"Where does it say this person is going to hell? You assume he rejects the Holy Spirit.
The good news of the Gospels are not limited by what man does. Assuming as we are, there
is a Holy Spirit, he is working everywhere."

By default Muslims reject the holy spirit. That's why they are Muslims and not Christians. I fail to see your point.

And the holy spirit working everywhere? Really? Please provide me with one example of the holy spirit working someplace. Thanks.

Bob Dylan - "Everybody must get stoned"

@ Ty Ty - "Things like this cause me to further question the bible and the idea that I was raised with that it is God's voice/words given to man without error."

This one is long. I hope you will indulge me...

I think one can get a better understanding when one looks into the situations that led to the above outcome - i.e. the literal interpretation of the Bible where every single word is true.

o Most all the early Christians (Paul too) expected Jesus' return (and the end of the world) within their own lifetimes. Paul even went further to discourage marriage, so folks could be more focused on getting ready for the end time.

o The apostles and early leaders (e.g. Paul) wrote letters, but otherwise, Christianity was taught through word of mouth -- oral preaching. Only after the apostles and early church leaders were dying off that Christians saw the need to start putting things down in writing. There was no single central authority (hard to do when the church was being persecuted and had to exist underground). You can imagine how different letters and writings circulated in different places -- not all of them consistent with each other.

o It was only later that various church councils met and decided on which letters/writings were to be accepted as canonical and which wouldn't. Much depended on the theology, the prestige of the authors (Paul, for example) and how wide the circulation of each writing. We believe the Holy Spirit guided those church leaders. But it was also a series of group decisions (as you can imagine).

o The schisms that started in the 1500's. Ty Ty -- what happens when two forces collide head on? You get a recoil effect:

1. The Catholic church after the schism basically said, "hey, told you so... you can't read the bible on your own, you gotta have the church interpret for you... look at the Protestants going off the deep end". It wasn't until the 1960's that the Catholic church actively encouraged everyone to read the Bible!! Imagine that.

2. The Protestant churches were very concerned about Protestants sliding back to the Catholic Church. NO, you do not need any church to interpret anything for you, they claimed. Every word is true (black / white is always easier to understand than nuancing) and all you need is the Holy Spirit. The literal understanding was the method used to discourage people from going back to depending on the clergy. Don't let any clergy scare you. Just read it for yourself!

But you know, after the above recoil effect... you can see that the two sides are coming together again. Catholics are now actively encouraged to read the Bible. And many of the main line Protestants have gone away from the pure black and white literal interpretation of the Bible.

So there, in a nutshell. It's not all black and white. Not everything that needs to be taught is in the bible. OTOH, yes, there is always room for abuse. We need to be on guard. But discouraging active bible reading is no way to be on guard. Neither is oversimplifying everything down to just black or white either. I like how we Catholic and Protestant Christians are both veering back to saner middle ground.

Edited by ben2world on 03/19/2012 13:39:35 MDT.

My point is: don't get too caught up on the exact meaning of the text, when it doesn't make much sense.

If you consider that Bible 1.0 (old testament) and Bible 2.0 (new testament) were written by people who were either anonymous or later got promoted to the status of prophet or saint, then consider that the documents were manually handwritten, and translated.

To me, the text is highly susceptible to corruption at the various levels of transition.

Even today's time, we know that people with the best intentions, can see the same car accident and describe to the police reporter in various interpretations, without fraud or ill will intended. Imagine if this car accident police report had to be retold by word of mouth for the first 300 years, then re-written after that for a few thousand years. You can imagine that the original text may not reflect it's original intent or actual history.


Hey look at Wikipedia, which is less than 10 years old, with a mild form of electronic versioning and tracking, but sure enough, the data gets modified and translated away from accuracy. This is less than 10 years. Imagine 2000 or 5000 years.

Edited by RogerDodger on 03/19/2012 13:34:31 MDT.

Okay, fun is fun, but my time is up for now. If someone replies to me and I don't reply back, it is not on purpose.

To anyone who feel I did not address a point or that may reply and not get an answer, you are welcome to PM me and I would be happy to reply if I have the time.

Taking on 4 or 5 different people is too much anyhow.

Peace out :)

I was raised as an evangelical. My parents never told me about hell -- they were too tenderhearted -- but, I learned about it from church, Christian school, and youth group. Though secure in my own salvation, I couldn't help but imagine when trying to fall asleep at night what it would be like to be aflame and to never expect relief. I made the same calculations as you, Ty, and it cast a shadow over my entire young life. How do we enjoy life when most of those ever born are destined for eternal suffering? Eventually, though, the shadow forced me to ask myself, "Why do I believe something so incomprehensibly awful?" The only answer I could come up with was this: I was told when I was young. A friend of mine, a Christian philosophy student, told me why he didn't believe in a literal hell, and why he believed in universal salvation. I gleefully adopted these arguments for a while, but, the thing is, hell is what holds it all together. If your soul isn't in peril, why must these canonized stories be true? Tread carefully! :)
-Pete

Doug - What you describe is the way I am leaning. It is a little scary to depart from the belief system by which you were raised and you want to be sure before you dump it in favor of something else. It was actually the nature=church thread that caused me to create this thread. The reason is because I do believe in God mainly because I don't see how there was not a creator to all that exists. I don't believe a bunch of particles were able to arrange themselves in such intelligent fashion through chance. Also the basic intelligence, the sense of right and wrong, the 'God given rights' of man that are apparent to all men, call it what you want but I believe these things originate from our creator (call 'that' what you will).

