"bunch of bible thumpin going on."
The following email was sent to me from an old friend that I went to school with.....
--------------------------
Hey, just checked out two of your pages and I gotta say, bunch of bible thumpin going on. I don't know about that. I am not much on the whole religion in the Christianity or Catholic aspect of it. I have a totally different outlook on the subject. I think the bible contradicts itself in too many parts and I don't trust it. I think the most of the people who wrote the books of the bible may have exaggerated and possibly took too much opium before writing about what they witnessed. But if you have questions maybe I can help you a little here and a little there, I have read the bible thoroughly from front to back. Not skipping around or anything. If you want to know then read from the beginning and don't stop till you get to the end. You will see that the books and stories all say the same thing and really don't have a purpose other than to bring the reader in. Kinda like a Stephen King book. LOL.
Anyways, I was gonna post alot of stuff on your page but thought that I might piss a few of your friends off. If you want another way of looking at the bible then read on....
Point #1
The bible is written by many authors on the same subjects(More or less). Why?
Possible to make it seem as though it is real? If more than one person is saying it is so then perhaps it is. Or, could it be that in fact they all did witness the happenings and miracles. Base it on the facts: Back then, if someone said the sky was falling all the people would run and hide. So it must be true if two people said it. Another fact: Bible says Jesus is the son of God, but so was David, so was Adam, so when the bible says John 3.16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.....so on so on.... it only concludes that Jesus was just the newest son of God for everyone to talk about. Thus, like a soap opera booms into a long and inspiring new rumor.
Point #2
The bible is written by mostly men, mainly because there was possibility of more men around than women? Maybe because women were the lesser and therefore their opinion wasn't worth shit. Lets see if I can track down the truest form of contradiction: Ahhhh Luke 2.23 As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. That does it. Men are more holy, yet there are less men than women these days so is it that saying that God is abandoning us, by making more unholy than holy.
Point #3
God created the heaven and earth. God is in heaven. We are mere mortals awaiting our decent into the skies above. If god created heaven and earth then where was god before he made heaven? Only someone on drugs would start a book with a beginning that is so open to scrutiny.
Point #4
Just as in todays traditions it was so back then as well, you alway consummate a marriage my having sex with your new spouse. So Mary was a virgin. She was a married virgin. Yeah right. You can bet he tapped that ass as soon as he got her home. The bible recognizes the consummation rituals. The bible also recognizes Mary as Josephs wife. Therefore she couldn't have been a virgin.
If you want me to go on you just let me know... I got plenty more.
By the way if you are asking my religion........ you don't want to know. I am not a sadist or anything. I just believe different strokes for different folks and mine is less unique than most believe. I am still learning. In order to learn about what religion you want to be it is better to learn all kinds. Before making the decision to sign a lifelong contract with one. Besides, I have to admit the bible is good reading if you like a good mindfuck.
-------------------------------
My reply to your letter is like this:
You are more then welcome to post in this blog. I encourage you to do so. I'm looking for everybody's opinions, not just those of Christianity.
If anybody should have answers to her questions then please do reply below. I would like to hear them.
-John
-------------------------------
My reply to your letter is like this:
You are more then welcome to post in this blog. I encourage you to do so. I'm looking for everybody's opinions, not just those of Christianity.
If anybody should have answers to her questions then please do reply below. I would like to hear them.
-John
posted by John & Jennifer @ 2:14 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
By the way. Someone was kind enough to send two copies of "Letters of a skeptic" to Donny and myself.
I think I will find this book very interesting and I'm looking forward to reading it.
However, Donny lives an hour north of me and he has my book up there. He has made at least two trips my way and has failed to bring it both times.
I'm asking you, my (his)loyal readers, to pray that Donny either remember to bring my book with him on his next trip down, or I want him to get a flat tire and be stranded on the side of the road for 3 hours.
Think you can swing it people?
Pray!
NOTE: After I had just written the above request and before clicking on the "publish your comment" button I had reached over to my freshly poured (to the top of the glass) beer. I then proceeded to inadvertently pour it down the front of my shirt while proof reading my comment.
Coincidence?
Whoever wrote that only has a basic knowledge of the Bible, because they are making the mistake of looking at the Bible as one book, written like a novel.
