What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Noa]

"Whammy!" is "a thing." It's from the movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. It's a signature line that Champ Kind, the sportscaster, uses when somebody does something big.

Oh. Well, all I remember from that film is 'Scotchy Scotch Scotch, down in mah belly."

 

[sojourner]

Humans cannot be reduced to just machines. That reductionism too is reflective of the bane of Modernity adopted into the guise of religion. You are a product of its ideas about the human being, and all your interpretations of scripture are colorized by it, even though you claim to be a fundamentalist rejecting its views. It's there, like a set of glasses you look through filtering what and how you can see.

Sallie McFague addresses this issue of what she calls "Atomistic thinking" (the kind of deconstructionism that reduces all things to the aggregate of their "working parts"), as opposed to "holistic thinking" (the kind of constructionism that sees all things as much greater than the sum of their parts -- and interrelated with other things). It is a product of modernism and, while it may work well in building and servicing automobile engines, it doesn't do much to help us understand the whole human being. One of the best advances in medicine (both physiology and psychology) in recent years has been the push to stop seeing the body as atomistic, that is, treating only the brain, or only the eyes, or only the heart, and to begin seeing it as a whole, interdependent system, wherein all subsystems are considered, as well as they patient's emotional and spiritual well-being.

 

[sojourner]

Oh. Well, all I remember from that film is 'Scotchy Scotch Scotch, down in mah belly."

Ha! You don't remember "James Westfall," and "Dr. Kenneth Noisewater?" Or, "60% of the time, it works every time?"

 

[Noa]

No, sadly. It has been so many years since I have seen it.

 

[Orbit]

Why do you feel the need to so often include a bit of psychoanalysis in your posts? Are you professionally involved in the field of Psychology or something related?

I may have used some of the words you used for clarity for your sake, but in doing so I was expressing my understanding of what you've been saying.

Actually while you deny the Bible is the infallible word of God on one hand, on the other hand you use the scriptures in an attempt to validate your mysticism and claim your interpretations are more accurate and enlightened than those Christians who do believe the scriptures to be God’s Word. Along with that, you claim to be divine and God and certainly don’t seem to hesitate pointing out what you believe to be the misinterpreted errors of believers who hold to the historic essential doctrines of biblical faith which has been once for all delivered to the saints. I don’t point out error of everyone; that is a generalization. It is only those who promote false teaching contrary to the scriptures, yet who somehow for self-serving reasons still want to be associated with (their redefined) God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, the Bible.

I think since the scriptures reveal that God is the Creator and we are His creatures by His design to whom He has given His written word as a primary meaning of communication, then the Bible is certainly an Owner’s manual. I am sorry that you reject His instructions, Jesus as your Savior and scriptures as God’s revelation because in doing so I think you are missing out most importantly on what your Creator desires for you to understand personally, but you will remain unaware of God’s hand moving through history and events taking place in the world today right before your eyes which can’t see.

It doesn't take a genius to see that when someone accuses someone else of being "elitist" just because they have some knowledge, that the person doing the criticizing is insecure. Do you really want to turn this into some ad hominem free-for-all by insulting Windwalker every chance you get? Is that what you do when you don't have a cogent argument to put forth?

You talk about "false teaching". False according to whom? You? Do you have the ONE, TRUE teaching? What a load of crap.

 

[Windwalker]

I love this metaphor. It's apropos to the discussion at hand for this reason:
When I was in seminary, and we were doing an exercise in How to Think Theologically, we were asked to come up with a phrase that metaphorically outlined how we felt about our spiritual walk. One guy said (I shall never forget this!), "I'd dance with God more, but he always wants to lead."

The problem with much of fundamentalism (as I have experienced it) is that it's full of people who talk about the "leading of the Spirit," but who, in reality, want to lead the Spirit around by the nose with their simplistic and shallow understanding of "what the bible says."

The funny thing I have found about this with those who have not truly experienced this state of communion of Spirit, which is in fact an actual leading through very immediate and present awareness, is that all the correct words are used, but they end up on the other side of the stream heading off into the desert instead of towards the Ocean. They are "mystical" truths only in the sense of "magical". I am very specific when I speak of magical thinking about this, such as someone reading the Bible and "believing" what they read and understand is magically right because the Bible promises them they will be led by the Spirit. It's not actual experience. It's magical belief. All these "mysteries" just happen behind the scenes, not up-close and personal. "I know I'm saved because the Bible is true in its promises!" Is that why? That doesn't sound very convincing.

