interesting...and a bit confusing.

January 20 2012 at 10:14 PM
No score for this post

Kate  (Login kateothelamp)

Response to God said it..... That settles it

D: What you said contradicts the scriptures I cited, especially the one from Genesis, which says God has both male and female natures.

Not sure how I am contradicting that God has both male and female nature, as I've given examples of it. I would think we are in agreement on that, except I think it means that God, being spirit, has no specific gender, has qualities of both -- the Father represents the masculine qualities of God and the Holy Spirit shows us more of the feminine qualities of God; you, on the other hand, believe that God is male, and so therefore clergy who administer the sacraments should be male. At least, that was my understanding of your original post. If so, then what happened to the female nature of God? Where does that fit in?

D: It also contradicts Trinity doctrine in that, if Jesus and the Father are One, then the Father and the Spirit experience what Jesus experiences.

God was able to experience the things that Jesus experienced, through Jesus...but the Father has never died, and neither has the Holy Spirit.

D: And, if it doesn't make 'sense' in human terms, you won't believe it, even though that's what God said.

I don't believe it's what God said simply because it is written in a book about God, no. I worship God, not the book written about God.

D: Do you understand that that makes you also an apostate along with the Episcopalians and others?

No, I don't understand that. I don't think the Episcopalians are apostate, even though I don't believe all of their doctrine. And I don't think the Catholics are apostate, even though I don't believe in transubstantiation, the inspiration of the Apocrypha, or most of the Marian doctrines. Do you realize that a lot of fundamentalist Christians would say you are apostate for believing in the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and assumption of Mary? Those doctrines are nowhere in the Bible, but are solely the traditions of the Catholic Church. But I don't think that makes you apostate -- I think it just means we believe and understand some things differently.

An apostate is someone who has abandoned the Christian faith. I have not abandoned my faith in God or in Jesus Christ, I have rejected the Bible as inerrant and infallible and can't accept it as a magical perfect book. I think, technically, that makes me a heretic, not an apostate.

D: The Bible is to be taken entire; humans are not in a position to either deny or explain away what God has caused to be written.

And this was men. And those men were inspired and directed by God? Which was men. After a lot of argument. In the 4th century a series of synods produced canonical lists of 39, 46, 51. 54. or 57 Old Testament books, take your pick. And a group of men eventually determined that the Apocrypha was canonical, but then the Protestant Reformers later said, no it's not the word of God and threw it out -- a decision men. But the Ethiopian Orthodox canon contains 81 decided And then there are multiple versions of the Bible as we know it today...and some will tell you anything other than the KJV is corrupt -- which means anyone who is a non-English speaker is reading a corrupted Bible. Another men.

I could write a book and say, "this is inspired scripture". I could write on page 117, "everything in this book is God-breathed", including everything written after I write those words. And a few hundred years from now, a bunch of men could argue for a while and then decide that what I wrote was inspired by God. That doesn't make it so. Who were those men? How do we know we can trust them, or that they had valid motives -- not politics or personal power? Because we know they were inspired by God to decide for the world which scriptures were canon and should be included in the Bible? How do we know they were inspired and directed by God? Because those men told us so, of course.

Do you see how this is very circular reasoning?

D: Re the Apocrypha, yes, I believe it's inspired writing. However, in deleting the Apocrypha from their Canon of Scripture, the Protestants didn't delete anything vital for Salvation. So I just quote from the Protestant Bible.

Is believing that God is male a doctrine that is vital for Salvation? Is believing that the entire Bible is inerrant and infallible vital for Salvation?

Just some things to think about -- a slightly different point of view. But I'm not really here to rattle your cage, Dave. We had some good conversations in the past, years ago when I started reading things in the Bible that I could not accept and began to have a real crisis of faith, both you and Jack the Mennonite gave me a lot of reassurance =) I found your original question in this thread intriguing, but I'm really looking for an open dialogue about the Bible. If this board is only appropriate for folks who don't question scripture or the church, then I'll leave you to your discussions and I won't stir things up.


Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement