What is Christianity support?

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, I'll get back around to that later. I'm heading out to shoot some photography today. One of my many artistic hobbies.

Have a nice time![emoji328]

 

[Windwalker]

By materialism I meant by disobedience to God as man is today, he falls into the hell of worshipping the self.

But why is that materialism? Egotism is more the worshipping of the self.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)

Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?

If you wish to toss out Genesis, you can believe whatever you like on the subject.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But why is that materialism? Egotism is more the worshipping of the self.

Well materialism and self centred ness all go together. The emphasis on doing what the self wants instead of what God wants is at the centre of man's lack of spirituality.

 

[Milton Platt]

What definition of spirituality are you using? That is one of the most ill-defined words in the English language.

 

[Windwalker]

What definition of spirituality are you using? That is one of the most ill-defined words in the English language.

Kind of like the word love. Who knows what one's talking about with that word.

 

[Windwalker]

Well materialism and self centred ness all go together. The emphasis on doing what the self wants instead of what God wants is at the centre of man's lack of spirituality.

I wouldn't say so primarily. A lot of things are symptoms of that. I don't think the problem is materialism as cause. The problem and actual cause is a lack of growth. What we see is a lack of development, with people stuck at narcissistic stages of growth, rather than seeing beyond their own wants and desires with themselves as the center of the universe and others are not, nor can be seen by them because of it. Is that a lack of doing what God wants? Hah! It's a lack of doing what anyone but themselves want!

So that leads to the question then "what is spirituality?" I would say spirituality is connection with your true, genuine self first, and when that happens it sees others, connects with them, is empathetic, shares life and reality with them, and sees God in all that is. It sees everywhere, everyone, and everything as the center of the universe. This is the end of our journey from the narcissism of our infantile selves, to the realization of God in ourself, others, and the world. And that, is spirituality.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's an awesome definition of spirituality.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Kind of like the word love. Who knows what one's talking about with that word.

In Scripture there are different words for love, so the people of the time knew which type of love was under consideration.
Agape' is principled love
Storge' is family love
Phila' is brotherly love

Jesus recommended having ' self-sacrificing ' love for others as he had - John 13:34-35
Which is in sharp contrast to the selfish distorted form of love the world displays - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
Which is also in sharp contrast with the biblical definition of love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6

Eros is Not used in Scripture.

Jesus recommended doing ' spiritual works ' - Matthew 24:14 - which is a work the world does Not do.
The Golden Rule would be spiritual, as would be the rest of the works listed in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
Putting aside one's ego would be a spiritual work - Philippians 2:3-5; Philippians 4:8

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)

Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?

The Bible supports a literal six-day creation period. God could use evolution--and does today--but did not use evolution over billions of years to bring forth Adam and Eve in Eden--and science doesn't wholly support a long period for Evolution either...

 

[Godobeyer]

The Bible supports a literal six-day creation period. God could use evolution--and does today--but did not use evolution over billions of years to bring forth Adam and Eve in Eden--and science doesn't wholly support a long period for Evolution either...

My point was about evolution as origine of life, so God did not creat/design anything.

 

[Windwalker]

The Bible supports a literal six-day creation period.

Does it literally say, "Thou shalt read and interpret these words literally and not metaphorically"? Which chapter and verses supports that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

My point was about evolution as origine of life, so God did not creat/design anything.

re: Origin of life, God created/designed everything. On this the Qu'ran and Bible agree.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does it literally say, "Thou shalt read and interpret these words literally and not metaphorically"? Which chapter and verses supports that?

No, it does not say in the Bible regarding a six-day week "this is literal", although it does say x is specific or literal or guaranteed and etc. regarding many, many prophecies and statements of God.

There are many verses, however, that support a six-day creation. We can begin with Moses's statement that the Sabbath is one day in seven to match creation--otherwise Saturdays would be realllllllyyyy looonngg...