That's not what it is. It's like a compilation of short stories. The authors lived in different lands at different times. Some lived at the same time, yes. But they wrote from different places across the world. They couldn't communicate with each other as we do today. There was no such thing as email and telephones. So the fact that many of them say the same exact things is what a lot of people find remarkable. That is a positive, rather than a negative as the person above seems to think.
Some of the books are hundreds of years apart, too. The authors of the books of the Bible rarely read what others had written. That would be like you and me messaging each other on ICQ at exactly the same time saying, "Hey, go read the blog entry I just wrote" and then finding out that, once we get to each others blogs, we've written the exact same thing without ever talking to each other beforehand.
John,
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
- Alexander Pope
Your friend's lack of understanding of the Bible is engendered of ignorance. His point of reference is invalid, and his argument, therefore, is without merit.
As Donny points out, a more extensive knowledge of the Bible would be of great benefit to him.
As it happens, his statements are more an agenda than an observation, and as such must, necessarily, be dismissed entirely.
His espousal of position is analogous to someone who read the preface to "A Dummy's Guide to Physics" deprecating Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
- David
David is much more eloquent in speaking the truth in this matter. I love that last part. The idea of someone reading "Physics for Dummies" and then feeling they can disprove Einstein really amuses me greatly!
Thanks for the laugh David.
That is pretty hilarious :-)
John and Donny,
I am pleased to provide amusement.
Ah, now for some Peanut M&Ms and a nice nap!
- David
The person who is grounded in faith, has convictions, and speaks out to expose and reprove error (Col. 1: 23, I Cor. 15: 58, Eph. 5: 10, 11) is often charged with intolerance!
The charge presupposed we are to be unconditionally and without qualification tolerant.
Jesus was tolerant in matters morally and doctrinally indifferent. The Pharisees were very concerned and intolerant at Jesus' disciples plucking and eating corn on the Sabbath. However, Jesus was tolerant (Matt. 12: 1-8). The Pharisees were also very intolerant regarding Jesus' disciples eating without "washing." Jesus, on the other hand, was tolerant (Mk. 7: 1-13).
Jesus was intolerant. The casual reader of the New Testament has observed many instances of Jesus being intolerant and outspoken. In the foregoing cases regarding the Sabbath and the washing of hands, Jesus was intolerant with those who bound their traditions (Matt. 12: 1-8, Mk. 7: 1-13). The most wonderful sermon ever delivered is the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). This sermon actually is an expose of Phariseeism. Jesus expressed much intolerance and was very plain and outspoken (Matt. 5: 20, 27, 6: 1-8).
Upon closer examination one sees that when Jesus was tolerant, there was no sin involved, when Jesus was intolerant, sin was involved. Christians are to mimic Christ (I Pet. 2: 21). Hence, in matters not involving sin, the Christian is tolerant; but in matters involving a violation of God's laws, the Christian must be intolerant. God's word is also the standard to determine right and wrong - not emotions or what is politically correct (Gal. 2: 14).
Figures that men being of sound body and mind would believe the uneducated ramblings in this email were from a MAN. Sorry to disappoint... I am a very highly educated woman. Jesus and God both were NOT tolerant!!!! On the contrary God wiped out masses of people and flooded the earth with fire and water. How tolerant was SHE then?
Here are nine of my biggest thoughts on an errant Bible.
Sit back cause this is a long one.
PS: If you can guess what religion I am I will be completely impressed.
INDICATORS OF BIBLICAL ERRORS:
Ultimately, these beliefs must be accepted on faith. However, id proofs are not available, at least we might be able to derive some indicators of inerrancy or errancy. The most promising route may be to study themes and general topics seen throughout the Bible.
Indicator 1: Cosmological evidence:
Possibility 1: The Bible is inerrant. Its description of the world, the solar system and the rest of universe is accurate. As a minimum, the Bible would refer to the earth and planets as spheres, revolving around the sun, with the moon revolving around the earth, and stars at extreme distances from the earth and sun.
Possibility 2: The Bible is errant. Biblical authors would have picked up the cosmologies from surrounding Pagan cultures. The Babylonians and other Pagans believed that the earth was more or less flat with mountains around the edges that held up the rigid dome of the sky. The sky was relatively close to the earth - close enough so that the Tower of Babel was a threat to God's isolation. There were vents in the sky that could be opened. Through them, God or angels could pour water to produce rain. At the time of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, fire and brimstone (molten sulfur) were said to have been poured. There were also drains in the earth that allowed water to flow under the earth into a large cavern, called Sheol, where the dead lived in a sort of shadow existence. The sun, moon, planets and stars all were pushed by angels along the underside of the dome, once every 24 hours.