But the idea of the Bible as the word of God, Jesus as the one way into heaven, or the existence of heaven and hell as described in the Bible, I am pretty doubtful of at this point.

Like I said though, I am trying to remain open to influence. I have not given up and I won't try to convince you my thought process is the right one other than for the sake of the discussion and my own learning. Honestly it would be easier for me (WASP, American, living in the deep south, all my friends/family are 100% Bible reading Christians) to just believe in the Bible 100%. Not that I am going to go on the road espousing whatever beliefs I have but suffice it to say it would be easier.

To understand your calculations first you must know a bit about the development of the christian canon. On the beginnings of the christianity there were no standard/common beliefs, and some of those canons separated. Then came the inevitable, as with any other kind of social structure, power attracts the power hungry and they started hierarchic control over the christian structure. But they had a problem with the separation of the canons, so a series of meetings are arranged to settle those questions and achieve an standardization with the use of the Councils. Initially the discussion focused on the selection of the appropriate texts, on the following centuries, with the catholic church effectively ruling Europe, came modifications on the texts to ensure their permanence in power, like the prohibition of homosexuality, or the attack against women (during a long time they "had no soul" and didn't have access to education, mainly to allow the church a cultural monopoly) among many others, but they have always something in common, the use of fear as a mind control tool and the urge for expansion and domination war on the politeists.

The texts on any monotheist sacred book are highly politized to allow control over population, and never have anything to do with the origins of that religion. This is one of the main reasons of persecutions to any mystic heresy, always more in contact with the spiritual part of the texts, and willing to allow the presence of "infidels".

The following entry on Wikipedia is accurate enough and might give you an idea of the politics of that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

@Casey: Mine is a rare religious background. My mother's family is christian, high ranks on the opus dei, and high ranks in the Spanish army, they are plainly a bunch of fascists. My father is arab muslim from an important (on religious grounds) family, and had to "convert" to catholicism to marry my mother during Franco's times. They are both outcasts on their familys. Me and my sister/brothers were educated in catholic schools (a mistake I'm not going to do with my children), and we all are atheists.

P.S. I hate the flaming on the theological questions on every forum... No one seems to be able to talk this things rationally :(

Ty,
what about taking your question to Church? Go to several different priests and talk to them about it. They'll have much more theologic experience than this forum.

Casey,

Brought up Mormon.
From the time I was 24, to the time I was 31, I was a devout Atheist.
Now I'm Christian.

Ceasar,

You want a proof, or you won't believe. I'll make this simple for everyone. You won't believe.

A proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true. What that means is that in all cases when X, then Y

If I do X, then God will always invariably do Y. Also, it has to be reversible. If I want more Y, then all I have to do is X.

The problem is with "I." My will is that Y, therefore I will do X.

God is not a cosmic slot machine. I can't give you an X to do to get Y. Just like someone can't give me an X to do, that will guarantee I get Y from you.

If I you and I were friends (had a relationship), I'd likely know some things about you. Maybe your favorite beer for example. One day I decide I'd like to try one. So I ask you, "hey, can I have one of those?" Your answer could be no. You'd be well within your right to say no. They are after all, your beers (you greedy SOB). On the other hand, you may say yes (see, I knew it, you're actually a nice guy). You may even give me one for the road (wow, an altruist).

The fact of the matter is this, there is nothing that I (or anyone else) can say to you that will MAKE you believe. It wasn't anything anyone said to me that changed my belief system. I could hand you every argument there is about why God. If you were skilled enough you could dismiss them all (and maybe you are, I don't know).

The offer of having a relationship with God can never be more than an offer. Anything else is tantamount to rape (yes, I chose that word carefully). I compare militant Christians, Muslims and Jews, to militant Atheists, in that they try to force you to think the way they do.

So to wrap this up, next time you're in Colorado, look me up and we'll get your favorite beer. And, if you're not a beer drinker, fine, I'll drink yours, cause that's how I roll...

Bob Dylan - "And I stopped in for a beer..."

Edited by wn7ant on 03/19/2012 14:01:36 MDT.

Ben - So you accept that the bible has human error in it? If one part is flawed or possibly has human error, how do you accept some and reject the other parts and still stay a believing Christian? I feel like, for me, it has to be all or nothing. Either it is 100% true or not. If not then I have to believe man wrote it, perverted it, whatever but ultimately you cannot rely on it.

I do understand where you are coming from and what your beliefs generally are but I think you walk a fine line of accepting what agrees with you and rejecting what does not.

Travis - I agree I should go talk to a Priest in regards to the Catholic beliefs. Like I said I raised this question at my old church and got a very vanilla answer that I wasn't allowed to debate, probably not the right forum, should have taken the question direct and one on one.

But I agree I should talk to or research the Catholic opinion especially since I was married in a Catholic Church, wife is Catholic, son was baptized Catholic (I don't have a problem with traditions though, I want what makes my wife happy and it makes her happy to practice these traditions so I have no moral objection to it).

"By default Muslims reject the holy spirit. That's why they are Muslims and not Christians. I fail to see your point."

You do not understand the Holy Spirit. You can not see into anyone else's heart/thoughts. You do not know who has or will at some point make decisions about if they will follow Christ. (And there are Muslims and Buddhists who follow Jesus). The
same questions are asked about babies lost in childbirth and the peoples that lived
before Jesus. The Bible teaches God is the same always. He is just and merciful.
His justice is not the world's justice. That is the good news. He came to show us
about himself. I don't know if or when the last time to choose happens, but the Bible
says that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

And that all will declare He is just.


"And the holy spirit working everywhere? Really? Please provide me with one example of the holy spirit working someplace. Thanks."

Here you get into experience, ask a Christian and they will have many examples. Usually
there are quiet promptings (inspiration), sometimes there are dramatic physical events.

Bob Dylan is a great example of someone making choices. I'll bet he wouldn't tell you
he had it all together.

Ty Ty:

My belief is in God, not in the absolute perfection of the bible. The bible summarizes God's word for us. It is a divinely inspired, human creation. You ought to read about the many heated discussions back and forth the finally resulted in the bible we know today. Even back in Paul's days, people -- or even church leaders never saw eye to eye on everything. Humans then are no different from humans today. Committee decisions are committee decisions. God never intended perfection on Earth -- except perhaps in Jesus himself when he walked the earth.

Shocking? No, to me, not so different from sermons we hear every Sunday. Sermons need not be perfect to be useful as guidelines for us. As well, sermons and writings almost always reflect certain biases of their authors -- as much as they try to be objective -- and some of them don't even try all that hard.

I think it's better to admit that we humans don't (and we never will) understand everything about God -- or understand even one thing about Him to 100%. Better that we spread our faith based on a [i]sufficient[/i] understanding of His love for us, the redemption of Jesus for us, and the need to love each other. To insist on the inerrancy of bible -- every single word of it -- when we know there are multitudes of fables, biases (of the various human authors), etc., etc. -- is counterproductive to me.

Just as papal inerrancy in matters of faith is counterproductive to me.

@ Ty Ty - " (I don't have a problem with traditions though, I want what makes my wife happy and it makes her happy to practice these traditions so I have no moral objection to it)."

Good to know, because one of the earlier sacred traditions of the church was a series of meetings that created the bible as we Catholics know the bible -- and with very minor revisions a bit over a thousand years later in the creation of the Protestant bible!

Not sure if this comes as a surprise, but the Bible didn't exist in its current form right from the get go. It is the church -- under the guidance of the Holy Spirit -- that created the bible. The bible did not create the church. And we should take note that "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit" does not mean their debates and their choices were therefore free of human pride, politics, etc. Free will, raw emotions and personal biases were NOT miraculously suspended! The human church leaders simply did their prayerful best.

But in the overall scheme of things -- esp. as fellow Christians who are mindful of the two greatest commandments given to us -- this often divisive topic isn't the most important at all...

Edited by ben2world on 03/19/2012 14:35:38 MDT.

"The bible did not create the church."

Indeed.

Ben - This post makes a lot of sense and explains to me how you believe. I agree that we may never understand God fully. I think it is pretty plain to see that the Bible doe have inaccuracies and human error in it, at the same time I think it has some really big truths that can help us humans live a better life. I have friends that live their lives based on the bible, very deep south religious types, and it really seems to benefit them in a lot of ways especially as it relates to their marriages, family life, how they raise their children, etc.

For me though, to categorize myself as a Christian who believes in the bible, at this point, would be pretty inaccurate. I think at some point human interests and errors must have influenced it and likely elevated Jesus to a level of 'this is the only way'.

@ Ty Ty (again) - "I do understand where you are coming from and what your beliefs generally are but I think you walk a fine line of accepting what agrees with you and rejecting what does not."

It's called using our judgment. Jesus himself specified the two greatest commandments -- to love God and to love one another. All the laws are based on those two. So, indeed, is all the rest of the bible! And thus focused, the fine line is neither impossible nor wrong to walk on.

In contrast... by clinging to the belief that any human product is 100% inerrant... we put ourselves into untenable and indefensible positions. Clarity for clarity's sake must not be the ultimate determinant of truth.

I understand about the Catholic Church, bible being canonized, all of that and that there were a lot of time, politics, opposing religions bouncing around and all that. This is also sub-points to why I doubt the 100% accuracy of the Bible but I was originally trying to limit it to my '16% vs 84%' argument because that to me is so hard to get over and I have never heard a logical refute of that idea.

When you read the Bible, God is speaking to you. When you pray, you are speaking to God ; ).

100% of people are atheists about most gods. Too much exclusivity in organized religion. Had my typing here interrupted by the doorbell. A"christian" handing out leaflets. Why is it never a Buddhist or a Jew?