The Bible, Israel, significance

[fallingblood]

By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you for that offer. However, just being up front, I can tell you right now that your questions will not reveal what perspective I speak for. I will do what I can to try to help though.

Do you believe Jesus is the Lord?

Yes. However, the term Lord isn't straight forward. But yes, I do believe Jesus is Lord.

Do you believe he died for our sins and rose from the dead?

No, I don't think Jesus died for our sins. I don't think that was the purpose at all. I also don't think that Jesus physically rose from the dead, nor do I think it is necessary. The idea that Jesus died for our sins really is the first view we see historically. It is an idea that develops later on. For Paul, it was the resurrection that matter. The resurrection signified God's justice. It gave hope for a better tomorrow.

As for raising from the dead, I see it as a spiritual resurrection, and not a physical resurrection. The body of Jesus was probably placed in a shallow grave, and eaten by dogs. And I don't think that really matters, as they body itself does not matter. It was a spiritual event.

Do you believe that through faith in him one can have their sins forgiven and know God the father?

This is an Evangelical idea, and not really one that is applicable to others. Sure, I think it may be possible, but then again, I think there are many ways to salvation, and to knowing God. It is not through my faith that I believe that I have been save though.

Or do you make no judgement either way effectively making you an agnostic?

As an agnostic, I acknowledge that I may be wrong. When talking about matters of faith, we are often stepping away from rationality. Therefore, I don't know if I am correct in my beliefs. But I have faith that I am.

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

Simply yes or no answers never really suffice, unless your point is to trap a person into ideas that really aren't theres. That is why I would rather explain my answers.

Mind you there is a huge difference between taking a step and believing these things to be true as opposed to believing that it's theoretically possible that they could true. The former takes faith, the latter does not.

It isn't an either or situation here though. It also appears that you have missed much of what I said. My beliefs in God are based on faith and faith alone. At the same time, I do accept that it is theoretically possible that God exists, as well as that God does not exist. You can have a both and situation here.

Answering these questions will just help clarify which perspective of "Christianity" you speak for.

Really, no they won't. The manner in which you wanted these questions answered, a simple yes or no, really only had one possible outcome; you being able to label me as a heretic or something similar. It wasn't a honest request to actually clarify anything, but instead only "confirm" what you already believed.

If you wanted to know from what perspective I am coming from, it would be much easier to just ask. I come from an Evangelical/Fundamentalist background. Even though I largely reject such a position, as I find it stifling and intolerant in many cases, it still effects my basic ideas. I am a monist, as in I believe there is only one god, but that this god has appeared in many different manners. I am a panentheist, as in I believe that God is in this world, but more than this world. I am most closely associated with Progressive Christianity, but have done much of my study in a college associated with the ELCA. I subscribe to process theology, and am beginning to get more involved in that. I'm a liberal Christian, who is open and accepting of regardless of "race," gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

None of your questions would have gotten you even close to that.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The manner in which you wanted these questions answered, a simple yes or no, really only had one possible outcome; you being able to label me as a heretic or something similar. It wasn't a honest request to actually clarify anything, but instead only "confirm" what you already believed.

That is true. Of course, I put all unorthodox (ie. heretical from an orthodox perspective) doctrines in the same category.

If you wanted to know from what perspective I am coming from, it would be much easier to just ask. I come from an Evangelical/Fundamentalist background. Even though I largely reject such a position, as I find it stifling and intolerant in many cases, it still effects my basic ideas. I am a monist, as in I believe there is only one god, but that this god has appeared in many different manners. I am a panentheist, as in I believe that God is in this world, but more than this world. I am most closely associated with Progressive Christianity, but have done much of my study in a college associated with the ELCA. I subscribe to process theology, and am beginning to get more involved in that. I'm a liberal Christian, who is open and accepting of regardless of "race," gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

None of your questions would have gotten you even close to that.

It's people with this mindset that are leading orthodox believers to abandon the title "Christian" all together as the name is becoming so watered down that it basically means nothing in this day and age.

 

[fallingblood]

It's people with this mindset that are leading orthodox believers to abandon the title "Christian" all together as the name is becoming so watered down that it basically means nothing in this day and age.

Or it is simply putting more meaning, but a different emphasis, on belief, and what that entails. Really, the sort of theological work I am involved in is hardly watered down. It simply is different than your stand point.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You hinted at the possibility of knowing Jesus in the same fashion we can know other figures from the past, you mentioned you grandfather as an example. I still remember you making the claim that we can't know exactly what he said because he didn't leave us any of his sermons. I assume then that you reject the Gospels as having any value whatsoever in shedding any significant light on the person of Jesus apart from giving us clues that he probably existed, he probably taught something or other, had a few followers, and then died, correct? If this is the case then can one really say with any integrity at all that Jesus is actually "knowable" in any capacity?

 

[tumbleweed41]

MOD POST

Please keep the thread on topic.
​

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Thank you for the warning. I will stay on topic

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can anyone reasonably argue that Israel's claimed significance to evangelicals is anything other than a relatively new minority perspective?

 

[Desert Snake]

You're probably right. I'm not aware of any other Christian perspective that is wrapped up in the State like they are, that's really one of the main reasons why I started this thread, I wanted to get that perspective/explanation.

Although I think it's only certain groups/churches.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Can anyone reasonably argue that Israel's claimed significance to evangelicals is anything other than a relatively new minority perspective?

I don't personally know any evangelicals who believe the land of Israel today has some special significance beyond the fact that fellow members of the human race reside there. For us the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel and is a "nation" comprised of members of just about every race under the sun, including many ethnic Jews and is a "nation" without borders.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't personally know any evangelicals who believe the land of Israel today has some special significance beyond the fact that fellow members of the human race reside there. For us the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel and is a nation comprised of members of just about every race under the sun, including many ethnic Jews.

If one watches t.v. preachers they will get a different impression

Yes, it's funny because in real-life there doesn't seem to be much focus on Israel at all, I've never noticed it.