Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church?
Source:
creation.com
URL Source: http://creation.com/my-pastor-doesnt-believe-in-genesis
Published: Nov 15, 2014
Author: creation.com
Post Date: 2014-11-15 19:23:45 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 85994
Comments: 223
My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church? Published: 15 November 2014 (GMT+10) We received the following question from a supporter in Australia who was surprised to discover the pastors of his church did not believe Genesis. Tas Walker talks about some of the issues that need to be considered. "Hi guys, I love your work, and have subscribed to the magazine and am continually encouraged by what you guys publish". "I have a question. I’m at a church which I’ve attended for the last 12 years (I’m now 30). I’ve since realized that none of the 3 pastors take a straightforward reading of Genesis, and at least 2 of the 3 (haven’t yet checked the 3rd) don’t even believe the Flood was global. I was wondering if you had some advice on what I should do about this. I have 2 kids and 1 on the way and I want them growing up in a biblically sound church. Apart from Genesis our church is excellent. Do you think leaving the church is too drastic? Love to get your feedback, thanks heaps"! Tas Walker replies: Thank you for your question about being part of a church where the pastors do not accept Genesis as written. Unfortunately that is more common these days than it should be. The decision as to which church you and your family should belong to depends on many different factors. Here are some issues for you to think and pray about. There is no such thing as a perfect church. In some areas the church may be really good for you but in others it may be totally unhelpful. So you have to balance a lot of factors in your life. There are usually good reasons in your life why you belong to the church you do, but churches change with time. E.g. sometimes the youth ministry is strong and other times it struggles. Your pastoral team will change and that will bring a different dynamic. So, perhaps by waiting you may see things improve. Church is not just about what you can get out of it, but it is a place where you can minister to others with your gifts. Your passion and experience with creation may be one area where you can be a blessing to others. In every church you will have to stand for and speak out the truth, and this can apply to many different issues. In this particular church the issue that you need to bring to others is the truth and foundation of Genesis. But speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. Look at this as an opportunity to share some wonderful truth that otherwise would not be shared. Rather than pushing creation in six days on people as if it is your hobby horse, use it to meet their needs as you become aware of them. Thus, you can present the truth to people along the following lines: “You may find this will help resolve some of your doubts and give you a firm foundation as you follow Christ.” I always take back issues of Creation magazine to church, as well as brochures and DVDs, which I freely give to people as the need arises. Speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. You may be influential in the thinking and life of your pastors. It’s important to love them and support them. Don’t be divisive or argumentative. Don’t be a one-issue person but show that you are interested in the wider ministry of the church and that your passion is to serve Jesus Christ and to help others come to Him and grow in Him. Here are two examples of how a person in the pews was pivotal in helping their minister come to the truth of Genesis: A young man in a church lent a book to his minister who was big enough to read the book and research the issue and who changed his mind (see Esa Hukkinen interview). This pastor, Owen Butt, believed Genesis was myth but changed his mind after attending a creation meeting, and that changed his whole approach to ministry. What this article does not say is that it was one of his congregation who fed him information and invited him to the creation meeting, where his whole way of thinking was changed (See Catching the vision). Make sure that your family is properly instructed in the truth of Genesis and creation by providing books, DVDs and other resources for them. Talk about the question and issues as they arise. However, note that it is really important to always speak in a positive way about your pastors and your church, especially with your children. If there is a critical spirit and an undermining of your pastors and your church in your home, that will poison things for your children. If the situation becomes very difficult for you, with say the pastors instructing you not to talk about the issue you may need to think about moving. In the same way, you could not accept a ministry offer from the pastors if they included a condition that you could not talk about creation in that ministry or in the church. So if there is a hardening and aggressiveness develops toward your position, say from the pulpit, you may need to think about moving. In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5 God bless, Tas Walker
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-11) not displayed.
.
.
.
#12. To: A K A Stone, CZ82, vicomte13, redleghunter (#1)
The more relevant question IMO is what is the reason for Genesis? Why did God create Man to begin with, especially if God is all knowing and knew beforehand that He would have to send His Son to be killed at the hands of Man to bring Man back into His graces? There is a difference between belief and faith. There was a whole thread on LP dedicated to just Genesis. There were a few very well educated on Scriptures posting on that thread. Bottom line, it resolved nothing. Either one has faith or one doesn't. Choosing the flavor of one's religion or church is almost irrelevant. One can make a good argument that churches are divisive not unifying institutions among the faithful. This has the making to be an interesting thread but in the end it will not change anyone's mind or resolve the question.
