Religious Knowledge Thread

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Spock get real. If christianity had nothing to do with the old testament then it wouldnt be part of the bible. And it wouldnt be referenced when convenient by millions and millions of christians.

Okay, I'll wade into this part of the way. It's a big issue that would take a long time to address fully, as Hector points out.

Jesus said that he is the fulfillment of the Law. He also said that the Law, Prophets and Psalms were pointing toward him. They were fulfilled in him. Thus many things that were picture-portrayed then are now given to us in their fullness.

For example, the Law is full of information about what is clean and what is unclean. You may not do this, for it is unclean, but you may do this, for it is clean. This is a mass scale symbolism of sin vs. purity. People are removed from the camp for uncleanness, just as sin is unacceptable in the kingdom of God. People who are clean are accepted in the camp, just as people who are spiritually clean are welcome into eternity. This goes for diseases and all sorts of things in the Law. They're symbols of what has now been fulfilled. They're pictures for us.

Circumcision also is a picture for us. It is the picture of being set apart from God. It is a symbol that has been literally fulfilled, for as Jesus enters people they are, "in the world, but not of the world." They are set apart for God.

The sacrifice of animals also is a symbol, a picture image for us of the sacrifice of Jesus.

And the curtain between people and the ark of the covenant is representative of the spiritual veil that blinds people's eyes from God. This literal physical veil was ripped in half when Jesus died for us, according to the New Testament. This symbolized the fact that everyone now has been offered direct access to the divine.


The Law has been literally fulfilled in Jesus' coming. It isn't abolished, but it is fulfilled. Physical circumcision thus is no longer necessary. It is a guidepost that was pointing toward the reality that is now among us. Animal sacrifice is no longer necessary, for this was a guidepost pointing to the reality in Jesus that has been fulfilled among us. We aren't bogged down in endless laws about physical cleanliness, for these pictures were fulfilled in the spiritual cleanliness that Jesus gives upon entering our lives.

[truthiscool]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Mary Magdalenw was the BOMB!! Love that woman, LOVE HER!! She was Jwesus's best friend, you know, his cl,osest friend who was a girl. LOVE HER!!! Yay for Mary Magdalene; behind every great man stands a GREAT WomAN!!!!

true that true that.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No one. Catholics might say the Pope, but I'm not a Catholic, so I say no one. The one who decides is our Counselor, the Holy Spirit. He passes on to us what he hears from God. God knew in advance that we would have a problem of interpreting what is written in the Bible, so when he ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit down to us. So the Holy Spirit is among us, speaking to us and showing us the correct interpretation of the word.

This doesn't mean we just assume that whatever way we interpret the Bible is right. It means we pray that we actually hear from God, as he instructs us.

I dont really see the distinction. Somewhere along the line the human is saying THIS is how THIS needs to be interpreted. Whether that came from prayer or study or logic or dementia. I dont see how you can avoid that inconsistency.

[inked]

Hey, IR, did you see my post #600 ?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I dont really see the distinction. Somewhere along the line the human is saying THIS is how THIS needs to be interpreted. Whether that came from prayer or study or logic or dementia. I dont see how you can avoid that inconsistency.

Sometimes, when a Christian hears a word from the Lord, it's on a pretty important issue. Like it might be, "move to city X," or something along that line. The Christian then waits, trusting the Lord to confirm this word. The Lord might speak to other people, telling them the same thing he told you, and those people will confirm the message for you. Or the Lord might just open up all the doors, give you a house for low prices and open a job possibility and a church possibility, etc. Sometimes one asks the Lord, "if this is your will, let this be the case." And it will turn out so.

Rather like this, on occasion when I have heard the word from the Lord through the Bible, I will ask, "is this really you speaking?" And then I will flip the pages randomly, and will come several times in a row to different verses that all say, "this is what the Lord says," or, "I tell you the truth," or, "Jesus said," all sorts of things along that line.