What the Bible Actually Says: The books of the Bible reflect the second scenario. 1 None of the factors in the first possibility are seen in the Bible.
Conclusion: One can argue from archaeological evidence that the Bible authors picked up primitive, pre-scientific Pagan ideas about the nature of the universe from surrounding cultures. This indicates (but does not prove) that the Bible is errant. It is always possible to explain the cosmology of the Bible writers as being purely symbolic in nature.
Indicator 2: Archaeological evidence:
The bible refers to the presence of Philistines in Palestine; but that society did not arrive in that area until well after the 2nd millennium.
The scriptures speak of events at Beersheva and other towns which did not exist until much later than those events.
There was no mention of the strong Egyptian presence in Palestine at that time. In fact, if the ancient Hebrews left Egypt, wandered around the desert for 40 years, and invaded Canaan as described in the books of Exodus and Joshua, they would not have left Egyptian controlled territory.
Indicator 3: Christian beliefs over time:
The Bible promotes a positive set of morals.
No internal conflicts existed in its writings.
The Bible's teachings are clear and unambiguous.
The Bible's teachings are sufficient for today.
Christians' belief about slavery have reversed during the past two millennia. Slavery was condoned, regulated and approved by the writers of the Bible. The Pentateuch contains rules from God concerning the regulation of slavery, including under what conditions a slave owner could be prosecuted if he beat his slave to death. In his book Philemon, Paul wrote to a slave owner about one of his slaves. Paul had every opportunity to condemn slavery as immoral, and to ask the slave owner to free his slave. But he apparently believed that slavery was an acceptable institution. With the exception of Christian Reconstructionists, slavery has been rejected by essentially all Christians today.
Beating children with a rod is condoned and recommended in the Bible. But an increasing percentage of Christian parents have abandoned this method of discipline. Various denominations promote spanking, and cite passages in Proverbs about child discipline. Other Christian groups recommend child discipline without violence, and consider beating a child with a rod to be child abuse. They base their decision on the Golden Rule, on non-violent teachings of Jesus. and on the findings of sociologists that disciplining children through physical violence results in lower IQs, and higher rates of adult depression, violence, and criminal behavior.
Beliefs about government structure have also changed greatly. The Bible promotes dictatorial monarchies and the divine right of kings. When a delegation of Jewish leaders approached Moses with the request for some elements of democracy, God killed them and their families. Most Christians now promote democracy, in which power is shared by the people. They also value human rights, and oppose (for example) burning some prostitutes alive as is specified in the Bible.
The Hebrew Scriptures frequently promote the genocide of others who hold different religious beliefs. Some Christian fanatics in Bosnia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Northern Ireland and elsewhere have followed these teachings and engaged in mass murder and genocide. Most contemporary Christians promote religious freedom so that others can follow other religions without oppression.
Christian beliefs about God, Jesus, salvation, heaven, hell, and many dozens of other theological topics have changed over the past two millennia. For example the nature of Hell as taught by most conservative Christians has changed over the past century from a place of unbearable and eternal torture without any hope of mercy, to a place where one is simply isolated from God.
Indicator 4: Uniformity of Christian beliefs at the present time:
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womenhood promotes Biblical manhood, which they interpret as requiring inequality in the authority of men and women. They are seen as having different roles to play.
Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) believes "that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups and all economic classes..."
Both agencies quote at great length from the Bible to justify their conflicting positions. They sincerely believe that their view is correct and biblically based.
Indicator 5: The personality of God as described in the Bible:
In the Pentateuch, Jehovah is frequently described as an angry deity who committed genocides and mass murder. He killed people for trivial reasons (e.g. Onan for practicing birth control; Lot's wife for looking the wrong way). He exterminated all of the men, women, girls, boys, infants and newborns in Sodom and Gomorra because the men were inhospitable towards strangers. He killed all of humanity in a great flood, saving only eight people: Noah and his family. He hardened the heart of the Pharaoh of Egypt, thus necessitating great loss of life before the Egyptian leader would release the Hebrews from bondage. The Gnostic Christians, one of the three main movements in the early Christian Church, considered Jehovah to be an evil deity, called the Demiurge.
In the Gospels, Jesus often refers to God as Abba, which is probably closest to the English word "papa." Jesus stresses God's love for humanity, his concern for justice and his readiness to support and encourage each believer. He urged individuals to develop a close, intimate, loving relationship with God through private prayer.
In Revelation, God is once more described as a vengeful deity who inflicts massive worldwide death and destruction on men, women, boys, girls, infants and newborns. Martin Luther felt that Revelation should be removed from the Bible for this reason. He included it in an appendix to his German translation of the Bible.
Indicator 6: Jesus' status as described in the Bible:
Romans: This was probably written by St. Paul circa 55-59 CE. In Romans 1:3-4, Paul writes: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Paul believed that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection, circa 30 CE.
Mark: This is generally recognized to be the first gospel to be written, circa 70 CE. It describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist as the time when he became the Son of God. The current wording of Mark 1:10-11 says: "...he saw...the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: 'You are my Son whom I love; with you I am well pleased.' " The original words attributed to God in this passage were partly suppressed during ancient times. Judging by the writings of early Christian authors, the original words stated definitively that his transition to Son of God happened at the time of baptism. The words were edited out of Mark perhaps decades after the Gospel was written, probably because they contradicted the theological belief of the time.
Matthew was written in the early to mid 80's CE. It contains a birth narrative which implies that Jesus was conceived during an interaction between the Holy Sprit and Mary. Jesus is described as becoming the Son of God at his birth, circa 6 BCE.
Luke was probably written about 90 CE. Luke 1:35 described that "the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." Again, the transition occurred at birth.
Acts was probably written in the 90's CE by an unknown author -- the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. He writes in Acts 13:33 that Jesus became the son of God when God raised Jesus from the dead.
John was probably written after Christians were expelled from the Synagogues, starting circa 90 CE. It may have been cited in some writings by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch circa 115 CE. So about 100 CE may be an accurate date of composition. The author(s) of John state that Jesus (the Word) existed with God "in the beginning." i.e. before creation.
-----after his death in the earliest Christian writings, to
-----at or before the creation of the universe in the last Gospel to be written.
This could go either way.
Indicator 7: The nature of the afterlife as described in the Bible:
Possibility 1: The Bible is inerrant. God has inspired authors of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures to describe accurately the destination of persons who have died. Each of the authors of the Bible described heaven and hell (and who would go where) in a consistent manner.
In ancient Hebrew scripture writings: The authors described the dead as leading a shadowy existence in a great cavern under the earth, called Sheol. This was similar to the beliefs of the surrounding Pagan cultures. Everyone went to Sheol, regardless of whether they had led a good or an evil life while on earth. All were isolated from God.
After the Greek invasion: Greek Pagan ideas began to be incorporated into those Hebrew Scriptures that were written after 332 BCE. The authors talked about resurrection and eternal rewards for people who had followed the Law and been kind to their fellow humans. Evil people would be punished.
Paul wrote about a heaven for those who had been saved by trusting and believing in Christ's resurrection. He was apparently unaware of Hell; he believed that the unbelievers and those who had committed certain prohibited acts would be simply annihilated at death and exist no more. "The wages of sin are death", not everlasting punishment.
The Synoptic gospels: The authors of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke described Jesus as telling of a glorious eternal rest in heaven for those who behave kindly towards the poor and needy. The writers talked about a Hell of eternal punishment: fire, worms, thirst for those who did not support needy fellow humans. This forms one of the main themes of the Gospel of Matthew. Again, salvation is based on works.
John: The author of the gospel of John described a glorious heaven as a reward for those who believed that Jesus is the Son of God. He seems to have rejected the concept of Hell entirely. People who did not believe in the Incarnation simply died and were annihilated.
Indicator 8: Criteria for salvation:
Assumption: One's eventual destination or state after death is arguably the most important topic covered in the Bible. After all, even a century of living on earth is a drop in the bucket compared to all of eternity. If the Bible is inspired by God, then one would expect that the criteria by which ones is routed to either Heaven or Hell would be clearly and unambiguously described.
Possibility 1: The Bible is inerrant. God has inspired authors of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures to describe accurately and unambiguously the precise criteria by which an individual's final location or state will be after death.
In ancient Hebrew Scriptures: The authors stated that everyone would go to the same place after death: Sheol. They would be isolated from God. It would not matter whether one had led a good or an evil life while on earth.