 

[Windwalker]

There are many verses, however, that support a six-day creation. We can begin with Moses's statement that the Sabbath is one day in seven to match creation--otherwise Saturdays would be realllllllyyyy looonngg...

Many social conventions can be tied to the stories of one's culture. It doesn't mean the stories are factual events, like the honesty of George Washington who cut down his father's cherry tree. The event never actually happened, but it becomes a symbol of honesty nonetheless. Just because Moses say's "because God rested on the 7th day", does not mean that's how things really happened. The how it really happened was not the important part of it. The day of rest was.

It's odd why so many Christians today feel the "facts" of it are what's important. It seems they are missing the point, straining at gnats as it were and chocking on a camel as they are focused on the wrong things. That's something Jesus taught us. I'm perfectly fine accepting the facts of evolution, while finding symbolic value in the creation story. I have no problem accepting both without having to torture science to make it fit some interpretation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Many social conventions can be tied to the stories of one's culture. It doesn't mean the stories are factual events, like the honesty of George Washington who cut down his father's cherry tree. The event never actually happened, but it becomes a symbol of honesty nonetheless. Just because Moses say's "because God rested on the 7th day", does not mean that's how things really happened. The how it really happened was not the important part of it. The day of rest was.

It's odd why so many Christians today feel the "facts" of it are what's important. It seems they are missing the point, straining at gnats as it were and chocking on a camel as they are focused on the wrong things. That's something Jesus taught us. I'm perfectly fine accepting the facts of evolution, while finding symbolic value in the creation story. I have no problem accepting both without having to torture science to make it fit some interpretation.

I take issue with your statement, "The how it [Bible doctrine goes here] really happened was not the important part of it."

Jesus Christ died a horrible death on the cross, a death by torture, than rose from the dead in triumph, so that trusting Him we'd have life in His Name. I take issue with people who say, "No, you don't trust Jesus to be a Christian, you just kind of, sort of, be nice to people."

The same Moses who said take Saturdays off is the same Moses who wrote Genesis, who used the same Hebrew words to say "six day creation". I get your point on cultural folktales but Moses meant what he wrote, and so did the One giving Him dictation to transcribe for our benefit.

 

[Windwalker]

I take issue with your statement, "The how it [Bible doctrine goes here] really happened was not the important part of it."

You believe to do battle with science when the point of the stories is to love is more important? Having your beliefs be facts is the basis of faith? That doesn't exactly ring true to me.

Jesus Christ died a horrible death on the cross, a death by torture, than rose from the dead in triumph, so that trusting Him we'd have life in His Name. I take issue with people who say, "No, you don't trust Jesus to be a Christian, you just kind of, sort of, be nice to people."

I don't think "be nice to people" is all there is to being a Christian. I think it's a result of it. However, I don't think faith in Jesus has anything to do with believing certain theological interpretations of scripture. Believing in Jesus is not the same as believing in certain biblical doctrines. The latter is something you do with your head, and that can be mistaken in many ways. The former is something you do with your heart, and how you believe, how you think about God, how you understand and interpret the Bible, is in fact allowed to change. In fact I'd say it's very much to be encouraged. Being hard-fast with your beliefs being facts, can in fact very much interfere with or destroy your faith. If you don't listen with your heart, you become deaf and faith dead.

The same Moses who said take Saturdays off is the same Moses who wrote Genesis, who used the same Hebrew words to say "six day creation".

It's actually pretty common knowledge amongst scholars that Moses did not write Genesis. But even if he did, it still doesn't matter. You still are allowed to understand it in many ways, not just one interpretation of it.

I get your point on cultural folktales but Moses meant what he wrote, and so did the One giving Him dictation to transcribe for our benefit.

Well, giving dictation is not what I consider inspiration! That's not how the truths that were spoken by these writers came to be! They did not sit in a room and hear a voice coming out of the wall as they wrote the words down. Do you not understand this?