So we do get confirmation. The Lord lets us know that it is really him speaking to us by tweaking circumstances or speaking to other believers and confirming the word through them. He has many ways of letting us know that it's him speaking. If it's a doctrinal issue also, and there is division, sometimes the elders will just trust in the Lord and wait for a period, listening. Then they will reunite and find that they are all in agreement.

There are so many ways in which the Lord works like this. But it's not a human who gives the directions, or shouldn't be. It's really bad when a pastor or any earthly human takes over for God. The scripture says that believers are all one body, and Christ is its head. Christ therefore is the brain, the controlling will of the body. The body in all its many parts functions and works together, receiving its messages from him. So this is actually God speaking to us, leading us and giving us unity.

Once a Christian believer in a potluck (I read about this account, but it's been thoroughly researched) saw a vision of Jesus telling her, "today you will be reunited with your son." She'd been separated from him since he was a young child. She followed the directions the Holy Spirit gave her, and went several miles to a large building. Outside the building, behind a tree, was her son, and they were reunited.

Can you see how that incident would not be a fallible human but actually God?

Another example would be Brother Andrew. Brother Andrew is a Christian who has gone on countless Bible smuggling expeditions into Communist countries where the Bible is not allowed. He did that a lot during the Cold War, and one trademark that he always does to trust in God rather than in people is put some of the illegal Bibles on the chair beside him in plain sight when he passes a checkpoint, so that he will be entirely dependent on God and not his own devices. He founded the Open Doors ministry, which has now trained thousands of pastors and church leaders worldwide, and also provides millions of Bibles each year to those who need them in far off countries. Many of those who have worked with Brother Andrew have done the same thing when smuggling Bibles, putting some of them in plain sight. They have had enormous success, which is why Open Doors changed from just Brother Andrew working alone in this way, and has turned into a large organization.

The point is that the Lord is in charge of these operations. These are the Lord's activities, and as the head of his people, he gives them instructions and sorts out the details. God can utterly amaze us by what he does with us and through us. He is the Head, and he has given us his Counselor to speak to us about the contents of the Bible as well.

As one Christian has said, "sometimes I would hear things from the Lord that seemed totally contradictory to the scripture, yet when I looked more closely, I saw that they were simply debunking incorrect views I had had about the scripture." The Holy Spirit was the guide and leader.

This leads automatically to the question: "Why is it, then, that there have been massive, violent, bloody wars between Christians over Biblical interpretation? Wars that have seen people racked and tortured to death in unspeakable barbarity, and have seen thousands of deaths throughout the 16th and 17th centuries?"

Here's part of the answer:

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christians but don't have a relationship with Jesus, though. Often through their behavior they shame us. Also, real Christians sometimes sin and fall short. They add to this disappointment.

Here's another part of the answer:

There isn't always just one interpretation that is correct. There are many truths that can be found from one verse. Sometimes one person will hear the Lord tell him one truth through it, and another person will hear the Lord tell him a different truth. They will both have heard truly, but they will butt heads because they have different interpretations. Someone else might have access to both truths and a fuller perspective, and will see that they actually aren't contradictory.

This is one reason why I do not reject the Catholic perspective on Communion. That's because of a word the Lord gave me about conflicts of interpretation, in a dream one night, after I had spent weeks debating with Gwaimir Windgem (an Entmooter and friend) about the correct interpretation of Communion.

This might seem a "liberal's" perspective. I agree that it is one place in which I am more of a liberal. That there might be several answers does not mean to me that any answer is valid, however. If an "answer" that someone comes up with is contrary to what is clearly written in God's Word, it must be discarded. The Bible must be interpreted literally, also. There might be symbolic and metaphoric meanings in parts as well, but a literal interpretation is necessary. If one says that things aren't to be interpreted literally, one can interpret anything any way he or she wants, separating themselves from their Head and indulging all their fantasies about the state of the physical and spiritual realities.

[truthiscool]

Just be carfull what you say because im catholic.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, IR, did you see my post #600 ?