Come on, Bro, bring it. If I recall correctly some people disgreed with you on LP on the Just Genesis thread but no-one ripped your head off. You made very interesting and articulate points, well worth revisiting here. Besides, this is LF not LP {says Same Old Same Old}.
Oh? Sez who? Please post the one and only authoritative (or is that authoritive) version of the Holy Bible in which all of the faithful MUST believe as the literal representation of historic events that occured prior to any written language. You have several to choose from so please take your time.
Good to see you Bob, how are things going with your treatments?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Some translations are easy to know as bad. Exact translations from original sources are good. I like King James, American Standard, and the revisions of them. I am sure there are others. Are there any that you like?
They are all about the same to me and more or less equally flawed in one way or the other. None represent the Word of God as claimed by each proponant of their claim of being the one and only true representation of the Word of God.
Why did God create Man to begin with, especially if God is all knowing and knew beforehand that He would have to send His Son to be killed at the hands of Man to bring Man back into His graces? The reason for Genesis is exactly that; A brief explanation of The Beginning. As to your other questions, some things will have to remain a mystery in this mortal life. Unless you believe man in his never-ending vanity and arrogance is simply entitled to OR capable of knowing the Game Plan of The Almighty. One can make a good argument that churches are divisive not unifying institutions among the faithful. May be the case at your church. It has been MY observation that heathens, narcissists, atheists, and Muslims are THE most divisive forces on the planet. Do you refute my contention?
The how is explained but not the why. "As to your other questions, some things will have to remain a mystery in this mortal life. I totally concur. Mortal Man can never undrestand the Mind of God, much less the nature of the Infinite. That is why every version, every interpretation of the Bible is flawed. The very essence of language is a man made concept. God doesn't need language. In fact if you liereally believe the Bible, God created different languages to confound Man long before any Christian Bible was ever put into writting. "It has been MY observation that heathens, narcissists, atheists, and Muslims are THE most divisive forces on the planet. Do you refute my contention? " Yes, I do with respect to heathen and atheists, and perhaps narcissists that recognize that there is something greater than themself. I agree with respect to Islam.
On board. That is why every version, every interpretation of the Bible is flawed. Flawed or misinterpreted? OR, misunderstood within the tapestry of scripture? The very essence of language is a man made concept. God doesn't need language. God downloaded language and understanding of it into our DNA and hardrive. Scripture as told/written to man was exactly the way God wanted it articulated. If our heart hardens and our vanity tried to reinterpret scripture as we please, we lose its essential meaning as intended. You may not agree with my assessment -- I understand and accept that. Yes, I do with respect to heathen and atheists, and perhaps narcissists that recognize that there is something greater than themself. I agree with respect to Islam. See? We're not as far apart as it may seem. There's always bound to be quibbling on this entire subject.
Bob, yes, how are you doing? Still battling with all ya got, brutha?
Why? God is Love my friend. 1 John 4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Sure go for it. You are a man of honor. But if there was no Adam and Eve to bring sin into the world. What exactly would be the purpose of Jesus if Adam and Eve were made up. I know it is repetitive of the above. Your question, and Don's, and SOSO's comment to me... I'm going to take the time to write a careful, comprehensive and clear answer.
Thank you Sir, Rat poison is 99.9% good food, but that .1% kills the rat every time, so it is with watered down versions of the Bible and preaching what God meant to say instead of what He did say. God bless, Bob
Thank you, Seems Christ is going to keep me around a bit longer.
Doing good, Seems the Lord likes using surgeons to get my attention, and it works.
Thanks, I believe that this will be a worhwhile endeavor for the interested. May I suggest two therads be started: Why Genesis? and Just Genesis. The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man, the latter the biblical account of Genesis as historical fact and/or meaning. Obvioulsy both why and how of creation have an impact on how one views and accepts the teachings of the Bible. Frankly I expect that the former thread would have a very short existenace as the bottom line is no-one knows why God rolled up His sleves in a creation mode.
God is Love my friend. 1 John 4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
No doubt in my mind, among other things. But that doesn't explain why He created Man. Did He need someone to love? Did He need someone to love Him? Did He need the physical Universe to play in? Or for His children to play in? Does God need anything?