BTW, how do you know what Moses meant? Just reading words written by someone can be understood in many different ways. Did the author of Genesis intend for you to understand these words as scientific facts? I more than doubt that was true! In fact, I guarantee such a question never entered the minds. The story isn't about geology and speciation!

Genesis is a story about the human condition and the rest is the setup for that. It's a story. A story is not science. And if science says something other that how you've read the story, then you should change how you read the story! It's a simple as that. No harder than that. Why don't you then? Faith allows you to change your beliefs about things and be at ease with new knowledge, and in fact welcome it! Faith is of the heart in search of Truth which takes many forms. You aren't saved by beliefs, but you can be crushed by them when you insist in never letting them go.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You believe to do battle with science when the point of the stories is to love is more important?

I don’t understand this question.

Having your beliefs be facts is the basis of faith? That doesn't exactly ring true to me.

Then you know what blind faith is, but not reasoned or factual faith. I have reason to have faith in children, my parents and Jesus. I do not yet have reasons to trust you, to place faith in you.

I don't think "be nice to people" is all there is to being a Christian. I think it's a result of it. However, I don't think faith in Jesus has anything to do with believing certain theological interpretations of scripture. Believing in Jesus is not the same as believing in certain biblical doctrines. The latter is something you do with your head, and that can be mistaken in many ways. The former is something you do with your heart, and how you believe, how you think about God, how you understand and interpret the Bible, is in fact allowed to change. In fact I'd say it's very much to be encouraged. Being hard-fast with your beliefs being facts, can in fact very much interfere with or destroy your faith. If you don't listen with your heart, you become deaf and faith dead.

I’m having trouble following your argument here, but I would say that either a person trusts in Jesus—the condition to receive the Spirit and all truth—or they are playing with less cards than they need to win.

It's actually pretty common knowledge amongst scholars that Moses did not write Genesis. But even if he did, it still doesn't matter. You still are allowed to understand it in many ways, not just one interpretation of it.

I would disagree with liberal scholars who believe Genesis had multiple authors. I agree with you that there are many interpretations to be gleaned from Genesis. I would disagree that there are multiple interpretations regarding six day creation. There are only two, six days of 24 hours or not.

Well, giving dictation is not what I consider inspiration!

That's not how the truths that were spoken by these writers came to be! They did not sit in a room and hear a voice coming out of the wall as they wrote the words down. Do you not understand this?

I understand that Moses wasn’t present when creation happened and that God dictated the Genesis account of creation to him.

BTW, how do you know what Moses meant? Just reading words written by someone can be understood in many different ways. Did the author of Genesis intend for you to understand these words as scientific facts? I more than doubt that was true! In fact, I guarantee such a question never entered the minds. The story isn't about geology and speciation!

God doesn’t lie, so Genesis cannot explicitly disagree with established facts of science. The story is certainly about speciation and some geology—you may need to reread it carefully again.

Genesis is a story about the human condition and the rest is the setup for that. It's a story. A story is not science. And if science says something other that how you've read the story, then you should change how you read the story! It's a simple as that. No harder than that. Why don't you then? Faith allows you to change your beliefs about things and be at ease with new knowledge, and in fact welcome it! Faith is of the heart in search of Truth which takes many forms. You aren't saved by beliefs, but you can be crushed by them when you insist in never letting them go.

Scholars, liberal and conservative, would disagree. Genesis 3-4 is about the human condition. Genesis 1-2 is about creation. If you feel that God telling us the Earth was created in days has something to do with human condition, or that the birds of the air and fish of the sea are “really about the human condition” I would say you are a mystic who hasn’t read the Genesis account very closely.

 

[Windwalker]

I don’t understand this question.

Do you believe denying science is an expression of faith? That being "right" is the basis of love and more important than that?

Then you know what blind faith is, but not reasoned or factual faith.