Dance is a perfect metaphor, actually. It occurs through subtle impressions, senses of leading and direction, freedom and flow. It is not being aware of the mechanics of dance, of putting this foot here, then that foot there, just like the dance instruction manual shows. If someone dances looking at their feet, making sure they put their feet in the footprints on the floor someone pasted there, well, they aren't dancing!! They are simply learning the steps, the mechanics of a particular flavor of dance. That's not dancing. Dancing only occurs when you let go. And when it comes to "being led by the Spirit", it is a very real experience. It's not a damn theology! It's not an Arthur Murray dance lesson. It's becomes an active exchange, and give and take, a communion of movement and motion. It's fluid and dynamic, freedom of movement, truth unto truth. Trying to figure this out by reading book only gets you thinking about it! All this business about the Bible is how God primarily speaks and moves, is utter crap. That's excusing one's self from the dance floor.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think we all know dancing is non-Christian. It originates with Shiva Nataraja.

 

[Noa]

I once briefly attended a religious university that still banned dancing on campus. This was in the 21st Century. It was rather bizarre.

 

[Windwalker]

I think we all know dancing is non-Christian. It originates with Shiva Nataraja.

In which case King David was following an occult practice when he danced mightily before the Lord. Both meditation and dancing are from the occult, apparently.

 

[Orbit]

In which case King David was following an occult practice when he danced mightily before the Lord. Both meditation and dancing are from the occult, apparently.

You two crack me up

 

[Windwalker]

Sallie McFague addresses this issue of what she calls "Atomistic thinking" (the kind of deconstructionism that reduces all things to the aggregate of their "working parts"), as opposed to "holistic thinking" (the kind of constructionism that sees all things as much greater than the sum of their parts -- and interrelated with other things). It is a product of modernism and, while it may work well in building and servicing automobile engines, it doesn't do much to help us understand the whole human being.

And this is just the thing, and why I feel the to not have an actual interior practice such as meditation leaves the individual out of balance. The interiors are like this anemic person, all thin and shrivelled compared to what is seen on the exterior. Jesus was wise indeed to say make clean the inside of the cup first. To spend one's full-time energies in spiritual pursuit looking outside for truth and direction, though that is useful and good, it is good only to a point. It cannot, and does not replace actual interior work and knowledge. That knowledge cannot be taught. It has to be discovered. No one else can teach you about what is in you, except only to point you to look. To know it you have to go in yourself.

To know yourself truly, is to become at peace with God. I don't say that lightly. Meister Eckhart said it well, "No one has known God who has not known himself". And Socrates, "Our own self-knowledge is a knowledge of God". It's as I said before that my ground is not in believing a book, or believing my thoughts and ideas and beliefs are backed up by some external authority. My ground is in Spirit itself, the Groundless Ground. That is an interior knowledge. And from that Ground, that interior knowledge, flows outward knowledge and truth, which then external knowledge becomes "ornaments". That's right, ornaments. External knowledge is useful indeed to help support and translate internal truths, but it is the interaction, the interpenetration of the outside and the inside, and the inside and the outside that creates wholeness, balance, stability, and a true spiritual life. A spiritual life without both, is incomplete. The spiritual life is the whole, interior and exterior together in balance.

One of the best advances in medicine (both physiology and psychology) in recent years has been the push to stop seeing the body as atomistic, that is, treating only the brain, or only the eyes, or only the heart, and to begin seeing it as a whole, interdependent system, wherein all subsystems are considered, as well as they patient's emotional and spiritual well-being.

From the inside flows health. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. And, so he becomes.

 

[sojourner]

Meister Eckhart said it well,

One person in this debate, who I won't name, is of the opinion that Eckhart is theologically untenable.


Go figure.

 

[Yoshua]

This is so ridiculous I have to respond. The earth is not a circle. The earth is a globe, or a sphere. There is a difference. One is a two-dimensional disc, the other a three-dimensional sphere. Does the Bible say circle, or sphere?