More modern Hebrew Scriptures (e.g. Daniel): People who had followed the Mosaic Law and been kind to their fellow humans would enjoy rewards after death. Evil people would be punished. So, one would expect that individuals guilty of mass murder or genocide would go to Hell. If a person had led a life of self-sacrifice and service to others, like Mother Teresa or Albert Schweitzer, they would go to Heaven.
Paul wrote that those who believed in Christ's resurrection would go to Heaven.
The Synoptic gospels: The authors of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke taught that salvation is based on a person's good and bad works.
John: The author(s) of the gospel of John taught that the criteria was based on belief: those who believed that Jesus is the Son of God would go to Heaven.
Numerous other locations in the Christian Scriptures described how one is saved by baptism.
Indicator 9: The causes of mental illness:
Assumptions: Mental illness is caused by emotional disturbances, chemical imbalances in the brain, and other natural factors. Mental health specialists (other than those who are also Evangelical Christians) abandoned the concepts of demonic possession and exorcism many generations ago. Jesus is recorded as having encountered and healed many individuals with mental or emotional problems. See: Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:28-34, Matthew 9:32-33, Matthew 15:22-28, Matthew 17:14-18, Luke 4:33-36.
Possibility 1: The Bible is inerrant. God has inspired authors of the Gospels to accurately describe the nature of mental illnesses in the above passages. The Bible would not contain references to demonic possession.
Possibility 2: The Bible is not inerrant. The authors would have interpreted the cause of mental illness in accordance with what they knew about 1st century medicine. At that time, mental illnesses were believed to have been caused by demonic possession.
What the Bible Shows: In the gospels, particularly Matthew and Luke, Jesus is described as expelling demons in order to cure the mentally ill people that he encountered.
Conclusion: The Gospel writers were mistaken about the causes of mental illness. This indicates, but does not prove, that their writings contain errors.
Conclusion:
Although it appears to be impossible to absolutely prove the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, there appear to be at least nine strong indicators that it is errant in at least some places.
Yours truly,
Anonymous D
Writers of the scriptures before and during the times of converting Pagans to Christians often mixed the two religions to draw attention to the scriptures by exaggerating truths. Example, Jesus' final ascension, Luke 24:51. The witnesses saw him ascend. Actual vision or stretching truth to bring the readers of the scriptures in closer. Windows of heaven opening up to let out the flood, Gen. 7:11.
And closing again Gen. 8:2. The Lord himself throwing flames and fireballs personally down to earth to punish Sodom and Gomorrah, found in Gen. 19:24; Deut. 29:23.
These writers incorporated other beliefs into their own. Possibly to draw in people on a larger scale? No one can prove or disprove. But ancient times and history's own timeline proves positive counterfire.
Only nature enduced religions could have isolated the actual opening of the sky or flooding for long periods of time, these are their beliefs of someone associated with natures Gods.
Any specific question in mind or is this supposed to be a challenge?
Like I said, I have studied many religions, I am always learning. Especially in this area.
Truly,
Anonymous D
A little bit of ignorance goes a long way.
I really wouldn't waste much time responding to an email like that. It's more than obvious she has made up her mind on the subject and is only looking for confrontation for entertainment. (kinda like I used to do to you a decade ago - piss you off for my own entertainment.)
There's no profit in casting pearl before swine. Meaning trying to explain or educate someone that has already made up their mind, and closed their mind, is a waste of time.
Anyone that just "reads" the Bible in English is wasting their time anyway. And especially when they just read it looking for things to bash with for self entertainment.
Kind of sad really when people spend so much of their life trying to stomp on other peoples faith. As though thats going to make them convert to believe the same as the person doing the stomping?
Anon D is correct about the mixing of Pagan ritual into Christianity (like Easter.) But again a little bit of ignorance goes a long way. Christians had nothing to do with it. It was the Catholic Church that incorperated Pagan ritual into their faith, to get Pagan butts in the pews. Christianity and Catholicism are two totally differnet things.
But at least she didn't indicate she wanted to kill everyone that believes differetly than herself. Or want to poar scalding water over my head till I converted to her beliefs! See.. there's aways a positive :>
--- Duck
Anonymous D,
You might well be "highly educated," however, you are poorly educated. You make the same error common to secular liberals of your ilk. It is, in fact, QUALITY of education--not QUANTITY of education--which defines one as learned.
