Everyone who hears of Jesus but does not accept Him is going to hell.

[LASTINGLIGHT]

We have all sinned and are not perfect. We've all lied, looked with lust, and these are just 2 of the Ten Commandments. And it is written that if we break even one, it's like we broke them all. I jean heaven is a perfect place and we, myself included cannot get to heaven unless were without sin. God’s love does not compel Him to eliminate the necessary punishment and consequence for sin, but instead compels Him to offer us a way to avoid this consequence altogether. By offering forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (who took our punishment), God demonstrated His love for us. It cannot be said that a loving God would never create a place like Hell if that same God has provided us with a way to avoid it which is through Jesus Christ.

And now you know I'll be praying for you whether you believe or not my friend

The theology of Paul of Tarsus. I prefer the teachings of Jesus.

 

[JoStories]

Sure, why even bother to assume the Bible has any authority. You pick out what you like according to your feelings.

People who do so actually are giving more authority to their own feelings than the Bible. Which I've no problem with, just take responsibility for those feelings and leave God out of it.

Isn't picking out what fits what a person may or may not like from the Bible what has occurred since the beginning of the faith? People like Fred Phelps picks out the things about violence and homosexuality while others pick something else. No one lives exactly by what the Bible has to say. God does live in the Bible. And what of the gospels and writings found that are not in the Bible? Or those that particular faiths include but others don't, such as Enoch. It has always been that people of this faith choose what they want and discard the rest.

 

[JoStories]

I am concerned with only the spirit of Jesus' (supposed) teachings. I think there was truth in them.

As do I. But I don't necessarily think that the truth you speak of is confined to the Bible, or rather, that the truth that Jesus taught is found 'only' in the Bible. In particular, I like the Gospel of Thomas, which as you know is not in the Bible but which I believe is closer to the truth that Christ may have taught.

 

[JoStories]

Ok, so there are layers of lies which must be stripped away in order to become enlightened?

Why didn't we just start out without the lies. You/I accepts the lies are part of our current state. Is there a purpose in that. How or why did this condition come about?

IMO, there are lies in all of the sacred texts. Lies and truth that we must meditate on and ferret out in order to become enlightened. The Bible holds some of the truth but not all, as do other texts. The purpose of finding out the lies, for each person, is to understand what the lies are for each person and what are the truths. For each, it would be different. IMO.

 

[Windwalker]

That is a terrible insult.

Why? Do you think some of the nonsense that people come up with and speak authoritatively about without any actual depth of knowledge they are working from is a good thing? Let's put it another way. Do you think requiring passing a driver's test and getting a license is a good idea before letting someone loose on the road with a dangerous vehicle is a "terrible insult" to them? What about restricting access to firearms? Do you think having some sort of education is necessary before someone creates a theology and says they know it's true because they read the "plain language" of "this here Bible"?

 

[savagewind]

Why? Do you think some of the nonsense that people come up with and speak authoritatively about without any actual depth of knowledge they are working from is a good thing? Let's put it another way. Do you think requiring passing a driver's test and getting a license is a good idea before letting someone loose on the road with a dangerous vehicle is a "terrible insult" to them? What about restricting access to firearms? Do you think having some sort of education is necessary before someone creates a theology and says they know it's true because they read the "plain language" of "this here Bible"?

I think it is not black or white. I agree with you that it is a shame some people take it upon themselves to know the bible their own way. But non-laity do it too. I am positive. EVERYONE teaches it wrong, from the least to the greatest. So the solution would be to destroy it. OK? Or maybe listen to it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Even if there is a god, scripture is still just man's attempt to place their own words in his mouth.

 

[Windwalker]

I think it is not black or white. I agree with you that it is a shame some people take it upon themselves to know the bible their own way. But non-laity do it too. I am positive. EVERYONE teaches it wrong, from the least to the greatest. So the solution would be to destroy it. OK? Or maybe listen to it.

I know it's not black and white, nothing really is. You're preaching to the choir on that one. But there are shades on of good and bad on that gradient scale. I would say without hesitancy there are those who are in fact more qualified to speak and to teach others, than some who have no depth of knowledge and assume that just because they read it on the page, they think they speak for God. Just because the most qualified are not %100 accurate %100 percent of the time (which is a fantasy expectation of anyone regarding anything or anyone in life), that does not mean the vast bulk of what they say carries no weight. The weight of what they say is considerably more than Billy Bob picking up the King James Version of the Bible, reading a few passages and thinking he knows what he's talking about and convinces other of the same.

