[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles

Title: My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church?
Source: creation.com
URL Source: http://creation.com/my-pastor-doesnt-believe-in-genesis
Published: Nov 15, 2014
Author: creation.com
Post Date: 2014-11-15 19:23:45 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 78764
Comments: 223

My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church? Published: 15 November 2014 (GMT+10)

We received the following question from a supporter in Australia who was surprised to discover the pastors of his church did not believe Genesis. Tas Walker talks about some of the issues that need to be considered.

"Hi guys, I love your work, and have subscribed to the magazine and am continually encouraged by what you guys publish".

"I have a question. I’m at a church which I’ve attended for the last 12 years (I’m now 30). I’ve since realized that none of the 3 pastors take a straightforward reading of Genesis, and at least 2 of the 3 (haven’t yet checked the 3rd) don’t even believe the Flood was global. I was wondering if you had some advice on what I should do about this. I have 2 kids and 1 on the way and I want them growing up in a biblically sound church. Apart from Genesis our church is excellent. Do you think leaving the church is too drastic? Love to get your feedback, thanks heaps"!

Tas Walker replies:

Thank you for your question about being part of a church where the pastors do not accept Genesis as written. Unfortunately that is more common these days than it should be.

The decision as to which church you and your family should belong to depends on many different factors. Here are some issues for you to think and pray about.

There is no such thing as a perfect church. In some areas the church may be really good for you but in others it may be totally unhelpful. So you have to balance a lot of factors in your life.

There are usually good reasons in your life why you belong to the church you do, but churches change with time. E.g. sometimes the youth ministry is strong and other times it struggles. Your pastoral team will change and that will bring a different dynamic. So, perhaps by waiting you may see things improve.

Church is not just about what you can get out of it, but it is a place where you can minister to others with your gifts. Your passion and experience with creation may be one area where you can be a blessing to others.

In every church you will have to stand for and speak out the truth, and this can apply to many different issues. In this particular church the issue that you need to bring to others is the truth and foundation of Genesis. But speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. Look at this as an opportunity to share some wonderful truth that otherwise would not be shared.

Rather than pushing creation in six days on people as if it is your hobby horse, use it to meet their needs as you become aware of them. Thus, you can present the truth to people along the following lines: “You may find this will help resolve some of your doubts and give you a firm foundation as you follow Christ.” I always take back issues of Creation magazine to church, as well as brochures and DVDs, which I freely give to people as the need arises.

Speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way.

You may be influential in the thinking and life of your pastors. It’s important to love them and support them. Don’t be divisive or argumentative. Don’t be a one-issue person but show that you are interested in the wider ministry of the church and that your passion is to serve Jesus Christ and to help others come to Him and grow in Him. Here are two examples of how a person in the pews was pivotal in helping their minister come to the truth of Genesis: A young man in a church lent a book to his minister who was big enough to read the book and research the issue and who changed his mind (see Esa Hukkinen interview).

This pastor, Owen Butt, believed Genesis was myth but changed his mind after attending a creation meeting, and that changed his whole approach to ministry. What this article does not say is that it was one of his congregation who fed him information and invited him to the creation meeting, where his whole way of thinking was changed (See Catching the vision).

Make sure that your family is properly instructed in the truth of Genesis and creation by providing books, DVDs and other resources for them. Talk about the question and issues as they arise. However, note that it is really important to always speak in a positive way about your pastors and your church, especially with your children. If there is a critical spirit and an undermining of your pastors and your church in your home, that will poison things for your children.

If the situation becomes very difficult for you, with say the pastors instructing you not to talk about the issue you may need to think about moving. In the same way, you could not accept a ministry offer from the pastors if they included a condition that you could not talk about creation in that ministry or in the church. So if there is a hardening and aggressiveness develops toward your position, say from the pulpit, you may need to think about moving.

In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives.

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5

God bless,

Tas Walker

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 114.

#1. To: CZ82 (#0)

If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what?

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-15   22:03:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#1)

If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what?

There is an answer to your question, and I am willing to answer it for you.

There is a completely different way to read the Bible.