Yes but "tradition" isnt really a sufficient answer for me to how a christian may interpret something from the bible. Because clearly there is a wide variety of interpretations as we see. And perhaps that was the whole point..

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Can you see how that incident would not be a fallible human but actually God?

But that example is meaningless to me as a non-christian. And frankly I would think its largely irrelevant because how often do people really base their beliefs and behaviors on the voice of god speaking to them directly? The vast majority of the time people (GOOD Christians) are making logical deductions from what the scripture seems to be saying. Which is why some Christians are fine with the concept of a death penalty and some are adamantly against it. But im guessing very few actually heard god tell them THOU SHALT NOT KILL! AND THIS INCLUDES THE DEATH PENALTY!

There isn't always just one interpretation that is correct. There are many truths that can be found from one verse. Sometimes one person will hear the Lord tell him one truth through it, and another person will hear the Lord tell him a different truth. They will both have heard truly, but they will butt heads because they have different interpretations.

Well this is more along the lines of what im talking about. I think this accounts for 99% of the cases frankly. Different interpretation for whatever reason.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But that example is meaningless to me as a non-christian.

I'm just trying to explain what we experience.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And frankly I would think its largely irrelevant because how often do people really base their beliefs and behaviors on the voice of god speaking to them directly? The vast majority of the time people (GOOD Christians) are making logical deductions from what the scripture seems to be saying.

"Good" is such an unclear term. If when you say "good" you mean people who are actually in relationships with God, hear Jesus' voice and are baptized in the power of the Holy Spirit, I'm not sure I agree with you. These believers, God will teach himself. He will actively strip away their preconceptions to teach them his truth. Much of our belief in the beginning is probably logical deduction and thought that comes from us. God steadily teaches us throughout life though, stripping away more and more of our personal delusions and teaching us more and more about his word.

A lot of Christians who are very good people by the world's standards are not in personal relationships with Jesus. These people would not hear from the Counselor, but would use logic and their own beliefs, and remain stuck in their own thoughts, without direct access to God's thoughts.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which is why some Christians are fine with the concept of a death penalty and some are adamantly against it. But im guessing very few actually heard god tell them THOU SHALT NOT KILL! AND THIS INCLUDES THE DEATH PENALTY!

I don't know about that. The Counselor has spoken to me several times on matters of scriptural interpretation. Those would include the nature of Communion, the sin of homosexuality, whether torture was always bad or not, the validity of the Book of Revelation, the existence of the Trinity, and the gender of the Holy Spirit. Probably there are other things as well . . . these are the issues of scriptural interpretation that spring immediately to mind, that the Counselor has given me specific words on. And I've only known the Lord for five years so far; I know he'll continue to reveal more to me as my life progresses.



For fun, let's look at the Christian perspective of the death penalty for a moment. I know I'm flying off topic; this is for no reason except intellectual stimulation . When God gave the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, it said, "do not murder." If when God said "do not murder," he meant, "never kill anyone," he plainly is a very self-contradictory God. Here are other words of the Lord passed down to Moses:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 24:7

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 22:22

If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

The Lord gave a word to Moses for the people of Israel, "thou shalt not murder." However, at the same time as he gave this word, he also declared many instances when execution was valid (these two are not all). It seems pretty clear, in view of this, that this word from the Ten Commandments wasn't meant to include the death penalty.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

can i just ask those who follow any of the numerous jedeo-christian religions, denominations and sects, if there is the whole 'do not murder/kill/whatever', where stand you on war? as one who follows the teachings of the buddha, i will not kill another, for any reason whatsoever

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

can i just ask those who follow any of the numerous jedeo-christian religions, denominations and sects, if there is the whole 'do not murder/kill/whatever', where stand you on war?

If we all felt that way, if we weren't willing to arm any of our country's police officers with weapons, one maniac with a sword in this country could wipe out thousands. Civilization would dissolve to nothing. Lawlessness and anarchy would rule. No, that's actually incorrect. Whatever dictators chose to use force would rule. Democracy could not exist. Freedom could not exist.

