ to people in love all over the world, who are working to feed, heal, and relieve suffering among some of the world's poorest and most pitiful people. How can we see that and believe that God is not in it? That God does not bless that?

At the same time I see people who don't find it necessary to put their intellect, logic, and reason on the shelf who are also introducing Christ to people in love all over the world, who are working to feed, heal, and relieve suffering among some of the world's poorest and most pitiful people. How can we see that and believe God is not in it? That God does not bless that?

Jesus did not demand 'sound doctrine' from us. He demanded that we love (hear and obey) the Lord God with all our heart, soul, and mind and that we love (treat) our neighbor as we want to be treated. And whomever does that fulfills all that the Law requires of us. And though not one of us is capable of doing that 100%, God's grace covers and approves of us just the same.

 

[koshergrl]

But we are on dangerous ground when we insist that it's *okay* to knowingly and consciously decide to commit a sin and to openly embrace that sin and try to convince others that it is okay to commit that sin because "God is love". I would not want to be in that position come judgement day..the position of a homosexual preacher, for example.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now let's consider:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

Now there is room to have a reasonable argument over whether this literally happened like that or this is typical of the writers of the Old Testament who used anthropomorphic imagery in order to make a theological statement.

But the statement itself has merit because humans, like no other species on Earth that has ever been or will ever be, have acknowledged all the other creatures of Earth and have been given the power to recognize them, to utilize them, and/or control them. We are the only species given power to contemplate the importance of the other species, the capacity to care about them, and to choose to destroy them and/or preserve them. And THAT is what having dominion means. And why it makes perfectly good sense to write it into the Creation literature that helps explain God's purposes and plan for all that would follow.

 

[Foxfyre]

But we are on dangerous ground when we insist that it's *okay* to knowingly and consciously decide to commit a sin and to openly embrace that sin and try to convince others that it is okay to commit that sin because "God is love". I would not want to be in that position come judgement day..the position of a homosexual preacher, for example.

I haven't found any passage of scripture that says it is okay to sin. Both the Old and New Testaments are pretty much in agreement that sin is bad and there will be consequences for doing it.

But again, my definition of sin is that which harms ourselves and/or others either intentionally or unintentionally. I think we get into trouble when we try to define sin outside of that parameter.

 

[koshergrl]

A sin is breaking a commandment, and when we sin, we hurt God Himself.

So even though a sin is a small one in terms of the damage done to OTHERS, they all pain God equally. And people who maintain that if they just love each other ENOUGH, God will overlook their deliberate sins, are sadly mistaken. Jesus died to take our sins upon him, and anyone who deliberately and knowingly commits any sin effectively crucifies him.

We need to be concerned not just with whether or not sin is hurting other people, but also whether or not it hurts God. It's one thing to battle with a behavior that is sinful, you know it, but have a hard time putting away. It's a totally different thing to openly commit a sing and proclaim that God doesn't mind in this particular situation, if you commit this particular sin.

That's a very dangerous spot to be in.

David was beloved of God...and he paid dearly for the sins he committed when he rejected God and chose sexual immorality (and murder). How much worse would it have been if he had openly proclaimed that his sins were okay by God?

 

[Chuckt]

I'm sorry that you believe that to be error and 'hurting people' but I belong to a Church that does that magnificently and baptizes dozens of new adult believers every year--believers who are full of the Spirit and who are going out and spreading the Gospel and relieving human suffering all over the world. How can that be a bad thing?

I have to take someone to the urgent care which is a little different than the hospital and I already live with not having enough time.

It is not just one thing. It is your worldview.

You can't give the Bible a late date and expect there not to be problems because someone is going to say, "look. that is a reason I don't have to believe".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...od-s-wrath-against-mankind-6.html#post7897654

It is also the company you keep:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...od-s-wrath-against-mankind-7.html#post7906121

If Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel" then that gives us authority. When someone says that Mark 16 is not in the Bible then that takes away from Biblical authority. Who does that hurt? It hurts the person whom doesn't follow God because they listened to you instead of God and it disconnects people from those who tell them the truth. Mark 16 is in the Bible. The people who profess to know have unbelief as their problem so the unbelievers in Christian cloth are calling people after themselves so that they will follow them instead of the Christians.


David Otis Fuller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

A sin is breaking a commandment, and when we sin, we hurt God Himself.

So even though a sin is a small one in terms of the damage done to OTHERS, they all pain God equally. And people who maintain that if they just love each other ENOUGH, God will overlook their deliberate sins, are sadly mistaken. Jesus died to take our sins upon him, and anyone who deliberately and knowingly commits any sin effectively crucifies him.

We need to be concerned not just with whether or not sin is hurting other people, but also whether or not it hurts God. It's one thing to battle with a behavior that is sinful, you know it, but have a hard time putting away. It's a totally different thing to openly commit a sing and proclaim that God doesn't mind in this particular situation, if you commit this particular sin.

That's a very dangerous spot to be in.

David was beloved of God...and he paid dearly for the sins he committed when he rejected God and chose sexual immorality (and murder). How much worse would it have been if he had openly proclaimed that his sins were okay by God?

But what are the commandments for? Did God just whimsically draw them out of a hat? Thought them up just to make life more dificult or complicated for us? To make up orders just because he could? Or are God's commandments intended to lead us to more righteous and profitable choices? To stop harming ourselves and/or others? I think God loves us and it hurts Him when he sees us making foolish choices because we did not seek his counsel; when he sees us harming ourselves or spoiling his perfect Creation.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't spend a lot of time trying to get into God's mind regarding the "why did you do that, God" perspective....we don't need to understand his reasons, we just need to obey. I know that most of my pastors maintain that the events of the OT established the law, to provide us with a guideline until the law was fulfilled in Christ. Now that we have Christ, we can be forgiven of our sins if we accept Him, then REPENT of our sins. If you are knowingly committing a sin, refusing to repent and at the same time encouraging others that THEY don't need to repent of that sin...how real is your salvation in the first place?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't spend a lot of time trying to get into God's mind regarding the "why did you do that, God" perspective....we don't need to understand his reasons, we just need to obey. I know that most of my pastors maintain that the events of the OT established the law, to provide us with a guideline until the law was fulfilled in Christ. Now that we have Christ, we can be forgiven of our sins if we accept Him, then REPENT of our sins. If you are knowingly committing a sin, refusing to repent and at the same time encouraging others that THEY don't need to repent of that sin...how real is your salvation in the first place?

I would agree that God wants us to repent of our sins. And what is to repent? It is not to say "I'm sorry I did that" or to feel guilty, but to commit to not doing it again. To change our mind. To change the way we think or do things that were harmful to ourselves or others. I don't think I'm 'getting into God's mind' when I say that He loves us and His Law is for our benefit, not His. He has no need of the Law. We do. And I think Jesus clarified that Law pretty darn well when he suggested that the Law is NOT a bunch of silly rules and regulations that even He and the disciples were criticized for not obeying, but rather it is loving (i.e. hearing and obeying) the one true God) and loving each other. If we could do that perfectly we would not break the Law and we would not sin.