Here is an illustration of the flat earth model, the "circle" model of the religious leader Glen Wilbur Voliva in 1931 offering $5000 to any scientist who could prove the earth was a globe! He has a rather wonderful circle earth complete with an ice shelf rim to keep us from falling over the edge, all based upon his reading and interpretation of the verses you quote to support a spherical earth I'll add. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/

I think you could learn a lot about your own reading of the Bible from this man. Perhaps you may find truth in his scriptural views and join the flat-earth-society too. It would be consistent with the rest of your reading of scripture as authoritative in matters of science and history.

Hi Windwalker,

Ok. Thanks for your additional resources. I’m just thinking why Isaiah used the word “chug”(Heb.) for a circle. Anyway, I don’t want to discuss more of this. What I greatly appreciated is God’s creation of earth for us that was specified in the Book in Genesis.

So which "above" are we talking about? Above North America, or above Australia? "Above" is relative to someone's position standing on a globe. Exactly where is this "place" God "sits"? The clouds? In low orbit? In high orbit? On the moon? Maybe in the sun? One of the other planets? Another solar system? If you're going to read this as a scientific description, then you need to locate God. Where is heaven? Clearly it has a physical location based upon a scientific reading of the Bible.

It does not mention in particular where He sits, but above the circle of the earth.

It clearly, and according to you authoritatively states he "sits", which means he has legs and a butt. Is God bipedal, quadrupedal, or follow the body plan of an arachnid? This is science, so we need to read it as such and ask these legitimate scientific questions. What size are God's feet? How many fingers does he have? What color is his hair? How tall is he? What does he eat to survive? And so forth. How can he walk in the garden and sit on his throne if he has no physical body and heaven is not a physical place?

The word “sits” is “dwell,” not literally sitting as human who sits on the chair. Therefore, we can’t proceed to apply those questions about God’s features or characteristics.

It is said, John 4:24. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

I'll repeat so it didn't get missed. A circle is a disc. A disc is flat. Is a disc like a frisbee which is flat, or is it round like a baseball which is a sphere? One does not typically refer to the circle of a baseball. They call it a ball. But one can refer to the circle of a flat disc like a frisbee.

Thanks for your message.

 

[Yoshua]

No I didn't. Jesus taught love. Ergo, when we act with love, we are following Jesus' teaching.

Hi Sojourner,

Ok. It seems John 14:23 command is exempt from your spirituality in loving God.

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.

You're really torturing this text in order to make it say what you want it to say. People can follow Jesus and be all sorts of different kinds of religions. People can display sacrificial love and be all sorts of different kinds of religions.

Ok. From my understanding with your statement, it would come out that Jesus is allowing us to believe and adhered different religions aside from Christianity.

Correct. That's what I said: Those who love (that is, follow Jesus' commandments), love Jesus. You're confused because you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm wrong, and asserting that you're right. You don't know what you're talking about here.

Ok. Does keeping and remaining in His word here is to follow God’s word and Jesus teachings?

That's exactly right, because "the whole pie" is comprised of every concept of the Divine. That's how the metaphor works. You torture the metaphor by insisting that a pie is comprised of only one ingredient. But a pie contains milk, flour, sugar, eggs, fruit of one kind or another, etc. A pie is also cut into many pieces if it is to be used for its intended purpose. Those ingredients and pieces represent all the different ways of perceiving the Divine. Christianity is only one piece of a much larger pie, just as Christianity is only one religion in a much larger milieu of religious expression.

Sorry. Your example of pie illustration is not applicable for me—as the follower of Christ. Here is an article about your concept of the pie:

When All Religions Become One
It's been stated that there are only two religious systems in the world, though there are thousands of religions. The most popular system is that man makes his own way to God and does various works to please Him, to be accepted by Him (or her, or it). The other way, the true way -- that God came from heaven, became man, did the work for mankind that no other man could do, and man needs to accept it and live by it.

All religion's have men pleasing God by [their] own hands, by their deeds. They are trying to reach upward to God; building their stairway to heaven. The difference: Christianity teaches that man is unable to reach God, so God himself reached downward with His own Son from heaven [and] became a man to accomplish the solution to our dilemma, which has always been sin. His offer of the gospel to each one of us is [our opportunity] to make a personal decision to follow Christ, not [to] join a religion or become a member of a church.

