Worldviews

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Gotta go, wife wants to go out for a walk. It's been nice hearing from you again Covey

God Bless ...and take care

You too, brother! Enjoy your walk!

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1361154][

Do you feel condemn? If you believe in Him you shouldn't right? But if you don't believe in Him, you stand condemn right?

If you feel condemn, how could this be?

I do not feel condemned one bit! I gotta admit that you seem to be attempting to make me feel that way! It does not matter if one believes in God or not (I do BTW) I do not believe that any of us stand condemed just by being born and especially for something a fictional Adam and Eve did 6000 years ago. Just think of it. God creates them and throws them naked in a garden and without mother and father to teach em anything and they goof up a bit on a technicality and he condems them and their offspring for about 4000 years but he planed to send Jesus all the time. That is one messed up god.

You could learn something from the Adam and Eve story, but it seems that you do not choose that while you maintain that the true God could do anything that stupid.

[markg]

I think that i have an answer for the back and forth between 30 cal and covey ridge.

orthodox (not the denonmenation but the defination) christians believe in a couple of creeds and confess them. The apostles creed the nicine creed and the athanisian creed. My guess is that 30 cal would have no problem confessing a couple of them. My other guess is that Covey would not. Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

The way i see it a true or bible believing christian believes some basic truths
1) God is a trinity (father son holy spirit)
2) Jesus is fully god but fully man
3) Jesus literally and physically died on the cross
4) Jesus death paid the penalty of sin (free gift but must be accepted)
5) Jesus was literally and physicaly resurected from the dead and believers look forward to the resurction that they will experience

The above list are pretty much what the creeds define but with an elagance i dont have.

[markg]

Modern English Version

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by markg

I think that i have an answer for the back and forth between 30 cal and covey ridge.

My guess is that 30 cal would have no problem confessing a couple of them. My other guess is that Covey would not. Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

The way i see it a true or bible believing christian believes some basic truths
1) God is a trinity (father son holy spirit)
2) Jesus is fully God and was born fully man, in that God walked the earth in the fullness of flesh and blood as a man
3) Jesus literally and physically died on the cross
4) Jesus death paid the penalty of sin, which is death (free gift but must be accepted)
5) Jesus was literally and physicaly resurected from the dead, to show He had conquered death and had power over it, and believers look forward to the resurction that they will experience

The above list are pretty much what the creeds define but with an elagance i dont have.

This one is acceptable

[30Cal]

[QUOTE=covey ridge;1361200]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

[




I do not feel condemned one bit! I gotta admit that you seem to be attempting to make me feel that way! It does not matter if one believes in God or not (I do BTW) I do not believe that any of us stand condemed just by being born and especially for something a fictional Adam and Eve did 6000 years ago. Just think of it. God creates them and throws them naked in a garden and without mother and father to teach em anything and they goof up a bit on a technicality and he condems them and their offspring for about 4000 years but he planed to send Jesus all the time. That is one messed up god.

You could learn something from the Adam and Eve story, but it seems that you do not choose that while you maintain that the true God could do anything that stupid.

Learned a lot from the story:

1. Before the fall, man knew only Good.
2. The woman was weaker of the two and gave in to the serpents temptation
3. Adam did not take responsibility for his own actions, but tried to blame the women for his own behaviour.
4. Meat was not eaten
5. Everything in the Garden was at peace before the fall
6. It's about creation not evolution
7. God had a strong personal relationship with man before the fall, He (God) gave the breath of life face to face.
8. The devil is the considered the lowest form of all animals...a snake, that moves upon it's belly.
9. The devil would strike at the heals of the One who was to come, who is Christ.
10. Jesus would crush the devil head.
11. Eve was formed from the rib of Adam, not to be above him nor below him, but an equal partner in Christ.
12. it was not an apple that Eve and Adam ate

I could go on but like you said i likely wouldn't learn anything from the Adam and Eve story. By the way what did you learn?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

All I can say that a god who condemned his creation so soon after he created them, is not much of a creator and not much of a god. I believe that God is better than that!

God didn't sin, man did. He gave a command that his creation was suppose to follow, however, they though that being like god(s) was more important.

