Oh, and as to your "Have you read the Bible at all, Sheila?" snide
remark, yes, I have.

Not only that, I've been a Christian since I was five years old. We
don't think of God as merely this "separate entity in the sky." We are
"children" of God and are made IN HIS IMAGE, so I hardly think that that
makes us "separate" from Him.

Sheila wrote:
“I'm on a strict deadline today and don't have time to elaborate right
now, so I hope that what I said is relatively clear.”

I understand perfectly what you are saying within the context of how you
believe. I just don’t believe that way myself.

Sheila wrote:
“We are ‘children’ of God and are made IN HIS IMAGE, so I hardly think
that that makes us ‘separate’ from Him.”

I would agree with you on this myself. In fact, when I was a Christian
this is how I wanted to believe too. But the Bible genuinely does not
permit this view if we insist on accepting it. The Bible says that we
can be separate from God. That implies that both we and God must then
both be separate entities in our own right.

In fact, Sheila, it was a myriad of details such as these that finally
caused me to reject the Bible as being both inconsistent, and
unreasonable. I wanted to teach the Bible and it was only when I
started looking at it from that point of view that I realized that it
would be impossible to justify, and therefore I could not condone
teaching it.

Also, I might mention that Spider (our Bible interpreting ‘authority’)
has suggested on many occasions that we are not the children of God but
rather we are the children of Satan. I have no clue where he comes up
with this, but that is what he has claimed in past posts. I’m not sure
if he still holds to that now or not.

In any case, I have desperately tried to make the Bible ‘work’. Trust
me Sheila I WANTED it to work. I wanted to be able to preach the Bible
and the love of Jesus. I had no choice but to abandon it. It was
simply impossible to rationalize.

Moreover, once you have accepted that it is nothing more than a
collection of stories made up by men and you see it in that light, it
pretty much impossible to ever go back to believing anything else. It’s
crystal clear to me that the authors fed on each other’s works. The
stories just naturally built up over the ages based on this idea of God
as being a separate entity from us.

Moreover, if you could somehow get the Bible to say that God is not
separate from us then all you would have succeeded in doing is to have
made the Bible compatible with Pantheism. If you can do that I’ll
gladly embrace it fully. I just don’t see how that can be done.

I apprecaite that, but you really need to quit grouping Christians and
the Bible into one little box. As Christians, and as a separate
individual, I, for one, believe the Bible is open to personal
interpretation. There are some things that some people believe about the
Bible that I would consider absurd.

I agree with a lot of what Spider says, and most of the time I respect
his POV, but certainly not always. For one thing, I believe there is a
hell. I can't say WHAT or WHERE it is, specifically, but I believe it
exists, nonetheless.

There are some Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of
the Bible, those who will "take up serpeants and drink strychnine." With
all due respect, I think these people are NUTS.

I do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, in all
instances, nor do I believe that all admonitions were meant as
"God-mandated" laws. As an example, the "obey" thing in marriages or
that the husband has dominion over the wife. I think that that was the
law of the land, the law of the times, and does not apply to today. As
people evolve, so, too, does their level of logical thinking. Or one
would hope so, anyway.

Sheila,

I appreciate what you are saying. I it’s never my intent to group
everyone who calls themselves a Christian into one box. In fact, when I
refer to the “Christian’ religion I’m not referring to the individual
followers at all, but rather to the official institutionalized religion
itself (which is based on the Bible)

I mean, the fundament point of modern Christianity is a need to accept
Jesus Christ as the savior.

However, this very notion is based on the idea of an external Godhead
that had sent his ‘only begotten son’ to die for our sins.

I mean, how can a godhead that can ‘send’ its only begotten son on a
mission to earth, not be a separate entity with a mind of its own.

I just don’t see how this idea can even be imagined without thinking of
God as a separate entity who is making these specific events happen.

And the Old Testament is full of reference to God as though it is a
separate entity. I just read the book of Job (which I had started a
thread about). In that story God and his angels are clearly assembling
somewhere other than in an earthly place, and God gives Satan the ok to
purposefully destroy the life of Job short of killing Job himself.

I mean, here God is not only depicted as clearly being a separate
entity, but God is even plotting how things should unfold for Job.
According to the story clearly God has given Satan permission to destroy
Job, but not kill him.

How do you interpret this picture of God if not as an external entity
that is plotting the fate of individual humans?