The traditional way, which came out of traditional Catholic and Orthodox thinking, itself came out of traditional Jewish thinking. After all, all 12 Apostles and Paul were Middle Eastern Jews, from the land of Israel and its environs, by birth and culture. Jesus was too, of course, but he is different because of who his Father was and the special knowledge and power he had.

The traditional way of seeing it saw the Christian Church as the continuation of the Jewish revelation. While this is certainly true, the key features of it where that the Apostles and the traditionalists did not simply valorize the revelations of God, but also the particular historical and cultural achievements of Israel. They understood God's plan of salvation in a certain way.

To follow the traditional thread of thinking, God made man, man fell, and this fall, this original sin, left an imprint of sin on the character of each man. Because of this sin, man could not attain heaven after death. In order to save man, eventually, God chose one people, the Hebrews, and gave them The Law. The Jews waxed and waned, and did not follow the law perfectly. So God sent Jesus to bring the whole world into salvation. Under the Jewish law, the blood of animals released sin, but could not completely release a man of all of his sins. But with Jesus, baptism wipes away original sin, and the blood of Christ's sacrifice is the final, perfect lamb of the Jewish sacrificial cycle, which takes away the sins of the whole world (and not just the Jews). So, through adoption, the world are all Messianic Jews. The reason for Jesus, under the traditional view, is to redeem us from our sins as laid out under the Jewish law. The assumption is that a perfect adherence to the Jewish Law would have led to salvation, but nobody could do it, and so Jesus was sent to do it for everybody.

That's the traditional view, and that view depends on the existence of Adam and Eve as literally described in order to establish the Original Sin that needs to be wiped away.

That's the traditional read and understanding. It's what Paul understood he was doing.

There is a very different way to read the same text. It too arrives at the necessity of Jesus, doing what Jesus did, with the ultimate net result, but which understands what happened along the way, and the role of the Jews in it, very differently.

It takes some time to write out, and engenders tremendous hostility among those who see things through the traditional lens, so I'm not too terrible eager to spend the time to write it out and then get beaten upon. Unfortunately the beatings will happen, because writing out what others believe without criticizing it leaves the impression that one advocates that, because people become furious at anything they perceive as a challenge to their traditional beliefs.

If you really want to understand how people of good faith and sincerity can think Jesus is vital to salvation without accepting the Adam and Eve or Flood stories as literal, I am willing to go ahead and write it out. But I'm not too eager to deal myself a crap sandwich, and that's what experience tells me I'm going to get if I start actually talking about these things.

So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?

Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-17   11:12:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?

Sure go for it. You are a man of honor.

But if there was no Adam and Eve to bring sin into the world. What exactly would be the purpose of Jesus if Adam and Eve were made up. I know it is repetitive of the above.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-13   14:59:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone, Don, SOSO (#7)

So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?

Sure go for it. You are a man of honor.

But if there was no Adam and Eve to bring sin into the world. What exactly would be the purpose of Jesus if Adam and Eve were made up. I know it is repetitive of the above.

Your question, and Don's, and SOSO's comment to me... I'm going to take the time to write a careful, comprehensive and clear answer.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-14   11:10:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Don, SOSO (#23)

Your question, and Don's, and SOSO's comment to me... I'm going to take the time to write a careful, comprehensive and clear answer.

Thanks, I believe that this will be a worhwhile endeavor for the interested.

May I suggest two therads be started: Why Genesis? and Just Genesis. The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man, the latter the biblical account of Genesis as historical fact and/or meaning. Obvioulsy both why and how of creation have an impact on how one views and accepts the teachings of the Bible. Frankly I expect that the former thread would have a very short existenace as the bottom line is no-one knows why God rolled up His sleves in a creation mode.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-14   17:54:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SOSO (#27) (Edited)

May I suggest two therads be started: Why Genesis? and Just Genesis. The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man, the latter the biblical account of Genesis as historical fact and/or meaning. Obvioulsy both why and how of creation have an impact on how one views and accepts the teachings of the Bible. Frankly I expect that the former thread would have a very short existenace as the bottom line is no-one knows why God rolled up His sleves in a creation mode.