Many people today piece together a god for themselves, by taking pieces out of the Bible and other sources to form their own god; therefore, they continue being a god for themselves. Rejecting the truth of God written in the pages of Bible.

[eastcoast]

I don't believe in vicarious redemption, and what god did 2000 years ago forgives me of my sins, and that I owe my life to him because of what he did even when he never asked me to do it sorry.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by markg

I think that i have an answer for the back and forth between 30 cal and covey ridge.

orthodox (not the denonmenation but the defination) christians believe in a couple of creeds and confess them. The apostles creed the nicine creed and the athanisian creed. My guess is that 30 cal would have no problem confessing a couple of them. My other guess is that Covey would not. Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

The way i see it a true or bible believing christian believes some basic truths
1) God is a trinity (father son holy spirit)
2) Jesus is fully god but fully man
3) Jesus literally and physically died on the cross
4) Jesus death paid the penalty of sin (free gift but must be accepted)
5) Jesus was literally and physicaly resurected from the dead and believers look forward to the resurction that they will experience

The above list are pretty much what the creeds define but with an elagance i dont have.

Does not take a genius to guess where I stand. Add to the list that I think an historical Jesus may not have existed and that's me.

I think that mankind has been spiritual right from the beginning and has many inventions in an attempt to connect with his spiritaul nature. Many are recorded as mythical stories that end up in the text of religions. Some believe the stories as literal and some do not and some don't think at all and believe what religious people tell them about the stories. We are allowed free choice, however some will tell is we are going to eternal punishment if we make the wrong choice. I for sure do not buy that and have no problem with those that do as long as they don't insist I buy their faith or I might suffer this eternal damnation. I am one they might label as being a cafeteria type. Whats wrong with that? I do have a choice what I eat. It says so right in their Holy Book. Because I do not believe in the literal I think that pondeing the stories under the story may give one a key to spiritual enlightenment and I think that the religious texts of the world are food for the soul. Some may even think that is mushy bull poop! I really do not care!
If I was in an evangelical church, I would let the Holy Rollers have their say and would not even squeek. This is an open forum and I think it is good to suggest that they not be so smug. They probably think it is a good thing to warn me that I am on my way to hell. I guess that is their marching orders

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

God didn't sin, man did. He gave a command that his creation was suppose to follow, however, they though that being like god(s) was more important.

Many people today piece together a god for themselves, by taking pieces out of the Bible and other sources to form their own god; therefore, they continue being a god for themselves. Rejecting the truth of God written in the pages of Bible.

Sin means missing the mark. Even if you take this as literal, they just made a bad choice. God should understand that as he created them as he gave them the chioce, matter fact if this story is literal, he created the temptation to sin (not an evil sinister choice) but a choice made of good and evil. If God condemed them for 4000 years for making a bad choice, what about forgivness? Oh you say not invented yet cause Jesus did not die or they did not have some inocent critter to fry on an alter to please this AZZ HOLE? Do you realize how moronic this conclusion is? If this story went down as you say, your petty little non god is a friggen *****le! For anyone to buy that the whole human race is condemned for this they are just as much friggen priclkes as their God

I will never understand you and your superstition and please do not try to understand me because you seem to have an only one dimension thought chip installed
Aw! God Bless you anyway!

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

I don't believe in vicarious redemption, and what god did 2000 years ago forgives me of my sins, and that I owe my life to him because of what he did even when he never asked me to do it sorry.

You do not have to be sorry for speaking what you believe.

[covey ridge]

30Cal
You keep quoting scripture as a base for any argument you have? Although I do have respect for the Holy Bible and the New Testament, I do NOT THINK IT CONTAINS ANY LITERAL TRUTH AND DO NOT THINK IT HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER ME or you for that matter. I THINK IT IS A MAN MADE INVENTION.

Therefore I believe that you believe in a FALSE GOD.

You disagree!
I disagree with you!
That's the way it is!

[markg]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

This one is acceptable

Thanks for the corrections. I like yours better also. Wrote it pretty late last night.

I am just guessing but would you confesss 2 of the 3 creeds or all of them 30 cal?