God created us in His image and likeness. When a man and woman procreate and the child is born do people ask why they wanted a child?
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
When a man and woman procreate and the child is born do people ask why they wanted a child? People are not God. Soylent green is people. BTW, it used to be common to ask why a married couple didn't want children. What does that have to do with God? {You can't ask for a better set-up than that, you Ole Ram.}
You approach this with a hardened heart. Why does an artist paint? They want to create!
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I know why God filled up the sky and the land: because he wanted to. There is nothing more to it than that. God does what he wants. Why do YOU like, say, blue things? Because you do. You prefer it because you prefer it. So it is with God. God is God. He doesn't have a "reason" as such, that "causes" him to "have to" do something or aim at a result. He's God. He does what he does because it pleases him to do so - a painter on a blank canvas.
The more stubborn someone is usually translates into how long we inhabit this world. Had an Aunt that lived to 99, you could have beaten her with a stick and she wouldn't have changed. :)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
There is nothing more to it than that. God does what he wants. Well, OK then. God does as He jolly well pleases and we, His creations, can just run around arguing about not only what He did, or if He did, but why He did. It all makes perfect sense now. God does not need to communicate to us a purpose for our existence, and we shouldn't expect to have one, much less ask Him. Thanks for clearing that up.
I would say more of a Doubting Thomas need. My heart is not hardened towards God. It's my human intellect that is seeking answers, answers to questions that I know are beyond human comprehension. But the questions persist. Even Thomas needed tangible proof. Am I less than Thomas in that regard? "Why does an artist paint? Artists are not God. "They want to create!" So we have a God, Lord of the Infinite, that wants, or needs, to create? Heck, even the artist would not engage in creation if he knew the outcome before he started. That would be kind of redundant, if not anti-climatic.
God walked the Earth among us. Dude what more do you need!
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Well, that is the way it is. God is God. The Scriptures do record what God said - the rules he laid on us (there are not many). He's free, and he made us to rule over this place. And that's the extent of it. That's what we know, and that's all we know. We can just make shit up and ascribe it to God, if we want to, but when we do that, it's not true.
On this I totally agree. But its human nature to inquire, to want to know why. And isn't God that bestowed that nature upon us? At times it seems that He has a cruel sense of humor.
Tangible proof that God exists and who he is exists. That is a very different question than why he does what he does. WHO, and WHETHER, yes, God reveals that. WHY? That's a question whose only answer is: because he wants to. The tangible proof of God exists: God left specific concrete miracles, things that defy the regular laws of nature, as tangible evidence THAT he is. And the content of those miracles shows us WHO he is (and who he isn't). Nothing answers WHY, and he didn't reveal that. Now, when it comes to the tangible proofs of God, this is a science question. Trying to discuss it, in my experience, always turns into a ridiculous scrum of irrational and unscientific conclusions, for obvious reasons: once the proof is admitted, then one finds one's self forced onto a path of further inquiry and admission that limits ones rational freedom of choice. And people don't like that. They resist it for the same reason that smokers have always resisted the idea that it's bad for their health to smoke. Certainly if we want to go the route of Thomas and have the tangible proof, THAT we can have and do have, in spades. But just because we have it doesn't mean that men who don't want there to be such proof will accept it. The proof is not in the form of written words. Words are wind. Rather, the written words give us the backstory of the proofs. The proofs are tangible artifacts left by God. The written words give context to the artifacts, and the artifacts vouch for the written words. In tandem, they give us the skein of proof, history and law. What we choose to do with it then is up to us. Men who don't want there to be a God, or a law, will cross their arms and claim there is no proof. Baghdad Bob said that the Americans weren't in Baghdad too. Denial of reality doesn't change the reality. You spoke of two different threads: What Genesis said, and Why God did all of that. But here, you broached the subject that really is a completely different subject for a thread: the tangible physical proof of God. That's not in Genesis at all. Genesis is words on a page. Actual Thomas-satisfying proof is physical stuff you can touch and examine under a microscope...and when you do, discover that it cannot be under the laws of physics, but nevertheless IS. THAT is proof. Thomas didn't say "I won't believe unless I see", and then, when shown by Christ, say "I still don't believe. You could be a ghost or I might be crazy or hallucinating." The Pharisees were the ones doing that. They saw Jesus heal paralytics and couldn't deny it, so they said "He did it with the power of Satan". The price of accepting the evidence would have meant the overthrow of their religion and the acceptance of a new one, and many men would rather die than do that.