I know why God filled up the sky and the land: because he wanted to.

There is nothing more to it than that. God does what he wants.

Why do YOU like, say, blue things? Because you do. You prefer it because you prefer it. So it is with God. God is God. He doesn't have a "reason" as such, that "causes" him to "have to" do something or aim at a result. He's God. He does what he does because it pleases him to do so - a painter on a blank canvas.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-14   21:38:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

I know why God filled up the sky and the land: because he wanted to.

There is nothing more to it than that. God does what he wants.

Well, OK then. God does as He jolly well pleases and we, His creations, can just run around arguing about not only what He did, or if He did, but why He did. It all makes perfect sense now. God does not need to communicate to us a purpose for our existence, and we shouldn't expect to have one, much less ask Him. Thanks for clearing that up.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-14   21:50:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: SOSO (#35)

Well, OK then. God does as He jolly well pleases and we, His creations, can just run around arguing about not only what He did, or if He did, but why He did. It all makes perfect sense now. God does not need to communicate to us a purpose for our existence, and we shouldn't expect to have one, much less ask Him. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, that is the way it is. God is God. The Scriptures do record what God said - the rules he laid on us (there are not many). He's free, and he made us to rule over this place. And that's the extent of it. That's what we know, and that's all we know.

We can just make shit up and ascribe it to God, if we want to, but when we do that, it's not true.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-14   22:32:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)

We can just make shit up and ascribe it to God, if we want to, but when we do that, it's not true.

On this I totally agree. But its human nature to inquire, to want to know why. And isn't God that bestowed that nature upon us? At times it seems that He has a cruel sense of humor.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-14   22:39:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: SOSO (#39)

And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind?

If so, you can learn much.

Or are you a man who has in fact really already made up his mind, are certain that there's no such proof, that such proof cannot really exist, that anything shown as proof can and surely will be exploded by simply applying reason to it?

Are you already certain that no satisfactory answers to your questions exist, or ever will exist?

In other words, are your questions real questions that are truly searching for something, or are they rhetorical, leading questions whose answers you are already sure you know?

The answer to these questions of intent determine whether any conversation is worthwhile. This question is important from the perspective of someone like me, who might or might not be willing to expend the effort to try to answer the questions.

I am happy to bring my proofs to a real court, but it's a waste of time, worse than useless, to bring them before a kangaroo court.

I've been before many kangaroo courts, and usually see them constituted. And the men who sit on them who sit in pre-judgment of all that would be brought before them are dull and foolish and not worth my time.

Men with open minds who believe that maybe the questions CAN be answered, at least somewhat, and who are willing to find out: they are worth the time.

Me, personally, I had to start with the tangible proofs of God. Without the proofs, without the knowledge certain THAT God is, I could see no point in investing the time necessary to really try to understand what he had to say or wanted of me.

I am a man, and I give other men the courtesy of believing them to be exactly like me: wanting proof. I also give them the courtesy of believing them to be like me in being honest, at least with themselves, and earnestly seeking proof. I believe that any honest, intelligent, scientifically-educated man who studies the tangible proofs God left us will come face to face with the reality of the existence of God. And that changes the nature of scientific inquiry, because it removes many question marks.

It makes new questions important, such as: Ok, God IS, but WHO is he? And what does he WANT of me (if anything). The tangible artifacts answer the first question completely. But then the trail goes cold. Then you have only two choices: God tells you directly, or you have to read accounts of other people telling you what God said to them.

In the latter case, you have to compare what other men claim God said to them to the physical artifacts. If the claims of men contradict the physical proofs, then you have a choice to make: reject the physical proof that your own eyes can see, or reject the claims of men that contradict them.

Me? I follow the second course.

Then, if one has found a set of words that one believes contains words from God, one has to read and parse those words carefully, to see what they say and who they claim said what.

It's worth the effort if God is, and if God spoke that way. It's an utter waste of time if God isn't.

"Just believe that God is and go straight to the text" is an approach that works for some. Some of them are Christians. Some are Jews. Some are Muslims. Some are Hindus. Some are Bhuddists. They all contradict and they all have their books of words in which they believe, without anchoring in tangible proof.