- David
Wow, such mean thoughts for a Christian man.... truly, I don't want to convert anyone, nor do I want you to question your faiths. Simply open your mind to more than just what your momma and daddy taught you. Catholics and Christians are two different religions. Back then the faith was you believed in God the All Mighty or not. If any culture believed anything different they were condemned. It was up to the believers in the fait to complete the tasks God tells of them. Even if it means mass killing. Those that chose to be Christians and want to follow Christian beliefs need to open to the possibility that one day "God" may want them to commit mass murder. As written in the bible it is ok. To hell with it, lets kill the whole world. Or.... we could just all get along and find some common place of peace.
And duck, simply put, my mind is not closed to Christianity, I just don't believe it is the correct choice for me. Both of my children follow the Christian belief and I do not discourage them. At least they believe in something. 3/4 of the Americas kids don't. One day they will ask more questions, and I will show them more than enough information for them to make up their own mind. No matter which religion they choose the fact is they are mine, I love them anyway. I even married a Christian. No we don't argue about religion. He has his beliefs, I havemine. It works out even though the Bible says that there is only one right religion. To follow "him".
Dont think my learning small, I have studied quite a bit on 16 different religions. Quite far from being advanced, but not limited to one. I dont know all. But possibly more than most.
Like I said before, you should learn about all before signing on to one. How many have you fellas studied?
I didn't want to start a long drawn out argument, I was fed to wolves. If I had honestly wanted to bash your beliefs I would have said other things, I just wanted to open your mind.
In saying that I will leave you boys to your life long happiness.
Or not depending on how you treat others.
Anonymous D
I apologize for the way that this post had turned out. My intention was to get different opinions and not to set up a nasty argumentative debate. It appears that I did, but I assure you that it was not my intentions to do so.
Anon D, I apologize for posting an email that you had sent to me without asking your permission.
Hope to see you around this blog commenting often. It's not all about religion. I promise!
My view of this thread, as a lesser educated, open minded, curious agnostic, is that it was as much a battle of "proof of intelligence" verses the topic of conversation.
Know what I mean?
-John
Are you up all night as I am or what?
Jeff,
Ouch! I thought I had it rough working 2nd shift weekend schedule. However there are some perks to that. The hotels are cheaper, the roads are clear of traffic, the stores aren't crowded and they are always open.
Split shift, ouch!
for the lovely lady who sent john the email...
i am sorry most of those posting in this thread have mistaken you for a man. i don't think you're trying to convert anyone. i don't even think you are trying to discredit christianity. sounds to me like you are just sharing your heart here. i don't smell an 'agenda', although you may have one (i find i usually have an agenda...this bothers me about myself).
i am a believer in Christ and the bible. but its absolutely not based on any evidence of the bible being 'true' or of 'supreme authority' in and of itself. i have a relationship with God. i did not choose this as much as i feel 'ambushed' by Him/Her and His/Her love (break out the popcorn, because i know it sounds cheezy...but it is what it is). so, it is actually the active love relationship with God which causes me to turn to the bible. sort of like falling in love with someone, only to find that they're an author, so reading everything they ever wrote to get to know them better. and the bible is only one way i get to know God better.
i admit i could be totally wrong. i admit i could be crazy, imagining a relationship with a God that isn't really there or is actually someone other than who i believe Him/Her to be. regardless, i absolutely believe in God and God's love for me (i also believe in my love for God). and yes, i grow in my relationship with God by reading the bible.
i love your tenacity by the way. i wish you the best...
brad
Brad,
Thanks for posting. I hope that you get a reply, she is a really cool person.
John
Brad,
You actually did understand the meaning behind the writings. I am impressed. You must be heartfelt in your opinion if you could see beyond the right or wrong theory. I didn't try to disprove the bible. Just for people to find their answers to questions not proven.
I wish you success in your ministry and hope you can encourage the youth to at least "believe" in something. No matter if it be God, Spirit or other. As long as they can believe. Try to help them with an open mind to find what they need. Some may not be searching for "your" God. Don't force them like most pastors. Don't put boundries on life. Because society does enough of that. If the bible is what they follow, then assure them that only only themselves are responsible for their soul. Not their parents, teachers or friends. Being a true Christian is possibly the hardest shoes to walk in. My hat is off to you.
Much luck.
Anonymous D
And John,
You are awesome too. If I ever come back to Corning I will look you up.
PS you remember the pizza incident?!? That was so funny.
Like it were yesterday :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home