I’m not trying to challenge you. I’m seriously interesting in hearing
how you can say that god is not being depicted as a separate conscious
and controlling entity in these cases.

Perhaps you can offer something that will alter my perception of things.

As it stands right now, I just don’t see how the picture of God as
depicted the Bible can be anything other than a picture of a separate
controlling entity that plots things out.

Sheila,

I appreciate what you are saying. I it’s never my intent to group
everyone who calls themselves a Christian into one box. In fact, when I
refer to the “Christian’ religion I’m not referring to the individual
followers at all, but rather to the official institutionalized religion
itself (which is based on the Bible)

I mean, the fundament point of modern Christianity is a need to accept
Jesus Christ as the savior.

Well, that IS what makes someone a "Christian," as opposed to those who
are not Christian, and is the core belief of all Christians.

***

However, this very notion is based on the idea of an external Godhead
that had sent his ‘only begotten son’ to die for our sins.

This is true.

***

I mean, how can a godhead that can ‘send’ its only begotten son on a
mission to earth, not be a separate entity with a mind of its own.

Again, I think you're thinking in too "human" of terms. I cannot answer
the question for you, for it would be mere speculation on my part.

***

I just don’t see how this idea can even be imagined without thinking of
God as a separate entity who is making these specific events happen.

I guess because the Almighty God is the creator of all, that He is in
the "position" to make such events happen. That's the best way I can
answer that.

***

And the Old Testament is full of reference to God as though it is a
separate entity.

I cannot think in terms of God as an "it." Though, when I think of Him
in terms of a "He," and though I may get an image of a man in my mind,
it is not the image, entirely, as a human being. I guess I think of God
as "man" in the "mankind" sense, which includes both the masculine and
the feminine.

I tend to think more of God in the spiritual sense, not in the he/she OR
*IT* sense.

***

I just read the book of Job (which I had started a thread about). In
that story God and his angels are clearly assembling
somewhere other than in an earthly place, and God gives Satan the ok to
purposefully destroy the life of Job short of killing Job himself.

I mean, here God is not only depicted as clearly being a separate
entity, but God is even plotting how things should unfold for Job.

****

Why wouldn't it be beyond the realm of possibility that we could be a
part of God, children of God, yet not have the "ultimate authority?"
That, because He IS God, that that places him above and "separate" from
us, but that doesn' have to mean that we are "separate" from Him. Does
that make sense?

***

According to the story clearly God has given Satan permission to destroy
Job, but not kill him.

How do you interpret this picture of God if not as an external entity
that is plotting the fate of individual humans?

I think that God allowed Satan to try to destory him in order to test
and prove Job's faith in Him. You have to remember that all the while
Job had the choice to renounce God -- and many under much less strenuous
circumstances would have. If God was a separate entity that is plotting
the fate of individual humans, what would be the point of our having
"free will?"

***

I’m not trying to challenge you. I’m seriously interesting in hearing
how you can say that god is not being depicted as a separate conscious
and controlling entity in these cases.

Asked and answered, as best I can.

***

Perhaps you can offer something that will alter my perception of things.

Hopefully I did, somewhat.

***

As it stands right now, I just don’t see how the picture of God as
depicted the Bible can be anything other than a picture of a separate
controlling entity that plots things out.

Again, as I said, the difference is in free will. In the context of this
conversation, I don't believe God "makes" things happen, but I do think
He "allows" things to happen. He knows in advance the choices that are
going to be made, but doesn't intervene--in the way that you're
depicting, anyway.

Let me say this:

Since God is depicted as a loving, merciful God, and if He was
completely "running the show," as it were, and we didn't have free will,
then what logical sense would it make for Him to destroy His own
creation, or allow Satan (or anyone or anything else) destroy it?

Sheila wrote:
“I don't believe God "makes" things happen, but I do think He "allows"
things to happen. He knows in advance the choices that are going to be
made, but doesn't intervene--in the way that you're depicting, anyway.”

I can sincerely appreciate you views Sheila, and I believe that many
Christians do feel this way. They are perfectly happy to just accept
God’s love and they leave all the details up to God. God has infinite
wisdom and surely he can explain away all of these subtle little details
that seem to be bothering Abra.

There’s nothing wrong with that view. And on an individual basis this
is great. If you’re happy with that I’m sure God is happy with it too.
It’s not my intent to convert people who believe like you, nor to
challenge their beliefs.

However, I would still like to bring up these topics for people who may
share my concerns.