But words are wind, and if they don't come from God, they come from man. So I myself, personally, have to start with the tangible proof.

Of course, I DIDN'T start with the tangible proof. In point of fact, my starting position was that no such tangible proof could possibly exist. I wasn't a skeptic, I was a cynic.

So where I actually started was with revelation: God grabbed my face and threw me around and spoke to me. And showed me things. And visited often. And so did demons. I saw the Dove. I saw the City. I was plunged into the black Abyss.

I found these experiences impressive, so I looked for tangible proofs to corroborate that I was in fact speaking with spirits and not just bat-shit crazy.

There is a lot of tangible proof left by God, all of it quite astounding and quite impossible. So, God is.

All of the tangible proof is Christian in nature. The informational content of the objects and artifacts are miraculous, and they present some Christian fact or simply are of Christians. If there were any counterexamples from any OTHER religion, there would be a competition of ideas, but there aren't. Every miraculous, science-defying artifact is Christian in content - every single one. I've identified about six dozen of them. The other religions have no entries in the game.

So, personal revelation is corroborated by miracle, and all of the miracles - all of the cornucopia of artifacts left by God - are Christian in nature. Therefore God is the God of Christ, and all of the other religions are false or incomplete. Therefore there's no point in studying anything but Christianity.

But there are 6000 squabbling, irritable Christianities, so maybe the answer is not to study Christianity, but to keep eyes focused on God.

Ok, so, the artifacts are Christian miracles from God - where in Christianity does God speak directly? In written Scripture, and in some claimed revelations of saints.

Since I've spoken to God, and what God and I spoke of is not Scripture, I know that God certainly DOES speak to people and perform miracles today, and did not stop doing so in the First Century. There's a made up tradition that says the opposite, but words are wind. I've experienced miracles, so arguments that God doesn't do that sort of thing anymore are lies. They're not just errors, because there was no basis for making the error: they are positively asserted lies by men seeking to privilege their particular power, gained by their learning.

It would be great for them if God were so easily contained. But he isn't, and he said not to lie, so actually they're in duck soup and considerable danger, because of their own stubborn and foolish insistence on the authority of stories they made up out of wholecloth.

Now then, proceeding on, God didn't say much to me, really. Lot's of repetition about specific points. The content of the artifacts says that God is, and Christ is divine. So what can we do? Well, we can look at the words of men who claim God spoke to them - both in the claims of saints since the First Century, and in the canonized claims of those from the First Century and before.

And there, we can find a set of words, attributed to God directly, about 8% of Scripture and a few more sentences from claims of saints, embedded in a whole lot more verbiage that may or may not be true.

The artifacts vouch for the God speaking in Scripture, so you look at what HE said DIRECTLY, first. Then you compare THOSE words to the rest of the words, and you find conflicts. You don't find conflict between God and himself, but there IS conflict between what God said directly, and what men said ABOUT God, both in Scripture and without.

And then you have to make a choice.

Well, me? I know God is, because I've spoken to him. And I know there's a Devil too - I've seen a demon. I know who God is from the artifacts. And I know what God said directly because it's recorded. So, THAT'S reliable. And then there's the rest of it. Where is agrees, that's good. Where it conflicts, well, there's a choice to be made, and 100% of the time I go with what God said directly, and I disregard or diminish in importance what some other man wrote that contradicts what God said directly out of his own mouth.

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." - Jesus, speaking to Satan.

Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole.

So, if I've got God saying that he sends good and evil, but I've got some Psalmist saying that God is only good and never does evil, well, the Psalmist is wrong. All Scripture may be God breathed, but it's not all of equal authority. And it's only the fact of the reality of God that gives Scripture authority in the first place. The lack of concrete tangible evidence for the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita leave them unsubstantiated, but when contrasted with the presence of such concrete tangible evidence for the Christian Gospel only, the relative presence and lack of evidence proves the truth of the Christian Gospel and the falsity of the rest.