As much as I dislike bureaucracies and hierarchies, there is something to be said about putting something like the Bible into the hands of those who don't have a sufficient background from which they can speak from. In other words, the range of their insights are extremely narrow and thus what they say reflects that lack of depth. There was good in making it available to those outside the corrupt institution, but definitely a downside on that as well!

 

[savagewind]

I know it's not black and white, nothing really is. You're preaching to the choir on that one. But there are shades on of good and bad on that gradient scale. I would say without hesitancy there are those who are in fact more qualified to speak and to teach others, than some who have no depth of knowledge and assume that just because they read it on the page, they think they speak for God. Just because the most qualified are not %100 accurate %100 percent of the time (which is a fantasy expectation of anyone regarding anything or anyone in life), that does not mean the vast bulk of what they say carries no weight. The weight of what they say is considerably more than Billy Bob picking up the King James Version of the Bible, reading a few passages and thinking he knows what he's talking about and convinces other of the same.

I know. But some understanding as in "Jesus is God" makes no difference to YHVH. "Jesus is not God" makes no difference to YHVH.

GO! Make disciples makes a difference to the one believing in it to apply it.

Do not forsake gathering together to a physical local makes a big difference to the one applying it.

To believe love does not (thus should not) become provoked changes the one believing it.

These three all the great men and women of learning are teaching. But they all make a difference in the way a person behaves.

Truth and love are not able to be separated in my opinion. Knowing any Bible passage wrong is to be separated from truth. To be separated from truth is to be separated from love. Can a math equation be changed? The simple truth of the way God's word should be understood can't be changed. But they are changing it.

There is a thread about the white horse with a rider. The white horse is simple truth. The rider is all those who think they are qualified to teach it. But please look at what comes after it.

I am hated for my difference. Thank God Jesus said I would be! Sometimes knowing a little is enough.

 

[Windwalker]

Truth and love are not able to be separated in my opinion. Knowing any Bible passage wrong is to be separated from truth. To be separated from truth is to be separated from love. Can a math equation be changed?

I think this is an incorrect understanding. I think I'd agree that truth and love are inseparable, but what do you mean by "truth"? Having the right ideas or interpretation of something? I don't think that's what that means. Even if someone has a completely bogus interpretation of a Bible passage, that does not mean they are separated from truth, let alone love.

Interpretations of the Bible, and there is not one thing that anyone says about any passage of any scripture that is not an interpretation, are relative to the person, and none are or can ever be absolute. They are dependent on what understanding of the mind the person has, what their culture is, what their values are, what their education is, what their stage of development is cognitively, and what their stage of development is spiritually. It's all relative to where they are at. There is no such thing as an "absolute interpretation". Those that pick up the Bible and point to the words and claim, "This isn't me saying this, it's God saying this!", are in fact interpreting what they are able to see with where they are at, and are assuming that because their minds understanding it a certain way, that that is the only one true understanding. That is simply incorrect. That's an interpretation as well.

But to "truth". In John where it says God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth, Jesus is not speaking of having a correct Bible interpretation! The context makes no sense. How does having a correct mental idea correspond with "God is Spirit"? The context is speaking of the truth of the heart, to those who worship in spirit. Worship in spirit is an act of the heart, where you set aside your ideas of what you think you know. So "truth", to worship in spirit and in truth, is about the purity of the heart. It is about pure intent, a clean conscious, clean hands. It is about sincerity. It is certainly not about "right ideas". God judges the heart, not "correct ideas". God is not known through "correct ideas".

So no, you certainly are not separated from love because you make mistakes in reading the Bible.

 

[savagewind]

I think this is an incorrect understanding. I think I'd agree that truth and love are inseparable, but what do you mean by "truth"? Having the right ideas or interpretation of something? I don't think that's what that means. Even if someone has a completely bogus interpretation of a Bible passage, that does not mean they are separated from truth, let alone love.

Interpretations of the Bible, and there is not one thing that anyone says about any passage of any scripture that is not an interpretation, are relative to the person, and none are or can ever be absolute. They are dependent on what understanding of the mind the person has, what their culture is, what their values are, what their education is, what their stage of development is cognitively, and what their stage of development is spiritually. It's all relative to where they are at. There is no such thing as an "absolute interpretation". Those that pick up the Bible and point to the words and claim, "This isn't me saying this, it's God saying this!", are in fact interpreting what they are able to see with where they are at, and are assuming that because their minds understanding it a certain way, that that is the only one true understanding. That is simply incorrect. That's an interpretation as well.