Why do you like girls?
Hey just checked. I have 2 Bozos and rarely posted here in the past. Can you beat that:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind? If so, you can learn much. Or are you a man who has in fact really already made up his mind, are certain that there's no such proof, that such proof cannot really exist, that anything shown as proof can and surely will be exploded by simply applying reason to it? Are you already certain that no satisfactory answers to your questions exist, or ever will exist? In other words, are your questions real questions that are truly searching for something, or are they rhetorical, leading questions whose answers you are already sure you know? The answer to these questions of intent determine whether any conversation is worthwhile. This question is important from the perspective of someone like me, who might or might not be willing to expend the effort to try to answer the questions. I am happy to bring my proofs to a real court, but it's a waste of time, worse than useless, to bring them before a kangaroo court. I've been before many kangaroo courts, and usually see them constituted. And the men who sit on them who sit in pre-judgment of all that would be brought before them are dull and foolish and not worth my time. Men with open minds who believe that maybe the questions CAN be answered, at least somewhat, and who are willing to find out: they are worth the time. Me, personally, I had to start with the tangible proofs of God. Without the proofs, without the knowledge certain THAT God is, I could see no point in investing the time necessary to really try to understand what he had to say or wanted of me. I am a man, and I give other men the courtesy of believing them to be exactly like me: wanting proof. I also give them the courtesy of believing them to be like me in being honest, at least with themselves, and earnestly seeking proof. I believe that any honest, intelligent, scientifically-educated man who studies the tangible proofs God left us will come face to face with the reality of the existence of God. And that changes the nature of scientific inquiry, because it removes many question marks. It makes new questions important, such as: Ok, God IS, but WHO is he? And what does he WANT of me (if anything). The tangible artifacts answer the first question completely. But then the trail goes cold. Then you have only two choices: God tells you directly, or you have to read accounts of other people telling you what God said to them. In the latter case, you have to compare what other men claim God said to them to the physical artifacts. If the claims of men contradict the physical proofs, then you have a choice to make: reject the physical proof that your own eyes can see, or reject the claims of men that contradict them. Me? I follow the second course. Then, if one has found a set of words that one believes contains words from God, one has to read and parse those words carefully, to see what they say and who they claim said what. It's worth the effort if God is, and if God spoke that way. It's an utter waste of time if God isn't. "Just believe that God is and go straight to the text" is an approach that works for some. Some of them are Christians. Some are Jews. Some are Muslims. Some are Hindus. Some are Bhuddists. They all contradict and they all have their books of words in which they believe, without anchoring in tangible proof. But words are wind, and if they don't come from God, they come from man. So I myself, personally, have to start with the tangible proof. Of course, I DIDN'T start with the tangible proof. In point of fact, my starting position was that no such tangible proof could possibly exist. I wasn't a skeptic, I was a cynic. So where I actually started was with revelation: God grabbed my face and threw me around and spoke to me. And showed me things. And visited often. And so did demons. I saw the Dove. I saw the City. I was plunged into the black Abyss. I found these experiences impressive, so I looked for tangible proofs to corroborate that I was in fact speaking with spirits and not just bat-shit crazy. There is a lot of tangible proof left by God, all of it quite astounding and quite impossible. So, God is. All of the tangible proof is Christian in nature. The informational content of the objects and artifacts are miraculous, and they present some Christian fact or simply are of Christians. If there were any counterexamples from any OTHER religion, there would be a competition of ideas, but there aren't. Every miraculous, science-defying artifact is Christian in content - every single one. I've identified about six dozen of them. The other religions have no entries in the game. So, personal revelation is corroborated by miracle, and all of the miracles - all of the cornucopia of artifacts left by God - are Christian in nature. Therefore God is the God of Christ, and all of the other religions are false or incomplete. Therefore there's no point in studying anything but Christianity. But there are 6000 squabbling, irritable Christianities, so maybe the answer is not to study Christianity, but to keep eyes focused on God. Ok, so, the artifacts are Christian miracles from God - where in Christianity does God speak directly? In written Scripture, and in some claimed revelations of saints. Since I've spoken to God, and what God and I spoke of is not Scripture, I know that God certainly DOES speak to people and perform miracles today, and did not stop doing so in the First Century. There's a made up tradition that says the opposite, but words are wind. I've experienced miracles, so arguments that God doesn't do that sort of thing anymore are lies. They're not just errors, because there was no basis for making the error: they are positively asserted lies by men seeking to privilege their particular power, gained by their learning. It would be great for them if God were so easily contained. But he isn't, and he said not to lie, so actually they're in duck soup and considerable danger, because