You see, for me, I’m happy with a non-Biblical view of god. And so from
a religious point of view I’m not searching for anything. But I would
still like to share my understanding of god with those who might
appreciate it.

You said in your quote at the top of this post that god does not
‘intervene’ in the way that I am depicting it. But I beg to differ with
you that it is not *I* who am depicting this, but rather this is the
depiction given in the Bible itself.

God ‘intervenes’ all over the place in the Bible. He spread the people
out from the City of Babel and changes their language. He hardens the
heart of the pharaoh of Egypt, and parts the waters for Moses. He asks
Noah to build an ark and he makes it rain for 40 days and 40 nights to
flood the earth and kill the bulk of humanity that are living at that
time. He sends his only begotten son to teach his message and to become
a sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of all mankind.

If these things are not direct ‘intervention’ I just don’t know what
else they could be considered to be Sheila. So why would you say that
this is ‘my’ depiction of things?

I said within the context of the conversation...I meant that He doesn't
intervene with freewill. Abra, I question what the Bible has to say all
the time. I question the logic -- or, shall the say, the "perceived
illogic" of it all the time.

I am a very analytical person...perhaps to a fault. But when it comes to
God, I have come to the conclusiont that MY perception of Him is the
"correct" one....for me.

and I don't have a problem whatsoever with YOUR perception of Him,
either, except when you disrespect others' -- especially Christians', if
not ONLY Christians' -- or the Bible's interepretation of Him.

What the Bible has to say about who God is and what He's all about,
though certainly doesn't make sense to my "logical mind," all the time
and, in fact, probably most of the time, I have to just accept on faith
and my own conscience that what I believe is true.

What's more than that is I have seen too much evidence of proof of God
in my own life.

If I continually questioned why God allows such and such to happen or
why He did so and so, I'd go freaking nuts.

I do know that I don't express my views on this nearly as eloquently as
many others on here, and you've rejected what they've had to say, so
you're certainly not going to be convinced of anything I say, either.

And I don't think it boils down to having to be "convinced," by another
human being, anyway.

I cannot understand how you accepted Christ at one point in your life
and then later denounced Him. You state it had nothing to do with any
specific "traumatic" event, but yet your posts reflect anger and
resentment toward Him ...they seem to claim, "If God is so loving, then
why does He allow (fill in personal reasons) to happen?"

It's almost as though you couldn't make sense of it and, because you are
so intellectual and so good at "figuring everything else out," rather
than admit "defeat," you simply chose to come to the conclusion that He
(as depicted in the Bible) couldn't possibly exist.

Of course, I may be totally wrong about that, but that's what I
interpret from your words.

Sheila wrote:
"Of course, I may be totally wrong about that, but that's what I
interpret from your words."

Yes, I agree that your impression of me is totally wrong.

then why do you oftentimes write about God and particularly those who
believe in Him in such a negative and nasty way?

Because I’m basically an imbecilic klutz.

I’m human. I lose patience with people too. When people suggest that
we have two choices; we can ether accept Jesus as our savior or we can
go to hell, I tend to strike back.

It’s wrong of me to do that. I know that. And often times I’m sorry
that I did it. But then when I see those same people totally
disrespecting the views of anyone who isn’t a Christian I don’t feel so
bad. They are obviously prejudiced and this is what caused me to strike
back at them in the first place.

I never strike out at anyone just for being a Christian. However, I do
post comments of why I don’t believe in particular Christian views, and
people will often mistake those views as ‘attacking them’ when in fact
it wasn’t an attack at all, it was merely an opposing opinion.

Wonderman suggests that I attacked him on a few occasion, but I only
recall making one post that questioned something he stated in his
poetry. It was a sincere question, not meant to be an attack, the fact
that he took it as an attack is not my fault. I believe that we may
have also had a slight altercation over that incident as well. However,
since that time I have pretty much steered clear of him.

Many people take it as a personal attack when I suggest that the Bible
was written by man and it is not the word of God.

Is that an attack? Or is that my view?

Am I not entitled to express my view?

ok you two time for a room!!

Abracadabra,

I can respect a statement like "The Bible is just a book written by
men", because you are offering your opinion. While you don't consider
the Bible holy, Billions of people do. The best way to show those
people respect and acknowlege their right to their beliefs would be to
not quote their scriptures to support your beliefs. This position seems
to be garnering me much anger, but I firmly believe that what someone
else considers holy should not be defiled by anyone. Korans down the
toilet is a no-no. Mt. Rushmore pisses me off, because it's built on
ground sacred to the Native Americans. The fact that Iran destroyed
Buddha statues is offensive. I just think everyone can best show
respect to others by adopting a "hands-off" attitude to what is
considered holy to others.