It's not blind faith when the heart of faith can quite clearly see. In fact, it can see even when what you believe is in conflict and being challenged and are in a state of mental confusion. The heart does not rest in propositional truths. In fact, I would say "blind faith" is when the heart cannot see and you rely on "getting the facts straight" in your theologies, and what not. That's blind faith, not a faith of the knowledge of the heart.

I have reason to have faith in children, my parents and Jesus. I do not yet have reasons to trust you, to place faith in you.

You are confused about what Faith is. Do you love your children? Do you need to have reasons for it? I hope that's not true.

I’m having trouble following your argument here, but I would say that either a person trusts in Jesus—the condition to receive the Spirit and all truth—or they are playing with less cards than they need to win.

To win? That's an interesting understanding of faith. You very much seem to confuse the things you believe in, with "trusting Jesus". Again, that is not faith. Trusting Jesus would be for instance knowing that you will still have faith in God despite being wrong about your beliefs about him. Are you "trusting Jesus", or what you believe about him? I think it's the latter actually. I think your "trust" is in your own understandings, and you fear letting them change. That's not faith in God. That's not "trusting Jesus".

I would disagree with liberal scholars who believe Genesis had multiple authors.

Which is probably the same reason you reject science. It challenges the way you've believed. The scholarship is solid regarding this, and labeling them "liberal" is just a political thing, like calling scientists "atheist" because to you what they teach challengings your beliefs about these things. Again, this is not faith working here.

I agree with you that there are many interpretations to be gleaned from Genesis. I would disagree that there are multiple interpretations regarding six day creation. There are only two, six days of 24 hours or not.

Or, that's how the authors understood things, literally if you wish, but it's not necessary for us to think the way they did about those details back then because it's irrelevant to matters of faith. That's another way to understand it. Faith in God is not grounded in being "right", or believing the authors knew scientific facts and never said anything that modern understandings aren't allow to correct.

Let me shock you badly with this statement. If Jesus was able to be transported from when he was living in Israel a couple thousand years ago to this moment in time, and stood before me as a flesh and bone human being as he was then, I'm more the certain he would be mistaken about some of his ideas about the world. And that being true does not diminish his knowledge of God.

If he was to say to me, "What do you mean the sun stands still and the earth goes around it? That's not right, you can see it rise on the horizon and move across the sky. The sun moves, not the earth". I would tell him, "Jesus, you understand God in profoundly deep ways I embrace in you and take to heart your words, but you don't understand science. Please let me explain what we know today and how we discovered it! It's exciting. I think you'll love it". And if Jesus was the kind of soul I image he was, he would probably be excited about it!

But you're not.

I understand that Moses wasn’t present when creation happened and that God dictated the Genesis account of creation to him.

Explain how this "dictation" idea of yours works? Were they hearing voices? Were they sitting there with pen in hand and God was channeling though them, moving their hands as they were out of the seat in the body letting God take control of it? How does this work? And, is that idea of taking dictation biblical? Yes, I know 2 Pe 1:21-22, but I seriously don't believe they just became puppets moving their hands about as God took them over. If that's what Peter actually did imagine, I think that's an interesting discussion!

God doesn’t lie, so Genesis cannot explicitly disagree with established facts of science. The story is certainly about speciation and some geology—you may need to reread it carefully again.

No, not really. It's just saying God created the animals. I believe he did. Evolution is God creating. It just did not happen according to a bad reading of Genesis, treating it as a scientific and historical record.

Scholars, liberal and conservative, would disagree. Genesis 3-4 is about the human condition. Genesis 1-2 is about creation.

Yeah, but the story is the setup of for Genesis 3 and 4, which is what I said. It's about that, not about establishing scientific facts for all future generations to accept as fact and never consider differently. Believing as they believed about how the earth came into being does not make or break belief in God.

If you feel that God telling us the Earth was created in days has something to do with human condition, or that the birds of the air and fish of the sea are “really about the human condition” I would say you are a mystic who hasn’t read the Genesis account very closely.