Myself i confess all 3 but seems like the athanasian creed isnt used much anymore.

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1362285]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I could go on but like you said i likely wouldn't learn anything from the Adam and Eve story. By the way what did you learn?

The true nature of man. Who the man was! Who the woman was! Who the serpent was! What the fruit was that was eaten. Why the serpent spoke to the woman? Why the woman understood God's command different from the man. Why the serpent asked a slightly different question? The true relationship between God and man! Why God drove the man from the garden. Notice that the text says God drove the man from the garden not the woman. Yes I know Adam and Eve hook up a few paragraphs later? Hey I know how to get back to the garden. I know the meaning of the curses. I know the meaning of why God liked Abels gift better than Cain. I know why it had to be that Cain killed Abel and not the other way around. I could go on and on?

[avb3]

By posting this link, I am not inferring anyone who has contributed to the discussion on AO here as being targeted, as me pointing out this study could be construed to be demeaning. There as been some very good discussion on here, even though we all will never agree. So, that being said, this report of this legitimate study just came out.

STUDY: BEING CHRISTIAN HARMS YOUR BRAIN

[covey ridge]

Why did eastcoast get banned?

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by avb3

By posting this link, I am not inferring anyone who has contributed to the discussion on AO here as being targeted, as me pointing out this study could be construed to be demeaning. There as been some very good discussion on here, even though we all will never agree. So, that being said, this report of this legitimate study just came out.

STUDY: BEING CHRISTIAN HARMS YOUR BRAIN

Interesting article - if one can make sense of it. If I'm reading it correctly, it kinda takes a 'shotgun' approach suggesting anybody suffering significant stress would have the problem of that kind of brain atrophy. But like I said, I'm not sure I'm understanding the article.

Shucks, even 'experts' seem to have trouble deciphering it - here's a quote:
In a tongue-twisting conclusion, the atrophy study said, “Subjective religiousness was directly related to worse initial [Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale], but indirectly related to better post-treatment MADRS via the pathway of more private prayer. Worship attendance was directly related to better initial MADRS, and indirectly related to better post-treatment MADRS via pathways of lower stress, more social support, and more private prayer. Private prayer was directly related to better post-treatment MADRS. Religious media use was related to more private prayer, but had no direct relationship with MADRS.

You did notice that the article also says, "that those without religious affiliation are hit hard, too."

I suppose though, if a person was unstressed in his / her faith, they wouldn't have the problem the article suggests is a problem for some folks.

One thing I am sure of though - being a Christian is certainly damaging to one's health in countries like Saudi Arabia where the grand mufti (top religious leader) issued a fatwa on March 12 declaring that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” Here's a link from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-all-churches/

I guess the Christians living under that kind of stress would have to be concerned about the study's brain atrophy problem!

BTW: how come the West isn't up in arms about that fatwa? Most western media hasn't even made mention of it! If a Christian leader said something like that the world would be in a heap of hurt!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

.....
Shucks, even 'experts' seem to have trouble deciphering it - here's a quote:
In a tongue-twisting conclusion, the atrophy study said, “Subjective religiousness was directly related to worse initial [Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale], but indirectly related to better post-treatment MADRS via the pathway of more private prayer. Worship attendance was directly related to better initial MADRS, and indirectly related to better post-treatment MADRS via pathways of lower stress, more social support, and more private prayer. Private prayer was directly related to better post-treatment MADRS. Religious media use was related to more private prayer, but had no direct relationship with MADRS.

Studies to have a tendency to use phraseology that is understood by the intended target audience, and that lay people need guidance in deciphering. I too have to read that multiple times, thing I got it, and then read it again and discover that I forgot what MADRS means.

One thing I am sure of though - being a Christian is certainly damaging to one's health in countries like Saudi Arabia where the grand mufti (top religious leader) issued a fatwa on March 12 declaring that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” Here's a link from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-all-churches/

I guess the Christians living under that kind of stress would have to be concerned about the study's brain atrophy problem!

BTW: how come the West isn't up in arms about that fatwa? Most western media hasn't even made mention of it! If a Christian leader said something like that the world would be in a heap of hurt!