I agree with you spider.

However the Bible is based in part upon a Books you have no control
over. The Torah.

And the rest of it was given to the gentiles that they also may find
God.

Gentiles is associated with the word Pagan, which you attached to me,
therefore by your own words I can read it, learn from it and pass on
what I have learned.

You can lock away the Word from me you have not the authority.

AdventureBegins,

Read it, learn from it and post from it. I haven't once told you that
you can't. I asked you to understand that we hold it as sacred and that
respecting the Bible would be respecting Christians.

Abra, i guess I take issue with the fact the only people you seem to
have a problem with are Christians. And oftentimes you don't just
present a point of view, you speak as though because Christians believe
what they believe, that they are ignorant.

I say, how can millions upon millions of people be "wrong," and your
point of view is "right?" I know that it is your perception, but, being
that it's ONLY perception and not based on FACT, then you're not in any
kind of position to say that my belief is wrong, any more than for me to
say that yours is.

Some of your philosophies I agree with...others I vehemently disagree
with. But I won't attack you for your beliefs unless I'm
"counterattacking" an affront to my own.

The last few posts you seem to have done a "good job" of stating your
views without "dissing" other people for theirs, and I do appreciate
that. Thanks.

Spider wrote:
“The best way to show those people respect and acknowlege their right to
their beliefs would be to not quote their scriptures to support your
beliefs {..snip..} I just think everyone can best show respect to
others by adopting a "hands-off" attitude to what is considered holy to
others.”

I’m sorry Spider but I must totally disagree with you on this.

I personally see your desire to insist that everyone keep their
‘hands-off’ the Bible as nothing more than a ploy by you to want to be
the master interpreter of it for everyone without interruption. I think
it’s pretty clear on these forums that you certainly present yourself in
this way. But who ordained you?

We are living in a modern free age of enlightenment. The idea today is
that everyone is free to share their own views on everything, and this
includes all forms of ancient doctrines. It is not considered
disrespectful for people to comment on religious doctrines today.
People do this all the time.

You sound like you’re still living back in the dark ages. Today is a
day of freedom of expression and no topic is taboo.

You’d just love to turn these forums into your own personal church with
no interruptions from anyone. In fact, to be quite honest about it
Spider your attitude in this regard causes me to have great suspisions
about you. That kind of ‘privately controlled’ worship is precisely the
hallmark of such men as Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Most sincere preachers of any faith will simply work around any
criticisms. This does not bother them in the least.

I really have a serious problem with you trying to CONTROL what other
people may or may not post.

I have never seen anyone on any forum suggest such an outrageous thing.

This is the year 2007 Spider.

Sheila,

There are millions of people who believe in pantheistic religions.

It's not a new concept of god at all, in fact it may well predate
Christianity.

It’s just not popular in the west is all.

Almost the entire far east is pantheistic in their view of god.

I do read the bible I started cause I did not get the same thing out of
your many quotes that you did (in that much you have enriched me since I
never was interested in reading before). I respect it more the more I
read of it. I do not respect some of the 'accepted' dogma that relates
to it.

Dogma
NOUN: 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as
morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
(my contention is they have made themselves out to be greater then God.
This can never be. God needs no dogma to effect the hearts of man. He
needs only that we turn to him.)

There are if I have read correctly only 4 of the books of the New
Testament that actual have the words of Jesus in them. The rest of them
are letters to churches and epistles from one or another of the
disciples to their fellow christians. Those books I largely ignore as
they are about the doctrine of man and not the word of God. Why would
then these letters have needed to be included in Gods book. They should
have been in the Cannons (Law of the Church) and not in Gods book.

miles... when everyone but you is wrong your probably wrong. i take
great offense from anyone who thinks someone like me is just playing
follow the leader. i have put my life and my career in jepordy many
times because of my beliefs. you have no idea. i have always maintained
that the organised religions of today have little to do with bible
truth. That being said, there are legions of true believers in all these
churches, mabe despite thier teachings.

Rambil you are so right.

In spite of them the Children of God do grow for good seed can grow in
any ground when watered by the Holy Spirit.