That is why our police officers must be armed. Criminals must be aware that they cannot take an axe one night and decide to exterminate thousands. There must be a law, and there must be the power to see justice done. Otherwise, we must be prepared to endure a world of unspeakable horror and cruelty, and must submit our children to being the slaves and victims of tyrants. You may think I'm blowing things out of proportion, but I'm not. If we stop using weapons, that doesn't mean criminals will. We can expect certain death for multitudes if our governments cede the right of defense.

Forget that . . . the entire world would right now be living under the rule of Adolf Hitler or one of his successors. Except the Jews. There wouldn't be any of them left.

This is not an appealing picture, but it is what the world would look like if its decent folk ceased their willingness to act in violence. As Sam said in the LoTR movie, "there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for!"

as one who follows the teachings of the buddha, i will not kill another, for any reason whatsoever

What about wounding your enemy to stop him from harming you or your family? Or overpowering and tying up your opponent (beware, you might bruise him )? Would those be acceptable courses of action? Would you consider spanking your child a terrible crime? What about imprisonment, also? Or threatening your opponent to stop him from attacking you or others?

I don't think any of these courses of action would scare people like Hitler or Ahmadinejad into restraining themselves , but I am curious what your views are on this.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

as i said i can not kill another, not hurt, not defend myself against, but i will not KILL, police etc using justifiable force to restrain someone is onething, killing, and then finding out they had got it wrong is another (i cite the case of Jean Charles de Menezes)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

as i said i can not kill another, not hurt, not defend myself against, but i will not KILL, police etc using justifiable force to restrain someone is onething, killing, and then finding out they had got it wrong is another (i cite the case of Jean Charles de Menezes)

Police should probably not have firearms or any lethal weapon, correct? For if they're stabbing a knife at a criminal with the intent to wound, they might accidentally kill. Or when shooting, they might accidentally kill when shooting to wound. Actually, even with just a club, they could accidentally kill. So all they've got is their bare hands. Maybe some tear gas or rubber bullets, but those only fend off. Piting anything other than real weapons against the hardware that hardened criminals can come up with would inevitably lead to far higher casualties on our side and a crime scene that is rapidly spiraling out of control.

And no amount of tear gas would have stopped Hitler, you know.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't know about that. The Counselor has spoken to me several times on matters of scriptural interpretation.

So then who are we to assume is right when two individuals have heard god tell them clearly different interpretations? (Killing is good vs Killing is bad).

It seems pretty clear, in view of this, that this word from the Ten Commandments wasn't meant to include the death penalty.

In relation to this and to your discussion with Chris regarding killing in buddhism how do you further discount the many other lines of scripture sited by many MANY christians in regards to OPPOSING killing and/or responding in kind when others do bad whether its love thine enemy or turn the other cheek etc.:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.


Matthew 5.38-41

Then they came up and laid hands upon Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Matthew 26.51-52

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing so you will heap burning coals upon his head."


Romans 12.19-20

So there seems to be an ongoing theme through the bible that ultimate justice comes by the hand of god. And those who resist the use of force will get their just rewards in the end. Also another important theme in christianity is saving those by NOT doing what they may be doing to you. It is only by preserving ones spiritual subjectivity in the midst of insults and attacks that a person can have the strength to love his enemy and win him over.

So can you not see how this and other references could be powerful guides for christians who believe that killing (even self defense apparently) is wrong?

This gets to my whole point about interpretation. Theres so much ambiguity going on in the bible. It never slaps you over the head with anything. So to call people who believe differently then you not good christians strikes me as highly misguided.

[Radagast The Brown]

I just read the beginning of Genesis 1... I have a question to Christians, Jews or anyone who believes in the Bible: is it just me or that it says the sky is made of water? Or am I just misinterpreting it?

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

[Spock]

It's you. Everyone knows the sky is made of blue cheese.

[BeardofPants]

When my brother asked why the sky was blue I told him it was blue M & Ms. Gullible fool.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I just read the beginning of Genesis 1... I have a question to Christians, Jews or anyone who believes in the Bible: is it just me or that it says the sky is made of water? Or am I just misinterpreting it?

