Abigail

Consider this, Mark . . .

IF, as some of the Jewish oral traditions suggest, God had a wife and IF (as the Bible says, when a man and woman marry the two shall become as one) then God and his wife would have become as one. If, we are now the bride, then we too shall become one . . .

If I found evidence that their god had a wife that was also worshiped by the ancient Israelites, I could make some TWI-heads explode.

Well you are pretty right on the money with that one, P-Mosh. There were, at least during various times, Israelites that believed God had a wife and she was also worshipped. The stories are contained within the oral traditions and can be hard to find. Generally one has to be a Yeshiva student to learn them, but the Chassidics are not so stingy about sharing the oral traditions.

I have come across bits and pieces of the stories before. I'll have to see if I can dig some of it up again.

for what its worth...Shekinah is another historical expression of feminine divine

Thanks, Sir! That was the word I was looking for, but my brain just couldn't find it. I know I did some posts on this subject some time ago. She is the femine aspect of God, thought to dwell within and it is the Shekinah that is welcomed in for the sabbath.

Maybe over the weekend I can post more, depending on where this thread goes.

Cman, you added some great stuff as well. Reading it makes me think of the Roman Catholics .In their own way, they do give recognition to the feminine through Mary.

That is an interesting and valid point, PMosh. Within Judaism, even today, there is recognition given to a female aspect to God, which some see as simply that - an aspect. Others see this female aspect as a separate diety. Still others worship this female aspect, without relealizing they are even doing it. Part of the weekly sabbath service is to welcome in this "sabbath diety" that is understood in the feminine.

Some Rabbi's have speculated that this is a carry over from pagan cultures. Others speculate that this femine spirit/diety/aspect has been a part of Judaism since the beginning. Interestingly, little is taught or spoken of it outside of the more ultra-orthodox sects, though I have heard bits and pieces of it among the reconstructionist sect as well.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was this feminine aspect/diety borrowed from pagan religions or was it there since "in the beginning" and passed along to the pagan cultures?

Geisha,

I hope your response to Cman was not an indication that you are ready to walk away from this thread altogether. I have been enjoying our conversation. I only wish we lived closer together and could sit down over coffee with a couple of Bibles. I miss those early days in TWI when I got together with a couple of friends and searched the scripture - back before it was required that we become locked in with head quarters and could only speak of those things that came out of hq and had to agree on top of everything else!

Okay, I'm going to try to respond within your post. I'll go with purple this time, because I am trying to leave the context intact. :)

Sirguessalot,

I am happy to speak with you, but you may find the answers to questions in the post to Abi. I do have to say this. I read in your first post that you are looking forward to the next school of thought. I think that you don't have to wait, you are leading the charge to usher it in. :) If you do not exemplify postmodernism. . . . no one on this forum does. But, you are growing on me.

Abi

Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on.

Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really?

No, never would I insult you with words or deeds Abi. Never intentionally and never with malice.. . . let me see if I can explain. Words have specific meaning and when I used the descriptive word rationally, it was within the bounds of a philosophical discussion. Not a personal slight.

I didn't honestly think you were trying to insult me, Geisha, hence the smiley face. I was laughing at your choice of words, I guess, that is all. I knew you weren't personally slighting me.

I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it?

Okay, let's really look at this statement here. . . :) One of the reasons I really like what you post here is your honesty. Another, is your moral code. It appears to me that you will say what you think is right over what you think others want to hear. That takes some conviction to your ethics and courage. I have read out some of the drama here. I have even rolled in the mud. . . . It can be intense.

But, when I first started posting here, you and I had specific conversations. What was it I had to convince you of concerning my world view? I understand that you may not remember, but it was that I was not a religious elitist. That was your choice of wording. Your first assumption about me was that given my world view. . . I was an elitist. You and I have worked backwards from that perspective.

I have gotten to know you a bit better, Geisha. First impressions are not always accurate. Sometimes the way you word things . . . . well, I get while it can cause people to get a bit riled up in response to you, as I did. But, over time I think you heart has come through and I recognize that these words on a page can be somewhat limiting in the impression that is left. They are not always so 3 dimensional.

In fact, I can refer to your post on this forum to RainbowsGirl only a page or so back. What was it you were trying to tell her? She is certainly not trying to dominate the forums with her statements concerning her faith. She simply started a thread based on an article I sent her once.

Her worldview and yours collide on the very basis we are discussing. Your reaction was to tell her, albeit in a gentle way. . . she sounded arrogant. You may or may not have been posting the majority opinion, but what you surmised was based on what you hold as your worldview.

If what you say is you don't find the notion arrogant, but what people do with it the problem. Then what was it RG did that was so problemtic? She is making a statement based on her understanding of Christian doctrine. . . it is a widely held conviction based on scripture in the NT. . . she has not cobbled this out of thin air, but bases it on a rational view of scripture. In other words. . . she adapts her beliefs to fit with those of the bible.