That's how it all hangs together. We can talk about each piece, or not. It depends entirely on the mental attitude of the ones who wish to speak. If there is real interest and an open mind, then good. But if the interlocutor has a closed mind, Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-14   23:24:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)

And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind?

I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line.

"Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole."

And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-14   23:32:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: SOSO (#45)

I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line.

And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him.

Well, then, good! That moves all the freight, and we can come down to the brass tacks.

We both know God is. We both know that the Father is God of all, and that Jesus is divine. We both know that Jesus told us that we have to follow him to be acceptable to the Father, and that to follow him we have to do what he said.

So, what did he say?

Well, we know that there's a cut, a judgment, and that some pass it and enter into the City of God, and others are left outside and/or thrown into the Lake of Fire.

We know that within the City there will be different distinctions, greater or lesser, based on what each person did or didn't do in life. Everybody who passes judgment gets a room, but everybody doesn't get a throne and a crown.

In this sense it's sort of like high school: those who graduate are going to go on to other things. The ones who did best will have the best colleges and jobs. The ones who did less well will have correspondingly dimmer prospects, but still be better off than the guy dying of malaria in a swamp in Bangladesh.

So, the first big cut, the dividing line, is what will cause you to fail judgment and be thrown into the fire.

Jesus gave a handy list, twice repeated on the last two pages of the Bible:

If you've killed people, committed adultery, or sexual immorality, or been abominable (which includes some other forms of sexual immorality), or been a liar, or an idolator, or a drug trafficker, or a coward, you're not going to pass judgement and are going to be thrown into the lake of fire UNLESS you're forgiven.

And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies.

But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you.

That's what Christ said, and he was the Son of God and the one who has to be followed, so whoever disagrees is wrong and should be silent and change himself to follow Christ.

And that is the whole religion, really. That is ultimately what you have to do to pass judgment. Beyond that, to enjoy high status in the City of God, well, for that you have to be an exemplar of Christ's virtues.

I think it's important to start with the most basic of basics: be baptized, eat bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, don't commit any of those deadly sins, and if you have, then repent, ask forgiveness, and forgive other men all of their sins against you.

That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-14   23:54:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#50)

And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies.

But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you.

That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it.

Ah, but we both know that the devil is in the details.....don't we.

Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy.

BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-15   11:29:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: SOSO (#51)

Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy.

BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.

"Faith" can mean two things: TRUST in God, or mere BELIEF in God.

I went on and on about how one can come to strong BELIEF that God exists: through the physical, examinable artifacts, the concrete miracles left to that purpose.

Trust is an entirely different thing, though. After all, the Devil and all the demons KNOW God EXISTS, but they don't obey him.

Men certainly can know that God exists. I do in two ways: I've spoken with him, seen angels and demons and places and experienced dramatic physical miracles. There is no question in my mind that God exists. If there WERE a question in my mind, then it would be like questioning whether water exists, or gravity, or daylight. Direct experience is knowledge certain.

For the benefit of those who have not seen, touched and heard, I've gone and compiled the list of miracles that God left that can be forensically examined and seen to be physics-breakers. They're all clearly miraculous, and they're all Christian. So, with a basic scientific education and the time and inclination to study, anybody who has not seen God directly can have the proof of God's EXISTENCE right before his eyes. And not just his EXISTENCE, but his identity.

But that's as far as that goes. What God WANTS of you, well, unless he tells you directly and unmistakeably, that knowledge can only come through a combination of conscience, which is God's breath within, and learning.

Learning WHAT? Well, the only place one CAN look to see what the Christian God directly said is the Scriptures, so you have to look at THAT.

And then it's important to look at what GOD HIMSELF said, directly, in the Bible. About 8% of the words in the Scriptures are directly spoken by God, and THOSE words are quite consistent through the text. So, that's how you can know what God wants. That's where my "short list" was drawn.

But even if you know God is, know WHO God is, and know what God wants, you still have to trust that if you limit yourself in the important ways that God said, that you will reap the rewards he promises after death. That is faith: not belief, but trust.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-15   13:36:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Vicomte13 (#64)

Trust is an entirely different thing, though.

I have maintained that the nature of Man's original sin was not disobiebence but a lack of trust in God.