of their own stubborn and foolish insistence on the authority of stories they made up out of wholecloth. Now then, proceeding on, God didn't say much to me, really. Lot's of repetition about specific points. The content of the artifacts says that God is, and Christ is divine. So what can we do? Well, we can look at the words of men who claim God spoke to them - both in the claims of saints since the First Century, and in the canonized claims of those from the First Century and before. And there, we can find a set of words, attributed to God directly, about 8% of Scripture and a few more sentences from claims of saints, embedded in a whole lot more verbiage that may or may not be true. The artifacts vouch for the God speaking in Scripture, so you look at what HE said DIRECTLY, first. Then you compare THOSE words to the rest of the words, and you find conflicts. You don't find conflict between God and himself, but there IS conflict between what God said directly, and what men said ABOUT God, both in Scripture and without. And then you have to make a choice. Well, me? I know God is, because I've spoken to him. And I know there's a Devil too - I've seen a demon. I know who God is from the artifacts. And I know what God said directly because it's recorded. So, THAT'S reliable. And then there's the rest of it. Where is agrees, that's good. Where it conflicts, well, there's a choice to be made, and 100% of the time I go with what God said directly, and I disregard or diminish in importance what some other man wrote that contradicts what God said directly out of his own mouth. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." - Jesus, speaking to Satan. Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole. So, if I've got God saying that he sends good and evil, but I've got some Psalmist saying that God is only good and never does evil, well, the Psalmist is wrong. All Scripture may be God breathed, but it's not all of equal authority. And it's only the fact of the reality of God that gives Scripture authority in the first place. The lack of concrete tangible evidence for the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita leave them unsubstantiated, but when contrasted with the presence of such concrete tangible evidence for the Christian Gospel only, the relative presence and lack of evidence proves the truth of the Christian Gospel and the falsity of the rest. That's how it all hangs together. We can talk about each piece, or not. It depends entirely on the mental attitude of the ones who wish to speak. If there is real interest and an open mind, then good. But if the interlocutor has a closed mind, Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine.
Nobody has bozoed me yet. I hope none do.
I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line. "Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole." And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him.
LOL I give it a week:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
LMAO. It must be the Jesuit in you. I don't have any yet. It must be my charming personality. BTW, can you help witless TC to unbunch his panties? Perhaps that will get you off the bozo list.
Well I've been cataloging terrorist Jihadi cells for well over 10 years now. After a few weeks you learn certain inflections and diction and can pin who it is. For you it was too easy. Almost like you wanted to be caught:) Almost as easy as unveiling the difference between a Sadrist cell and Iranian Kuds attack.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Are you calling me a Jihadist? Damn you:
And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him. Well, then, good! That moves all the freight, and we can come down to the brass tacks. We both know God is. We both know that the Father is God of all, and that Jesus is divine. We both know that Jesus told us that we have to follow him to be acceptable to the Father, and that to follow him we have to do what he said. So, what did he say? Well, we know that there's a cut, a judgment, and that some pass it and enter into the City of God, and others are left outside and/or thrown into the Lake of Fire. We know that within the City there will be different distinctions, greater or lesser, based on what each person did or didn't do in life. Everybody who passes judgment gets a room, but everybody doesn't get a throne and a crown. In this sense it's sort of like high school: those who graduate are going to go on to other things. The ones who did best will have the best colleges and jobs. The ones who did less well will have correspondingly dimmer prospects, but still be better off than the guy dying of malaria in a swamp in Bangladesh. So, the first big cut, the dividing line, is what will cause you to fail judgment and be thrown into the fire. Jesus gave a handy list, twice repeated on the last two pages of the Bible: If you've killed people, committed adultery, or sexual immorality, or been abominable (which includes some other forms of sexual immorality), or been a liar, or an idolator, or a drug trafficker, or a coward, you're not going to pass judgement and are going to be thrown into the lake of fire UNLESS you're forgiven. And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies. But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you. That's what Christ said, and he was the Son of God and the one who has to be followed, so whoever disagrees is wrong and should be silent and change himself to follow Christ. And that is the whole religion, really. That is ultimately what you have to do to pass judgment. Beyond that, to enjoy high status in the City of God, well, for that you have to be an exemplar of Christ's virtues. I think it's important to start with the most basic of basics: be baptized, eat bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, don't commit any of those deadly sins, and if you have, then repent, ask forgiveness, and forgive other men all of their sins against you. That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it.