What would being a mystic have to do with any of that? I actually am very well versed in the Bible, and on top of that I am a mystic. But I somewhat don't think you understand what that is and are misusing the word mystic somehow.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you believe denying science is an expression of faith? That being "right" is the basis of love and more important than that?

With respect, these questions are moot. Only ignorant people deny scientific fact. I see you telling me I deny science but I don’t.

I don’t think being “right” is the basis of love, but I also don’t think being “wrong” is a good basis for love, either. The question shows a misunderstanding on your part of what love is—if I may say so without offending you.

It's not blind faith when the heart of faith can quite clearly see. In fact, it can see even when what you believe is in conflict and being challenged and are in a state of mental confusion. The heart does not rest in propositional truths. In fact, I would say "blind faith" is when the heart cannot see and you rely on "getting the facts straight" in your theologies, and what not. That's blind faith, not a faith of the knowledge of the heart.

I’m having trouble following this paragraph of yours, so let me please try to define terms:

“Blind faith” equals faith without reason – “I can fly if I flap my human arms quickly enough, yes, I shall fly!”

“Biblical faith” equals faith with good reason – “God has been trustworthy in the past and I have great faith that He shall continue to be trustworthy in the future.”

You are confused about what Faith is. Do you love your children? Do you need to have reasons for it? I hope that's not true.

This also makes no sense to me, this paragraph above. I love one-year-old children but place little faith in them, and with good reason. You are conflating faith with love and I’m not sure why. All of us have had faith too long in the wrong persons because of love for them, but love is not faith, faith is not love.

To win? That's an interesting understanding of faith. You very much seem to confuse the things you believe in, with "trusting Jesus". Again, that is not faith. Trusting Jesus would be for instance knowing that you will still have faith in God despite being wrong about your beliefs about him. Are you "trusting Jesus", or what you believe about him? I think it's the latter actually. I think your "trust" is in your own understandings, and you fear letting them change. That's not faith in God. That's not "trusting Jesus".

You must have read the Bible differently than me where it talks repeatedly about winning souls, winning arguments and winning many things up to eternal life and glory, based on righteousness and faith. Some modern translations speak of the lost as being “among the losers”. Do you feel instead the heavenly citizens are losers and the people lost in perdition are the “winners”? I doubt that very much.

And I’m not appreciative of you telling me I don’t trust Jesus. That’s my gospel—trust Jesus to be saved.

But perhaps you can extricate us from this mess by telling me what you think faith is—you have numerous statements above that I don’t know what faith is, that I’m wrong, that I’m all wrong about faith. I think faith is a synonym for trust and that Christians have great, persistent, wonderful reasons to trust Jesus for life and salvation and guidance in life. Perhaps if you would say what faith is we can dialogue better together?

Which is probably the same reason you reject science. It challenges the way you've believed. The scholarship is solid regarding this, and labeling them "liberal" is just a political thing, like calling scientists "atheist" because to you what they teach challengings your beliefs about these things. Again, this is not faith working here.

I don’t reject science. I embrace science. Calling Bible scholars “liberal” or “conservative” is not a political statement. These are terms accepted by academics to describe whether, for example, people believe Moses wrote the books of Moses or other people wrote the books of Moses. (Hint: They have been called the books of Moses for millennia and continue to be called that often, even by liberal scholars.)

Or, that's how the authors understood things, literally if you wish, but it's not necessary for us to think the way they did about those details back then because it's irrelevant to matters of faith. That's another way to understand it. Faith in God is not grounded in being "right", or believing the authors knew scientific facts and never said anything that modern understandings aren't allow to correct.

Let me shock you badly with this statement. If Jesus was able to be transported from when he was living in Israel a couple thousand years ago to this moment in time, and stood before me as a flesh and bone human being as he was then, I'm more the certain he would be mistaken about some of his ideas about the world. And that being true does not diminish his knowledge of God.