"Well, the only place one CAN look to see what the Christian God directly said is the Scriptures, so you have to look at THAT."

Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-15   13:48:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: SOSO (#66)

Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?

God in the Bible said he would translate his word to all tongues.

What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story.

In my opinion from what I have read I do not like the NIV. It is the same as the Jehovas Witness "Bible" in many regards.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-15   13:56:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)

What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story.

Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-15   14:00:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: SOSO (#68)

Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.

You will have to be more specific for me to understand you better.

If you are talking about different Bibles. I would think that some people deliberately try to deceive and some people are trying to translate it again because for some reason or another. They may get some parts right and some wrong.

That is the way that I see it. Maybe not the best explanatin as I am not a scholar on the subject. I just have my belifs based what I have read and witnessed in life. I try to be honest with myself and others in the search for what is true and false. I surely get it wrong sometimes but I do seek the truth.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-15   14:05:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)

You will have to be more specific for me to understand you better.

If you are talking about different Bibles. I would think that some people deliberately try to deceive and some people are trying to translate it again because for some reason or another. They may get some parts right and some wrong.

Yes. I am referring to the myriad of differences of presumably the same version of the Bible just from the act of translating it from one language to another. I am also referring to the differences in versions that simply lead to disagremment on the nature of the eucarist, for example.

"They may get some parts right and some wrong."

And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right? This certainly fuels the fire, the temptation, to say that they are all full of it. And certainly to suspicion of the guy that tries to sell you that his version is the one and only true Word of God.

Consequently, in put little reliance on Scripture in bringing me to and keeping my relationsip with God. But that's just me.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-15   14:15:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: SOSO (#70)

And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right?

Logic would seem to dictate to go with the first one in your language.

Then test it. Does it contradict itself?

If you think it contradicts itself study further and make sure you haven't missed something.

I can find things that seem to me to be contradictions to me in the NIV. So I don't trust it. People have told me they have seen contradictions in the King James version. Sometimes people say there are. But I haven't seen anything myself.

I know the King James version isn't the fist one. I trust it too though. The verses that I have randomly chose to look at and compare. If I recall sometimes were word for word. Or very as to not change the meaning in my mind. Some verses in other later Bibles seem to say something entirely different sometimes. Or at least miss something or even add stuff as I recall.

I don't want to come across as some kind of expert. Because i'm not. But that is what popped out of my mind in response to your question.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-15   14:58:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: A K A Stone (#71)

People have told me they have seen contradictions in the King James version. Sometimes people say there are. But I haven't seen anything myself.

I could show you. But they're all the same.

There's what God said, and then there's what men say ABOUT God. What the men say sometimes contradicts God, and sometimes contradicts each other.

What God said is pretty straightforward. The most glaring apparent contradiction in what God said comes in three parts. Jesus said that not a penstroke of the Torah would change until heaven and earth ended. In the Torah, God gave the rules for divorce. But Jesus said that it was Moses who wrote that, "due to the hardness of your hearts", and that it was not so in the beginning. Then Jesus laid down a law that said that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

This is a nest of contradictions. If we penetrate the translations to the Greek, the contradiction remains.

KJV, NIV, NAB, ASV, Greek manuscript, Hebrew, Vulgate - doesn't matter what you use, the contradiction is there, and it's a vital one, because before Jesus God only gave three laws directly to Gentiles in the Scripture, and one of those was against adultery. And Jesus, at the end of the Bible, twice says that adulterers fail judgment and are thrown into the lake of fire.

The last word on what CONSTITUTES adultery is: he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Indeed, he who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery.

Divorce and remarriage is adultery, Jesus said, and adulterers fail judgment and are thrown into the Lake of Fire, Jesus said twice on the last two pages of the Bible - indeed, those are among God's very last words in Scripture, after everybody else has had their say.

We should note that very well, because all of the letters of the Apostles come before Revelation, John is the last of them, so God Himself has the LAST word on all of it.

Logically, one would think that where there is tension (and there is), that God's taking the last word would settle it. Indeed, one would think (logically), that wherever God speaks in Scripture, that trumps everything else, and that if God changes a rule later that he made earlier, that the later rule stands.