But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you. That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it. Ah, but we both know that the devil is in the details.....don't we. Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy. BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.
How very well said. Liberals want catch and release hunting, liberals look in the air when they hear "look a dead bird".
Comments (53 - 223) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIf you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what?
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?
#14. To: Don (#9)
The Holy Bible isn't open to one's personal interpretation.
#15. To: BobCeleste (#6)
#16. To: SOSO (#14)
#17. To: Don (#16)
Some translations are easy to know as bad. Exact translations from original sources are good. I like King James, American Standard, and the revisions of them. I am sure there are others. Are there any that you like?
#18. To: SOSO, A K A Stone, CZ82, vicomte13, redleghunter (#12)
The more relevant question IMO is what is the reason for Genesis?
#19. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, CZ82, vicomte13, redleghunter (#18)
The reason for Genesis is exactly that; A brief explanation of The Beginning.
#20. To: SOSO (#19)
(Edited)
Mortal Man can never undrestand the Mind of God, much less the nature of the Infinite.
#21. To: CZ82, BobCeleste (#15)
#22. To: SOSO, Liberator, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, CZ82, TooConservative (#19)
The how is explained but not the why.
#23. To: A K A Stone, Don, SOSO (#7)
So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?
#24. To: redleghunter (#11)
#25. To: CZ82 (#15)
Good to see you Bob, how are things going with your treatments?
#26. To: Liberator (#21)
Bob, yes, how are you doing? Still battling with all ya got, brutha?
#27. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Don, SOSO (#23)
Your question, and Don's, and SOSO's comment to me... I'm going to take the time to write a careful, comprehensive and clear answer.
#28. To: SOSO (#27)
The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man
#29. To: redleghunter (#28)
God is Love my friend.
#30. To: SOSO (#29)
#31. To: redleghunter (#30)
God created us in His image and likeness.
#32. To: SOSO (#31)
#33. To: SOSO (#27)
(Edited)
May I suggest two therads be started: Why Genesis? and Just Genesis. The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man, the latter the biblical account of Genesis as historical fact and/or meaning. Obvioulsy both why and how of creation have an impact on how one views and accepts the teachings of the Bible. Frankly I expect that the former thread would have a very short existenace as the bottom line is no-one knows why God rolled up His sleves in a creation mode.
#34. To: BobCeleste (#25)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
I know why God filled up the sky and the land: because he wanted to.
#36. To: redleghunter (#32)
You approach this with a hardened heart.
#37. To: SOSO (#36)
#38. To: SOSO (#35)
Well, OK then. God does as He jolly well pleases and we, His creations, can just run around arguing about not only what He did, or if He did, but why He did. It all makes perfect sense now. God does not need to communicate to us a purpose for our existence, and we shouldn't expect to have one, much less ask Him. Thanks for clearing that up.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
We can just make shit up and ascribe it to God, if we want to, but when we do that, it's not true.
#40. To: SOSO (#36)
Even Thomas needed tangible proof. Am I less than Thomas in that regard?
#41. To: SOSO (#39)
On this I totally agree. But its human nature to inquire, to want to know why. And isn't God that bestowed that nature upon us? At times it seems that He has a cruel sense of humor.
#42. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#41)
#43. To: SOSO (#39)
#44. To: redleghunter (#42)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind?
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Nobody has bozoed me yet. I hope none do.
#47. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#42)
Hey just checked. I have 2 Bozos and rarely posted here in the past. Can you beat that:)
#48. To: SOSO (#47)
#49. To: redleghunter (#48)
Well I've been cataloging terrorist Jihadi cells for well over 10 years now.
#50. To: SOSO (#45)
I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line.
#51. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#50)
And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies.
#52. To: CZ82 (#34)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]