Aw come on Mistagin, you know the answer to that!

It ain't politically correct to say anything against another religion if your from the Christian west.

And I completely agree with you on this one. I hate the double standards that are imposed on those that are Christian as opposed to those who for instance may be Muslim.

Bet you never thought we would agree on anything involving religion, huh?

[Mistagin]

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, being away on 'vacation' is great, but the work just piles up while I'm gone. And it is a particularly busy time in the Christian year with Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Easter coming up.

Originally Posted by avb3

Interesting then isn't it that the book keeps talking, both in the OT and the NT, about all the violence that is threatened or should be undertaken upon innocents like children.

How can you as a pastor look yourself in the mirror and say, "Yup, I'll buy into that, I just won't talk about it in my sermons'? Or if you DO talk about it in your sermons, how the heck can you justify the literal sense of stoning children, selling your daughter, or killing homosexuals? Because as I pointed out, THAT is what the bible teaches, and no, it is not misinterpreting it. IF you assume inerrancy and a literal reading.

Got no problem looking in my mirror. I agree, there are a lot of 'hard' texts in the Bible. (We live in a hard world!) And they are there for a reason. One thing that has to be understood is why they are there. In the OT what was the message being communicated to the Israelite people? What's the spiritual principle behind it that still applies to us today in our time and culture? I would be remiss if I, as a pastor, ignored those texts! But I will handle them with extra care - acknowledging that God has something to say to people in them - without condoning the horribleness.
i do assume and believe the Bible is inerrant, but I'm thinking my orthodox definition of inerrant is vastly different than yours.
And who says I (and many, many other faithful Christians) take everything in "a literal reading sense"? And neither does my Christian worldview.

If you start to look at it metaphorically or allegorically, which Jesus did in the parables, then I can see some use of it as a spiritual guide. If you preach ANY of it literally, then you have to take it all literally, otherwise your picking and choosing.

My goodness - you are stuck on metaphor / allegory vs literal aren't you? It's either 'black' or 'white' with you isn't it.
Are you saying a parable spoken by Jesus can't have literal connections or applications?

The "spirit of God" thing is a cop out to saying one must be filled with it to understand the bible.

No it isn't - it's what the Bible says. That's been brought up numerous times in this thread already. Perhaps you missed that. See 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 and, oh let's see, maybe Romans 8:1-17 too.

You mean as in "I didn't come in peace but with a sword"? Sounds righteous to me. As does Mark 7:10 - great lesson.... kill your children if they curse you. Or let's kill homosexuals (Romans 1:32).

What's the 'sword' Jesus refers to? (See Revelation 1:16 and 19:15).
I think you miss the whole point of Romans 1:18-32, and Mark 7:1-23.


All because of some silly woman offering a fruit to her husband way back when? And because of her offering and his acceptance all other people of course were sinful, that just makes sense. Now, the fact that the story says that if they were to die if they ate the fruit, and of course, we know that didn't happen for hundreds of years later according to the tale, did it?

Who says she was silly? And what does the 'fruit' they took signify? (Big hint: rebellion and disobedience.) Also, God doesn't say they would die immediately! You are reading something into it it just doesn't say. And you've got to admit - they died, and we do too!

But wait, there's more!

God was unhappy because of all the people except Noah's family were bad, so lots of water later, they all were drowned. Seeing Noah and family were worthy, how did "original sin" continue?

Again, Genesis 6 doesn't say Noah was perfect, but he was a faithful man - and still afflicted with 'original sin' (theologically that is called the 'sinful nature' of 'man'), the text actually says, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." In other words, Noah loved and enjoyed his relationship with God - in stark contrast to all others. Now go and read Hebrews 11:7 (aw, shoot - read the whole chapter) and try to understand how FAITH is the key to being declared righteous and blameless and able to "walk with God".
Oh, and 'original sin' - I've got it, you've got it, everybody's got it - we are all afflicted with a 'sinful nature' - and it'll be with us until Christ Jesus returns on the "Day of the Lord" the Bible talks about.


But 'We' as humans show our lack of understanding of a higher power by feeling the need to anthropomorphising it. Why? Because 'We' seem to have the need to limit any understanding of higher power beyond that which is in our image (and yes, I know the bible has it the other way around).