There are many in our postmodern culture who claim that the creator God in the various cultures is the same. This is validated because of some similarities of what is said to be good and what is evil. But none match ANY of the qualities, or descriptions, of the God of the Bible! You find immense differences when you [look beneath] the surface-level arguments.

Ecumenism says that since other nations (and religions) do not accept us, we must change and adopt some of their beliefs -- conglomerate, so that we can move toward a peaceful coexistence. This means they want us to surrender our convictions to those who have a different set of beliefs.

The new openness [seen] in church[es] [veils what] are really re-education centers. They call this progress for a new age.

In almost every culture around the world, the religions found [there] usually had a supreme creator God (above other gods) who lived in the heavens. Most were not Monotheistic, but had multiple gods who often were associated with nature (Romans 1 explains this). Many had a supreme being, with other gods under him; some have a goddess. Some claim that God to be the same one in all cultures, but the cultures describe his nature very different [from the God of] the Bible.

All these descriptions of the different religions have irreconcilable differences with God's nature, His principles, and man's relationship to Him. That is because all religions are not the same. There are major contradictions in their fundamental core beliefs.

While there was a common beginning, according to Romans 1, as the civilization... moved further away from the time of Genesis, their knowledge of God [was] already corrupted and became more corrupted until we arrive in history at where we are today.

In Genesis, God ...pronounced His judgment on these gods and man's departure from Him by a flood. After the flood, when God was developing Israel into a theocracy, not one culture around the Mesopotamia area was accepted. First Chronicles 16:26: “For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens .”

The Bible says, “God is not a man that he should lie." James writes that there is no variation or shadow of turning in Him. Jesus said, "I am the truth, thy word is truth."

God is not going to tell people...different things on same subject. Truth by its very nature is internally and eternally consistent. If there are various teachings that are contradictory, then they cannot come from the [true] God.

We see the result of syncretism, as many take the gods of their cultures and religions and presume that their god is the same (as the) God (Yahweh) of the Bible. Syncretism is the belief that all the different religions worship the same God but use different names. Worshiping a different God does not only mean [worshiping] one with a different name; it can also [mean to worship] a different concept of God with the same name. God did not consider these other gods another name for Himself and neither should we. http://letusreason.org/ecumen20.htm

 

[Yoshua]

Don't confuse "following Jesus" with "being a Christian." They aren't the same thing. One follows Jesus when one loves; when one does what Jesus does. Remember, Jesus said that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord!" (meaning, "identify as 'Christian'") will enter the kin-dom, because not all who confess as Christian do what Jesus did.

That is not confusing at all, you said is true. “Following Jesus” is a Christian. Becoming a follower of Christ is not “being a Christian” but being a follower.

If a Christian loves, that love came from the love of Christ; he is not born as to love others (as I said before). That love—is one of the fruit of the Spirit. One learn to love (not hating other people) by the power of the Holy Spirit. Loving God is by following Him. There is no such thing as not following if you love God.

Matt. 7:21
21. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.

This Scripture shows that we should do the will of God. What are those will of God? Those are the teachings of Jesus Christ, loving, obeying and abiding in His words; being transformed by renewing our mind and following Him in the path of righteousness.

Luke 22:42
42. saying, "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done."

His will shall be followed, not our own will.

Other religions are taken under consideration because they're real -- they exist under the umbrella of human religious expression. You don't get to decide that "all other religions are false."

Yes, they are real in their religious faith as they worshiped their God. They are free to express their faiths. That is true that we are not the one who decide that all other religions are false. Absolutely! It is the Spirit of truth who will convict us, and guide us in all truth. That would mean there is a false truth. Jesus would not give us the Spirit of truth if there is already truth for all. This is the statement of Jesus, and consistent with His confession “I am the truth.” Therefore, it is Jesus Christ who decides, it is His word that is pointing to the truth.

John 16:13-15
13. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14. "He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.
15. "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you.

You need to study your Christian history and theology more. There are highly Platonic and Pagan influences that both lie at the root of Christian thought.