But to "truth". In John where it says God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth, Jesus is not speaking of having a correct Bible interpretation! The context makes no sense. How does having a correct mental idea correspond with "God is Spirit"? The context is speaking of the truth of the heart, to those who worship in spirit. Worship in spirit is an act of the heart, where you set aside your ideas of what you think you know. So "truth", to worship in spirit and in truth, is about the purity of the heart. It is about pure intent, a clean conscious, clean hands. It is about sincerity. It is certainly not about "right ideas". God judges the heart, not "correct ideas". God is not known through "correct ideas".

So no, you certainly are not separated from love because you make mistakes in reading the Bible.

I agree with this. But if a person persists in "God says this" but God doesn't say it, that is a separation. Also to be convinced a Bible passage means one thing but it was written to mean another thing different than what you believe it says, is absolutely not loving the writer of it!

Imagine writing something with good intentions but having it twisted to mean what the reader will have it mean and then the reader acting on it with the opinion that it is God's command to act on it. Then imagine folly results. OK. Love? I do not think so.

 

[Katzpur]

Worship in spirit is an act of the heart, where you set aside your ideas of what you think you know. So "truth", to worship in spirit and in truth, is about the purity of the heart. It is about pure intent, a clean conscious, clean hands. It is about sincerity. It is certainly not about "right ideas". God judges the heart, not "correct ideas". God is not known through "correct ideas".

I absolutely LOVE, LOVE, LOVE how you put that! Beautifully stated!

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

As do I. But I don't necessarily think that the truth you speak of is confined to the Bible, or rather, that the truth that Jesus taught is found 'only' in the Bible. In particular, I like the Gospel of Thomas, which as you know is not in the Bible but which I believe is closer to the truth that Christ may have taught.

I too believe the gospel of Thomas to be very close to the original teachings of Jesus.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree with this. But if a person persists in "God says this" but God doesn't say it, that is a separation.

It is a disconnect, because unless that person's mind was the Mind of God, how can they know what God says? You'd have to be at that level to understand, right? Think of it in terms of parent to a child (not a perfect analogy, but I'll go with it here). Do you think that child has the proper context to understand the mind of his parent, except on the most superficial possible levels? So when they speak authoritatively, "I know what he says!", they at best only think they know as understood as they can with the mind they have at that stage in their lives. As they mature and grow, then they start to get a larger picture and become just a tad but less certain they really understand anything. What the disconnect is is that they assume too much and try to be an authority when they lack a truer depth of understanding. They are speaking from their own undeveloped egos, not realizing what that even is.

Also to be convinced a Bible passage means one thing but it was written to mean another thing different than what you believe it says, is absolutely not loving the writer of it!

What I think the power of words written from a spiritual heart is that they contain depth. As such, there are many layers of understanding that are within them. There is no "right understanding". What the author means, when and if they are in fact speaking from that place of "revelation", is beyond what the words themselves say! They are pointers to something that transcends the words, not static objects like a rock you study to gain an understanding of them. That is missing the point of the words, mistaking Truth, as some propositional idea you have to grasp in order to be enlightened. That is not the case at all, and probably the single greatest misunderstanding of those who look for Truth in scripture. It's not in the words, it's beyond the words.

Imagine writing something with good intentions but having it twisted to mean what the reader will have it mean and then the reader acting on it with the opinion that it is God's command to act on it. Then imagine folly results. OK. Love? I do not think so.

I think it's twisting the spirit of the words to mean something literal that misses the meaning of them.

 

[savagewind]

It is a disconnect, because unless that person's mind was the Mind of God, how can they know what God says? You'd have to be at that level to understand, right? Think of it in terms of parent to a child (not a perfect analogy, but I'll go with it here). Do you think that child has the proper context to understand the mind of his parent, except on the most superficial possible levels? So when they speak authoritatively, "I know what he says!", they at best only think they know as understood as they can with the mind they have at that stage in their lives. As they mature and grow, then they start to get a larger picture and become just a tad but less certain they really understand anything. What the disconnect is is that they assume too much and try to be an authority when they lack a truer depth of understanding. They are speaking from their own undeveloped egos, not realizing what that even is.