So who exactly is 'anthropomorphizing' the God of Creation and the Bible? I'm not, my 'orthodox' Christian view of God is much bigger than me and I'm okay with that. In fact, I'm glad He is!

Pretty egotistical of us. We write the book that sets down the rules and then point the book to prove the book is true. And you don't see a problem with that?

Nope, 'cause I don't believe 'we' wrote it in the sense you take it. People - INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD wrote it in the language of men, and thus God 'lowers' Himself to our level so we can understand in our language(s) what He is saying to us.

The 'Spirit of God' has been the drive for so much of humanities suffering due to wars, pogroms, inquisitions, witch trials, and conflicts that one really needs to question the value of that. All was done in the name of religion. All of it. And all claimed to be filled by the 'Spirit of God'.

True. Lots and lots of people claim to be filled with / inspired by the Spirit of God. But that doesn't mean they were / are. That doesn't in any way, shape or form negate the value of people really are - nor the legitimacy of the Spirit. The Bible even warns about taking people's testimony to be such on face value. I refer you again (because this text has been referred to before in this thread) to what Jesus says in Matthew 7:15-23.

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by avb3

Aw come on Mistagin, you know the answer to that!


Bet you never thought we would agree on anything involving religion, huh?

Oh, I figure we could agree plenty on generic kinds of things.

[30Cal]

[QUOTE=covey ridge;1363203]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

The true nature of man. Who the man was! Who the woman was! Who the serpent was! What the fruit was that was eaten. Why the serpent spoke to the woman? Why the woman understood God's command different from the man. Why the serpent asked a slightly different question? The true relationship between God and man! Why God drove the man from the garden. Notice that the text says God drove the man from the garden not the woman. Yes I know Adam and Eve hook up a few paragraphs later? Hey I know how to get back to the garden. I know the meaning of the curses. I know the meaning of why God liked Abels gift better than Cain. I know why it had to be that Cain killed Abel and not the other way around. I could go on and on?

The use of the term man is often used interchangeably, used irrespective of the sex of the person(s) addressed, therefore it represent mankind in the context your referring to. Thus, they were both sent from the garden at the same time

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1367331]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

The use of the term man is often used interchangeably, used irrespective of the sex of the person(s) addressed, therefore it represent mankind in the context your referring to. Thus, they were both sent from the garden at the same time

You would pick some small point. Yes the term man can be used interchangeably but in vs. 23 it is “sent him forth” and as per curses both persons and so called serpent were addressed individuality. You are probably wondering how the man could be sent and not the woman and the serpent for that matter and how man and woman can be together to have children? You would have trouble with that? I don't ! It's a point how you and I understand the meaning and purpose of this story, which btw you should be careful to at least partly understand or you may not understand the rest of the story.
Anyway, I do not wish to engage you in any further conversation, and my previous post only was in answer to your question as to what I have learned. I know you have assumed it is nothing, but I have learned many things that I doubt you will ever know or understand.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

You would pick some small point. Yes the term man can be used interchangeably but in vs. 23 it is “sent him forth” and as per curses both persons and so called serpent were addressed individuality. You are probably wondering how the man could be sent and not the woman and the serpent for that matter and how man and woman can be together to have children? You would have trouble with that? I don't ! It's a point how you and I understand the meaning and purpose of this story, which btw you should be careful to at least partly understand or you may not understand the rest of the story.
Anyway, I do not wish to engage you in any further conversation, and my previous post only was in answer to your question as to what I have learned. I know you have assumed it is nothing, but I have learned many things that I doubt you will ever know or understand.

Ditto.

Been nice engaging, and likewise I've learned alot or refreshed my mind on a lot of info.

Take Care...God Bless

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, being away on 'vacation' is great, but the work just piles up while I'm gone. And it is a particularly busy time in the Christian year with Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Easter coming up.