You don’t need to say that. Jesus did not promote paganism in the first place. We are focus our mind and heart to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. It is the relationship with Him that matters by obeying His word.

I don't give a tinker's damn what you "said." You're misreading the text. Take another look:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"
Take a real close look at what I've emphasized: It is the the gift of God. God is the impetus for faith. It is, therefore, God who saves.

Yes, of course, it is God who saves. We are saved by the grace of God; we are saved through faith, and we are saved for God’s working. If your concept about Eph. 2:8-9, that God is the impetus for faith, do you mean that without God, man is without faith?

Or because there is God, we should have faith to receive God’s offer of salvation?

If has been answered. How many times have I said, "Love is the impetus for doing these things?"
It has been asked and answered many times.

Yes, I know you answered repeatedly, all because of love. But this Scriptures has been dissected to identify the truth if it is the cause of love or the result of love. Anyway, its ok. I will just give my emphasis to this one.

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Is this statement a result of love or cause of love?

For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that is a cause of love.

that whoever believes in Him should not perish, is the evidence of love to Him.

but have eternal life is the result of love.

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.
Is this statement a result of love or cause of love?

If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word is the evidence of love to Him.

My Father will love him is the result of love.

And "whoever" = "all humanity." Doesn't Phil. 2 say that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...?" Doesn't Luke 15 say that the shepherd searches until all are found?

“Whoever” means the person or people who; any person who. Any person who will believe in Him in John 3:16.

I don’t see any connection with Phil. 2 and Luke 15 in regard to humanity, because the word “whoever” is particular in any person who believes in Him. The emphasis in John 3:16 is individual, and not the same as all people will bow and confess, including until all are found. Luke 15 emphasized God’s love, and not the call of believing Him.

There is that which we can prove with a fair degree of certainty, and then there is that which is obviously highly mythic.

So, that would mean Jesus is only a myth?

Your loss. Just because "you didn't study it" doesn't mean it isn't so. You're not a theologian.

Not really because I did not claim as theologian, but I love theology.

The nature of humanity after the fall is precisely the same as the nature of humanity before the fall. We are now, and always have been, the imago dei.
Adam was naked before the fall. After the fall, Adam was still naked. But he saw that he was naked, and covered himself. IOW, he put on a mask that covered his natural nudity. Jeezzus!!! How frickin' plain can it be?!

This is precisely why non-theologians shouldn't toy around with it as if they actually knew something about it. Because then they end up coming up with foolish and unfounded ideas that "contemplation is satanic."

Yes, he covered it because of sin.
Come on. I did not say that I know everything. I never used the word satanic in our discussion of contemplation.
Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Every scriptural reference you've given has been your interpretation. Every. Single. One.

Ok. Then I’ll get my pick to show you.

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.

Did we talk about love, this is the precise Scripture that is about love. May I know from you who uttered this statement ?

But not literalistically, in the manner you propose. Literalism is a product of modernity.

How do you think that the bereans examined the Scriptures?

It is whether literal or figurative/metaphoric, still they are very eager to hear the message of Paul and Silas; examined the Scriptures in daily basis. What we can learn from them is their acceptance of the word with eagerness and have the heart to examined the message that will be heard.

Acts 17:10-12
10. And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.
12. Many of them therefore believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Let me expound on this ridiculous argument.
In Genesis, where it talks about the firmament, that word "firmament" is directly translated from the Hebrew raqiya, which literally means, "A hammered-out bowl." 1) a raqiya is, specifically, a bronze bowl that is formed into a bowl shape through the smithing process of hammering. A "hammered-out bowl" is rigid. It's solid. It can be (and is) shaped by hammering on it with a hammer. 2) a bowl is (generally speaking) bowl-shaped. That is, it is (more or less) some sort of partial spheroid. Where the bowl's rim is defined, it forms a ... circle. 3) If the bowl is turned upside-down and placed so that the rim conforms exactly to some surface upon which it rests, that surface upon which it rests is also ... circular, but cannot, by the laws of geometry, be spheroid (otherwise, the bowl could not cover the surface).