I respectfully disagree. You are asking me to have less than complete faith in Genesis, in Moses’s authorship, and in the timeless and right nature of Jesus Christ. It may not be necessary for you to have truth from people to have faith in them, but is a requirement for me that the God I worship tells me the truth, not lies or half-truths. Faith is trust and trust is most reasonably placed in honest persons, not misguided religious people “who kinda write books that are sorta about kinda I guess, faith”.

If he was to say to me, "What do you mean the sun stands still and the earth goes around it? That's not right, you can see it rise on the horizon and move across the sky. The sun moves, not the earth". I would tell him, "Jesus, you understand God in profoundly deep ways I embrace in you and take to heart your words, but you don't understand science. Please let me explain what we know today and how we discovered it! It's exciting. I think you'll love it". And if Jesus was the kind of soul I image he was, he would probably be excited about it!

So you are saying God made the Heavens and the Earth but God doesn’t understand science? I don’t find that a credible stance. Have I misunderstood you here?

Explain how this "dictation" idea of yours works? Were they hearing voices? Were they sitting there with pen in hand and God was channeling though them, moving their hands as they were out of the seat in the body letting God take control of it? How does this work? And, is that idea of taking dictation biblical? Yes, I know 2 Pe 1:21-22, but I seriously don't believe they just became puppets moving their hands about as God took them over. If that's what Peter actually did imagine, I think that's an interesting discussion!

I think you are confusing what Bible scholars call an amanuensis (a person who uses their heart, mind and personality to share ideas that are actually precisely the ideas God wants them to share), say, Peter, with the fact that the books of Moses record Moses spending weeks with God, listening and serving as God’s scribe or kingly recorder. Even a cursory reading of the books of Moses will inform you that multiple times, God directed Moses to take dictation. Does the Bible say “Moses and the constitutionalists met in Philadelphia to write the Law”? Or did you think Moses wrote Genesis as a personal eyewitness account?

No, not really. It's just saying God created the animals. I believe he did. Evolution is God creating. It just did not happen according to a bad reading of Genesis, treating it as a scientific and historical record.

I decided some time ago that it is less important for me to seem to be in line with everything every scientist has ever said as fact and rather more important to dig for truth beneath the fluff. I trust God, He tells the truth, and the Bible gives numerous contra-indications to long time, epochs long, evolution.

Consider carefully that when we are judged by Jesus Christ, that we will be judged less on how modern we are, how accepting we are of every new scientific idea proposed as theory, than by how much we adhere to God.

Consider also that scientists of previous times were incredibly wrong about all sorts of things, and that inductive science is rooted in observation. You seem more ready to accept what a man says happened billions of years ago that God says happened recently, on His watch. That’s an example of blind faith to my eyes.

Yeah, but the story is the setup of for Genesis 3 and 4, which is what I said. It's about that, not about establishing scientific facts for all future generations to accept as fact and never consider differently. Believing as they believed about how the earth came into being does not make or break belief in God.

This is extraordinary insight you’re sharing. How do you know? Do you have a document outside Genesis, contemporaneous to the writing of Genesis that told you so? Or did you consult with God on this area in prayer? How did you come to understand such wonderful things? I’m having trouble understanding some things in the Bible. Perhaps you can tell me what God was “really” thinking when He wrote other Bible chapters as well? That would be most helpful.

What would being a mystic have to do with any of that? I actually am very well versed in the Bible, and on top of that I am a mystic. But I somewhat don't think you understand what that is and are misusing the word mystic somehow.

The Bible is a big book, and I’m not denying you are well learned regarding it, but it sure sounds like you didn’t know that Moses had God dictate words for him to write down or that faith in Jesus and the Bible are the very opposite of blind faith. So if you would consider taking a few moments to tell me what you think faith is so we can discuss that, rather than telling me over and again I don’t know what faith is—I think faith is trust and I have good reasons to trust the Bible and Jesus—but I have only a scant idea of what you think “faith” is, that would be great!

Thank you for your consideration.