What I think the power of words written from a spiritual heart is that they contain depth. As such, there are many layers of understanding that are within them. There is no "right understanding". What the author means, when and if they are in fact speaking from that place of "revelation", is beyond what the words themselves say! They are pointers to something that transcends the words, not static objects like a rock you study to gain an understanding of them. That is missing the point of the words, mistaking Truth, as some propositional idea you have to grasp in order to be enlightened. That is not the case at all, and probably the single greatest misunderstanding of those who look for Truth in scripture. It's not in the words, it's beyond the words.


I think it's twisting the spirit of the words to mean something literal that misses the meaning of them.

I agree.

 

[leibowde84]

As do I. But I don't necessarily think that the truth you speak of is confined to the Bible, or rather, that the truth that Jesus taught is found 'only' in the Bible. In particular, I like the Gospel of Thomas, which as you know is not in the Bible but which I believe is closer to the truth that Christ may have taught.

Yeah, but the Gospel of Thomas, which is excelent btw, was still inspired by the spirit of Jesus' teachings. And, I do agree that these lessons aren't confined to these texts, even including all of the claimed "gospels" (29 of them I believe). But, in my part of the world and my culture, Jesus seems to be the one that mattered most.

 

[Desert Snake]

I know it's not black and white, nothing really is. You're preaching to the choir on that one. But there are shades on of good and bad on that gradient scale. I would say without hesitancy there are those who are in fact more qualified to speak and to teach others, than some who have no depth of knowledge and assume that just because they read it on the page, they think they speak for God. Just because the most qualified are not %100 accurate %100 percent of the time (which is a fantasy expectation of anyone regarding anything or anyone in life), that does not mean the vast bulk of what they say carries no weight. The weight of what they say is considerably more than Billy Bob picking up the King James Version of the Bible, reading a few passages and thinking he knows what he's talking about and convinces other of the same.

As much as I dislike bureaucracies and hierarchies, there is something to be said about putting something like the Bible into the hands of those who don't have a sufficient background from which they can speak from. In other words, the range of their insights are extremely narrow and thus what they say reflects that lack of depth. There was good in making it available to those outside the corrupt institution, but definitely a downside on that as well!

Completely ridiculous. Interpretation is not a matter of someone being a priest etc, in some church. It can help, in some things, but can also be a problem, if they merely repeat things that are incorrect, but taught by that church. //rather taught to the priests etc. //

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

........if they merely repeat things that are incorrect, but taught by that church.

Exactly.

 

[Windwalker]

Completely ridiculous. Interpretation is not a matter of someone being a priest etc, in some church. It can help, in some things, but can also be a problem, if they merely repeat things that are incorrect, but taught by that church. //rather taught to the priests etc. //

Completely ridiculous? Me? That's ridiculous. Did I say interpretation is a matter of being a priest? Everyone interprets, including you. Are your interpretations as good as someone who has the breadth of background in religious studies? Unless you have some degree of deeper studies, either formally or in deeper self-study (Wiki or Billy Bob's "Answers for you from the Bible" website doesn't count), then chances are making sweeping pronouncements about the way things, what "God says" are is going to lay pretty flat by comparison.

Are there those who merely repeat what they are told, like those who graduate Billy Bob's online Bible Program? Certainly. Paper degrees like Kent Hovind's are worthless, of less value than toilet paper. But those aren't real degrees. Those who complete actual Ph.D. programs are not merely repeating what they are told. That's not what Ph.D. programs are about. They are to prove you can apply what you have learned to show more than just a rote understanding, but that you are able to think for yourself. A truly good religious leader is not one who just repeats crap to get a degree from Billy Bob's Bible Emporium, but one who is able to have insights of their own, to read and interpret with a sound foundational understanding of what they are looking at. It shouldn't result in more repetition, but actual insight. Insight which should be a thousand times more useful than that of Billy Bob armed with his reading of the "authorized" King James "red-letter" edition of the Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

This is sort of unclear as to meaning, ie in what context are you presenting this. I don't think that 'some' people should have to accept Jesus, while others don't. That makes no sense, imo.

Of course it doesn't make sense! It doesn't make sense because that's not what she said. What doesn't make sense is that God would expect someone to be able to accept Jesus if he'd never heard of Jesus.