Got no problem looking in my mirror. I agree, there are a lot of 'hard' texts in the Bible. (We live in a hard world!) And they are there for a reason. One thing that has to be understood is why they are there. In the OT what was the message being communicated to the Israelite people? What's the spiritual principle behind it that still applies to us today in our time and culture? I would be remiss if I, as a pastor, ignored those texts! But I will handle them with extra care - acknowledging that God has something to say to people in them - without condoning the horribleness.

I could be reading a lot into what God was saying to people in the OT, but that would mean I would have to read it (yes, you knew I was going to say it) metaphorically or allegorically. Reading it literally, well, there just is no interpretation on that is there?

So I know you do not believe there is any metaphor or allegory in the bible, so how do you carefully address the literal teachings that it appears you take much care in discussing them?

i do assume and believe the Bible is inerrant, but I'm thinking my orthodox definition of inerrant is vastly different than yours.

Please tell us how one could interpret inerrantcy? Either the bible is, or it isn't inerrant. I don't see any in between, but perhaps you can outline how there may.

And who says I (and many, many other faithful Christians) take everything in "a literal reading sense"? And neither does my Christian worldview.

But all we have seen in this discussion is biblical quotes that are clearly used to be used literally to bolster a position.

Are you suggesting that there are parts of the bible can be interpreted rather then being taken literally?

If you start to look at it metaphorically or allegorically, which Jesus did in the parables, then I can see some use of it as a spiritual guide. If you preach ANY of it literally, then you have to take it all literally, otherwise your picking and choosing.

My goodness - you are stuck on metaphor / allegory vs literal aren't you? It's either 'black' or 'white' with you isn't it.
Are you saying a parable spoken by Jesus can't have literal connections or applications?

All though some may suggest John has some parables in it (the vine or the good shepard), most scholars view John as being a allegorical gospel, as opposed to a literal. Evangelicals of course feel differently.

Mistagin, unless I misunderstood all you have written, you support the literal reading of the whole bible, correct? Are you suggesting that there is no part that is not open for interpretation or that attempts to portray spirituality in an allegorical or metaphorical manner?

Yes, I am quite adamant that it is the literal reading of the bible that restricts individuals in exploring their spirituality to the anthropomorphic view of the higher power only. This goes right back to Genesis which states God created man in his own image. Of course any literal reading flows from this and then teaches God looks like humans.

Very egotistical of us, but not unexpected considering that the humans who wrote the stories needed to assert why their religion was supreme. Not unlike most religions, or many ancient kings who asserted their godliness. And so constraining.

No it isn't - it's what the Bible says. That's been brought up numerous times in this thread already. Perhaps you missed that. See 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 and, oh let's see, maybe Romans 8:1-17 too.

Especially 1 Corinthians 2:15? So Christians can judge everything and everybody, but no non-Christian can judge them? That would seem to be in conflict with Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37, Romans 2:1, Romans 14:10, and James 4:12 would it not? As far as Romans 8:17 is concerned, that would be a prime example of an allegorical group of passages; passages that would have much greater meaning looking towards the logos inside, as opposed to the literal anthropomorphic Christ.

What's the 'sword' Jesus refers to? (See Revelation 1:16 and 19:15).*
I think you miss the whole point of Romans 1:18-32, and Mark 7:1-23.

I see no connection at all between Revelations and Matthew 10:34 as the context is entirely different. The only similarity is the word “sword”.

Did I miss the whole point of Romans 1:18-32? I don't think so at all. Paul shows his disdain for a number of things he views as not worthy, and preaches that the rightful penalty is death. He is no more kind hearted about these things then the OT. He mixes in transgressions from murder to not listening to parents to being homosexual, and they are all worthy of the death sentence, according to him.

Again, Genesis 6 doesn't say Noah was perfect, but he was a faithful man - and still afflicted with 'original sin' (theologically that is called the 'sinful nature' of 'man'), the text actually says, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." In other words, Noah loved and enjoyed his relationship with God - in stark contrast to all others. Now go and read Hebrews 11:7 (aw, shoot - read the whole chapter) and try to understand how FAITH is the key to being declared righteous and blameless and able to "walk with God".
Oh, and 'original sin' - I've got it, you've got it, everybody's got it - we are all afflicted with a 'sinful nature' - and it'll be with us until Christ Jesus returns on the "Day of the Lord" the Bible talks about.