That's the only logical answer, but men don't like that answer, because the Jesus of Revelation in God's final words to man gives a law that is stricter than men would like. So men - Gentiles like Jews before them - rather prefer to go back to something said earlier in the text and make THAT the rule.

That doesn't make sense.

Anyway, take your KJV and look at what Moses says about divorce, what Jesus says about the law of Moses, and then what Jesus says about divorce.

This isn't a reversal, there is a contradiction there. "You can divorce." "Not a word will change until the world ends." "If you divorce, you commit adultery, and adultery will cause you to fail judgment."

That's a violent change, and a violent contradiction.

And that's why the Christian Churches all have contradictory teachings on divorce - it isn't just that men WANT to divorce (and they do), but it's because the text appears to contradict.

The contradiction is obvious.

Now I'll tell you why it's not there.

In Genesis, God puts man and women together as one flesh. He nearly kills Abimelek, and he sickens Pharaoh's household, because of adultery or the near commission of it with Sarai, Abram's wife.

Then God gives Moses the law allowing divorce in the Torah.

Stop: fact check. What law has God given to the world here? Man and woman form one flesh, don't commit adultery.

Now, God gave a law to the Jews - only - permitting them to divorce.

Jesus comes and says that the law given to the Jews will remain until the world ends. Ok, so the law does not change. Jews could divorce.

But he gives the law for the world (which would be the 99% of humanity who are NOT Jews, that reminds everybody of marriage as originally constituted: one flesh, and Jesus makes it clear that sundering it is adultery.

So there's the law for the world, and then there's tension regarding the Jews.

But then in the last week Jesus pronounces the doom of Israel. When God established Israel under Moses, he warned them through Moses that if they FOLLOWED all his laws, they would get their farm in Israel, but if they DIDN'T, they would be destroyed and driven out. Jesus in his last week pronounced sentence on Israel: complete destruction of the Temple.

Now, God's law was very clear: the Jewish rites MUST be carried out, they can ONLY be carried out by Aaronic priests, and they can only be carried out on the one altar. God destroyed the Temple and the altar, and ended Israel.

So, the LAW is indeed left intact, unchanged, but the Israel for which the law was made was destroyed by God forever because part of the law threatened just that for disobedience.

And Jesus said that thereafter, that now, the only path for anybody was HIM.

So, on paper there's that Torah, and it is as it was written, and we can all see it with its rules, including the softer rule for Israel under God's law that permitted divorce (and thereby permitted it in Israel without bringing the doom on Israel). But Israel brought the doom on itself for breaking all sorts of other laws, and God's doom was irrevocable. No Temple, no priesthood, no sacrifices, the law is not fulfilled, and the WHOLE law has to be fulfilled or Israel stays doomed. In fact, God never said after Jesus pronounced the doom that if the Jews just went back to the Torah they would have Israel reconstituted and get their farm back. Quite the opposite! Jews would have to follow the whole Torah AND follow Jesus as Son of God, or they would remain under the ban.

They didn't and don't. So the LAW is still there, but there's nobody to follow it and no nation to be rewarded FOR following it. And remember well: the promise for obeying the whole Torah wasn't everlasting life, it was a prosperous farm in Israel while you lived.

So, what's left of Moses' law of divorce? It's there in the books, an allowance, but Jesus made it clear that God's law for the world is no divorce, that divorce and remarriage are adultery, and that adulterers are thrown into the fire.

So, that's the law, clear and unambiguous, and that's been what marriage has been since the beginning: one man, one woman, once.

This, then, leads to the question: What if I have fucked up and committed adultery, either by sleeping outside of wedlock, or divorcing and remarrying?

Failing judgment would seem inevitable, because Jesus said that's the lot of adulterers. What hope, then? Well, Jesus really only gave one: forgive. He said that those who forgive will be forgiven.

Adultery is a deadly sin. Divorce and remarriage is adultery. And as long as it lasts, it would appear to continue to be adultery. Maybe there really is no hope for adulterers in this situation other than divorcing their new wives and assuming a position of celibacy or returning to their only true wives.