Here's a quotation from a completely non-religious science textbook I found in the library, when I was investigating the break-up of the continents and the ice ages, and such. Those were the days when I hadn't been to college and didn't know about citations, so I'm very sorry that this is going to have to be an uncited quote.

Pay special attention to the last of these three paragraphs.

The primordial atmosphere did not possess significant amounts of free oxygen. Oxygen produced by the breakdown of water vapor into elemental oxygen and hydrogen by ultraviolet light from the Sun quickly combined with metals in the crust to form metal oxides. The hydrogen escaped into space or combined with carbon to make hydrocarbons. The oxygen also recombined with hydrogen and carbon monoxide to form water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Some oxygen also might have reached into the upper atmosphere to create a thin ozone screen that would have helped reduce the breakdown of water vapor by ultraviolet radiation. Sulfur from erupting volcanoes might have worked just as well in shielding the Earth from ultraviolet radiation. This would have prevented the total loss of the Earth's oceans, as might have happened on Venus during its early years.

When Earth's atmosphere first formed, it held almost enough water to fill an entire ocean, whereas today only 1 percent of the planet's water is held in the atmosphere. In effect, steam made up a large portion of the early atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure was several times higher than it is today. When the atmosphere cooled enough to allow water vapor to condense into rain, the water evaporated before it reached the ground because Earth's surface was still very hot. Eventually, when the ground cooled enough to allow rain to fall on it, the evaporation of rainwater further cooled the surface. This initiated a continuous deluge that covered the entire planet in a global sea that was nearly 2 miles deep.

I found this utterly fascinating when I read it for the first time, and that's why I kept copies of the two pages from the book that relate to this issue. It shows clearly that initially, all the water was in one place, "above the firmament," just like Genesis Chapter 1 says. However, God "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Originally they were together, but God divided them by allowing rainfall to cool the ground, thus allowing for the creation of a massive ocean on the planet's surface. Thus, both the ocean and the sky were formed.

This also ties directly to verse 9, which says:

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

According to the scientific research I quoted above, "Eventually, when the ground cooled enough to allow rain to fall on it, the evaporation of rainwater further cooled the surface. This initiated a continuous deluge that covered the entire planet in a global sea that was nearly 2 miles deep."

The verse from Genesis says that dry ground was created after the waters. In the same way, scientific research says that the world was covered in a global ocean 2 miles deep, and there was no dry land. Dry land must have come second, just as the Bible says.

Here the Lord also said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place." Even so, in Earth's past, the waters of the world all were in one place, surrounding the supercontinent Pangea.

I love how brilliantly several parts of Genesis Chapter 1 are confirmed by modern science. Of course, I think science still has some catch up to do, on other things. Science is always changing, and as it continues to change, it continues to embrace more and more of what the Bible says. It may not accept all the Biblical account now, but it accepts much of it.

Anyway, continue and enjoy your Genesis reading .

[inked]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I just read the beginning of Genesis 1... I have a question to Christians, Jews or anyone who believes in the Bible: is it just me or that it says the sky is made of water? Or am I just misinterpreting it?

RadagasttB,

this was the up-to-date cosmology of the recorded story. It is a tad different from modern cosmology, as you have noticed. The separation of the land from the waters above and below is an image of God controlling Chaos.

Hope this helps.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by inked

RadagasttB,

this was the up-to-date cosmology of the recorded story. It is a tad different from modern cosmology, as you have noticed. The separation of the land from the waters above and below is an image of God controlling Chaos.

Hope this helps.

Inked, I just cited an unbiased, library scientific textbook that showed that the scripture was literally fulfilled. Perhaps there is a symbolic meaning here also, God controlling Chaos, but it's apparent that (coincidentally or not) a literal reading of the scripture happens to precisely parallel modern scientific theory. The modern theory says that the sky and water were once one but were separated from one another, and that dry land came second, exactly as the Bible says.