So, by the use of the term raqiya, it's obvious that the biblical writers conceived of the earth as a generally flat, disc-shaped object, which was covered by a rigid (and solid) dome (the sky). Upon this solid dome were affixed the sun, moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies. The dome of the sky then rotated around the disc of the earth, such that the sun, moon and stars move about over said dome.

As an interesting aside, for the ancient writers of Genesis, light doesn't come "from the sun." Light comes from "somewhere else," since light was created before the sun. Therefore, the bible is WRONG, and has been proven WRONG by science.

Gen. 1:1-5

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Did you know any other being or entity who created the light and the sun?

When God said “Let there be light,” is there a light day, and the darkness called night? Is it wrong?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, hacks. This is what happens when the Bible "interprets itself" in the hands of the non-expert.

Did you know that you also interpreted Scriptures? you may review your post on how you use the Scriptures to prove contemplative practices. Did you remember when you used Galatians Scriptures parallel with other Scriptures?

Both of us interpreted the Scriptures. It is a matter of the sound interpretation (with basis) or accepting what the Scripture says (commandments, teachings of Christ and God’s word for us). Then, who’s talking to a non-expert? I don’t claim that I’m an expert.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

A line is not a circle. The Sun travels very fast in a curved course (not a line) going around the galaxy center as we go around the sun. The sun also doesn't live in a house at the edge of the world like this above passage plainly claims. This passage is bad science. Admit it or you deserve shame.

Hi Bricks,

I don’t pushing it for a circle here. It is saying that the sun has orbit. This is a description about the sun, isn’t it? If you’re not agree with it. Then what is your explanation about this. You may give your word about this.

It is much different from hanging. The point is the Bible has such a terrible, unscientific description of what our spherical (not circular) Earth is doing. Rather than hanging, if you could stand in front of it you'd be squashed, run over and vaporized, because it is moving so fast. Its rotating and revolving, and the sun does not live in a house at its edge. This Bible passage is unhelpful and has been a nightmare for Scientists for centuries. It got Galileo and Johann Kepler into trouble with their church, because their actual scientific descriptions alarmed Bible enthusiasts. It was the fault of those Bible enthusiasts for demanding that the Bible be a science text.

Did the earth hangs on nothing now based on science? Or you have nay idea that I did not know about the earth that is hanging on something? Did the earth float in space?

It is a terribly unscientific description. Its incredibly unhelpful to any scientist or student of the stars. Like I said, anybody can look up at night and see that there's no way to count all of the stars. The statement has zero scientific value or help in it.

Notice also that the Bible misdirects you into thinking that the sun is not a star. We now know that the sun is a star contrary to the Bible's statement that the sun rules the day and the stars rule the night. It is just another star, the same as other stars, not different. The Bible made a distinction between the sun and the stars, misleading anyone who took it as an astronomical text.

I think you should not say that the Bible misdirected me. I believe that is really a shame. Did you have any idea who made the stars if you don’t believe in the Bible, or you believe in a big bang theory?

What I ‘m focusing here is the stars, if there is really a star in the sky, and the Bible says there is a star. Then, that is truth. As simple as that.

Remember that the Bible is not an astronomical book or a Science book. Its about people and ideas, and its got a beneficial purpose of bringing civilization many gifts but not Science. It never gave us facts about astronomy. What it did give us was a logical deductive process used by the Jews for their legal processes, and that became one of the pillars of science all over the world which did eventually allow us to truly understand what the Earth was shaped like and that the sun was a star, contrary to appearances and certain Bible passages.

I know that the Bible is not an astronomical book, but some of the Scriptures stated about planetary (sun, moon, stars, orions……..). Therefore, it can be a fact or evidence that God created those planets, stars, moons etc..

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

How complicated is it to understand the many plain thoughts expressed in the Bible, such as...forgive one another or God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life? Seems to me you are just coming up with excuses to avoid accepting the obvious plain truths of the scriptures.

Hi InChrist,

Some people look at the word "interpretation" as a hindrance to further study God's word. Not all Scriptures are hard to understand, it is self-understandable as the Scripture interpret itself. What others could not understand is how the Holy Spirit guides those who received and accepted His word in their hearts and mind. This is how the work of God manifested to all His believers--as the Spirit of truth guides them in all truth. Amen.

Thanks