Or perhaps by being endlessly forgiving of others, following Jesus' instructions, people in that circumstance will be forgiven by God also, as Jesus' promised.

We should recall that the Samaritan woman at the well had been married four times and was living with a man who wasn't her husband.

Truth is: the Scriptures do not tell you the clear answer. There are logical bars to EVERY path one might take.

They get worse when you start adding in what Paul and James and Jude and John and Peter had to say on top of it.

If you stick with what God had to say, God's LAST WORD on the matter is that adulterers don't enter the City of God and are thrown into the fire.

There are hundreds of millions of people who reject Jesus in the Scriptures on this matter, and choose to believe traditions and logic of their own making.

But even if one sticks to the Bible, truth is, the subject is a MESS without a clear answer. But there is a LAST answer, and twice repeated, and that's that adulterers are thrown into the fire.

And there's an example of a welter of contradictions within the Scriptures on a core matter.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-15   18:03:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#88)

Stone please meet Vicomte13. Articulate little devil, ain't he?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-15   18:08:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: All (#90)

I find this thread very interesting
And I agree with so much that is said here by so many of you
I too believe God is love
I do believe God created us with a channel between Creator and His creation
So He can always be in communication with us
and we can always be in communication with Him
Edgar Cayce, the great psychic, had prophesied back in the 1930s that by the year 2000 everyone would be in personal communication with God
The date turned out to be off
But every year now more and more are in personal communication with God
I know each of us have our own beliefs
and what is right for one to believe, could be wrong for another
So these are just my own beliefs
They are right for me, but could be wrong for another
Each of us knows for ourself what is best for us to believe IMHO
Love Palo

Palo Verde  posted on  2015-01-15   18:37:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Palo Verde (#93)

Edgar Cayce, the great psychic, had prophesied back in the 1930s that by the year 2000 everyone would be in personal communication with God

Hi Palo! It has been a long time since I've seen you post. Hope you are well.

Everyone has an opportunity to communicate with God. Individuals can either take advantage or decline. I've never been able to comprehend why anyone would decline.

yukon  posted on  2015-01-15   18:49:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: yukon (#99)

Hi Palo! It has been a long time since I've seen you post. Hope you are well.

Everyone has an opportunity to communicate with God. Individuals can either take advantage or decline. I've never been able to comprehend why anyone would decline.

Hi Yukon
I am happy to see you
I was an atheist till my early 40s when my life hit bottom
LOL at the end of my rope I called out for help from God
(nothing else had worked)
Then my next crisis was a few years later, when vet pronounced death sentence on my beloved dog
(she was my first dog)
First I turned to God for help, then to Jesus
I was able to hear both God and Jesus talking to me in my mind
Loving me, comforting me, reassuring me
Even tho my beloved dog did go to Heaven 4 months later
I wasn't willing to give up all that love and help
But I only called upon Jesus and God when I was having a terrible crisis
The next 4 years brought so many crises into my life that I had a chance to call on them many times
After that I decided to stay in personal communication with Jesus and God even when things were fine
LOL but I only stayed in communication 24/7 when another crisis hit
I guess that help is always available to all
It is up to each individual how much they want it?
LOL I guess I'm a gal who needs a lot of help
I love you
Palo

Palo Verde  posted on  2015-01-15   19:29:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Palo Verde (#111)

I guess I'm a gal who needs a lot of help

All of us do, but few of us willingly admit it. Apparently you and I have traversed some of the same rough waters. God bless you.

yukon  posted on  2015-01-15   19:36:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: yukon (#113)

(Palo) I guess I'm a gal who needs a lot of help
(Yukon)... Apparently you and I have traversed some of the same rough waters. God bless you.

Thank you my darling
God bless you too
It is a miracle you and I are talking to each other on a forum again
I haven't been on a forum in 5 years
But it hit me hard when LP shut down
And TC instantly invited me over here
And I am very happy here now
Love and kisses, Palo

Palo Verde  posted on  2015-01-15   19:52:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 114.

        There are no replies to Comment # 114.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 114.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com