So, as Hebrew 11:6 indicates, *If you're not a Christian, it's impossible to please God. Why does that not surprise me? Now, if one understood that the higher power is much greater then a vision of an anthropomorphic figure, and one let the inner logos reach out to embrace the higher power, why would one want to restrict themselves to that which man created?

But 'We' as humans show our lack of understanding of a higher power by feeling the need to anthropomorphising it. Why? Because 'We' seem to have the need to limit any understanding of higher power beyond that which is in our image (and yes, I know the bible has it the other way around).

So who exactly is 'anthropomorphizing' the God of Creation and the Bible? I'm not, my 'orthodox' Christian view of God is much bigger than me and I'm okay with that. In fact, I'm glad He is!

As I have indicated before, it starts right in Genesis, when the writer claims that man was created in God's image. Right away, no matter what powers one may ascribe to that, it fundamentally restricts ones viewpoint. How evangelicals think that heaven and God resides in the belt of Orion, sits on a throne, and casts judgement from there? THAT is rather restrictive.

Nope, 'cause I don't believe 'we' wrote it in the sense you take it. People - INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD wrote it in the language of men, and thus God 'lowers' Himself to our level so we can understand in our language(s) what He is saying to us.*

Again with the circular references. The bible says the bible is correct, therefore it is? But if one has faith, then it's all good, and one can accept that? Now, the fact that Constantine's bishops only kept some of the gospels tells you what?

The 'Spirit of God' has been the drive for so much of humanities suffering due to wars, pogroms, inquisitions, witch trials, and conflicts that one really needs to question the value of that. All was done in the name of religion. All of it. And all claimed to be filled by the 'Spirit of God'.

True. Lots and lots of people claim to be filled with / inspired by the Spirit of God. But that doesn't mean they were / are. That doesn't in any way, shape or form negate the value of people really are - nor the legitimacy of the Spirit. The Bible even warns about taking people's testimony to be such on face value. I refer you again (because this text has been referred to before in this thread) to what Jesus says in Matthew 7:15-23.

That is the common set of phrases that are quoted when ever those that claim to be Christian transgress against things that are obviously wrong. We can all name a bunch of evangelists who later on turned out to be criminals, yet thousands of people followed them and swore up down and sideways, often even after their crimes were uncovered, that these men were “men of God”.

So, how is one to tell if a priest, preacher, pastor or other church leader is truly filled with “the spirit of God” or he/she is a charlatan?

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=avb3;1368687]

So, how is one to tell if a priest, preacher, pastor or other church leader is truly filled with “the spirit of God” or he/she is a charlatan

How is one to tell if the Christians posting on this thread are filled with "the spirit of God" especially since they seem to be saying that no one else can be filled with "the spirit of God" or anything similar called by a different name?

[30Cal]

[QUOTE=covey ridge;1368919]

Originally Posted by avb3

How is one to tell if the Christians posting on this thread are filled with "the spirit of God" especially since they seem to be saying that no one else can be filled with "the spirit of God" or anything similar called by a different name?

Pray and ask for a gift of discernment?

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1370043]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Pray and ask for a gift of discernment?

Don't have an answer! eh?
If in doubt, I will assume for most that it is a case of a bad case of chilli spice instead of the the Holy Spirit.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Don't have an answer! eh?
If in doubt, I will assume for most that it is a case of a bad case of chilli spice instead of the the Holy Spirit.

That was your answer. You said earlier you believed in a god right? So will s/he not do anything for you? If so, pray and ask for a gift of discernment. Then you'll find out if s/he really do have your best interest at heart. Better yet ask your god for the Holy Spirit, so you can experience it. If s/he can't give it, it's time to examine what you believe in. However, if s/he gives it to you then you'll have the answers to many of your questions.

[pattycr125]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo

[covey ridge]

No it is better that you examine what you believe. i do not pray for gifts that I can have claim that others do not. I find that you are no different than Benny or Ralph Van Imp or Rexella. I believe in God. You believe in a book. you claim to be full of the Holy Spirit. I think you are just full of..........
I see no point in having a discussion with one has closed minded as you are.