Well, yes and no. It was based on my world view, to be sure. But it wasn't simply a difference in religous beliefs. Geisha, you and I have conversed here. We have exchanged thoughts, ideas, beliefs. We may agree on some points and disagree on others, but even where we disagree the tone is one of respect. And I think, our conversation will change/effect/influence both of us in good ways.

I have had similar conversations with RG off and on over the years. But the tone of her last couple of posts (I cannot speak to the initial ones became as I came to this thread late in the game) came across not as one who wants to converse, or share ideas and thoughts. It came across as if she wanted to preach. I suppose preaching is fine to a point, and there may be people here who will read her lengthy quotes of scripture and enjoy them. But I don't come here to be preached at (and I think there are a number of other people here who probably feel the same way.)

I can go to any corner church and find someone who would love to preach at me. I come here to converse. To share and exchange ideas, not with a view that we all must agree but because I love the variety of beliefs. That we can agree on some points, disagree on others and still hang out and continue talking. I find it both off-putting and somewhat worrisome that RG has gone from conversing to what appears to be preaching.

When it collides with what you hold as conviction. . . it sounds arrogant? I always wondered if it is not more about self in that respect than conviction. RG's worldview does not validate yours or others. You have sized her up on this basis and found her statements lacking. It is unavoidable. She does the same to you, but does it based on scripture, that she believes to be authoritative.

No, Geisha. See above, you misunderstand where I am coming from. It isn't merely that we disagree on a point or points. You and I also disagree on points, yet we are still talking. Do you see the difference?

I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together.

Well, you may be VERY right when it comes to baking, or car mechanics, or something like child rearing. Granted. But, when we come to issues concerning faith. . . we run into a problem there. The reason we have a problem is faith claims something outside itself as the authoritative source. Take the bible for example. It claims within itself to be inspired by God. It claims within itself to be true. It is a narrative concerning God's interaction with mankind. To take what you believe to be true and discard the rest. . . to deconstruct it. . . attempts to render it unathoritative. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. . . . authoritative on whatever it speaks, not only on the things that we like.

Geisha, the Epistles claim they are "god breathed" or "God inspired" or whatever the proper translation and understanding of that verse is. I don't believe you will find such statements within the OT. The OT is the history of mankinds relationship with God and with one another. There is great great learning and wisdom there. It is a story of love, disagreement, betrayal, forgiveness, hope, and love all over again and much more.

But, perhaps we define faith differently. I don't believe the scriptures are solely authoratative, not even the OT. There are great rabbinical arguments regarding the meaning of the scripture. Think about it, even the great Rabbis couldn't always agree regarding what verses meant or how they were to be applied! And there are oral traditions that have been passed down that are not recorded in the Bible. So my faith does not reside only in the writings contained in a book. My faith resides in God, in the belief that God will show me what I need to know and how I need to apply it in my life.

See the problem? When we cherry pick our faith. . . we are saying that no text has authority or single meaning that corresponds with a reality. Classic postmodern thinking. You become the arbiter of truth. Also, nailed in the bible.

Yes, I do get to be the arbiter of my truth, to some degree or another. That too you will find in the OT. Sarah laughed at God, Abraham argued and negotiated with God. Moses told God he needed someone else to speak for him. The book of Ruth is an amazing thing! A man violated the laws of the OT and married into "another nation." He married Ruth and she (one from outside the tribes of Israel) has an entire book dedicated to her! There is nothing black and white about the Bible.

But, I have to ask you something in all sincerity. . . . consider, if God is a reality. . . meaning, He is and futhermore. . . He is AS He is. . . . meaning a reality of characteristics . . . . and in one book He says. . . I am like this. . . my name is. . . I want you to obey me and do this. . . I change not. . . there is only ONE way to me. . . . and in another God is portrayed in a contradictory manner. . . my name is this. . . any way to get to me is okay. . . obey me this other opposing way. . . .and each book claims to be all true. . . what happens when we pick what we like and leave the rest? Have we not just designed a God to suit our liking?

Yes, I think to some degree or another we all design a god to our liking, even you. But that is just part and parcel of the frailty of being human. I suspect the reality is that God is so much bigger than our minds can comprehend that any characteristic used to define him will still fall short. And when I read the OT, I see a God who is ever constant and ever changing at the same time. I know that probably sounds contradictory to you, but I don't see it as a contradiction. I believe what appears to be changing to us is still part of the constant that is God. What we see as changing is only our perception and not the reality that is God. I don't think we can list out a handful of ideas and say "that is God" and be right. We may be right in part, but it still falls short.

Have we not just discarded something that claims to be true in favor of something we like better? Moreover, what reality does our truth correspond to? Are we believing in something whole and real outside of ourselves. . . or believing in our own selves?

Both. Because God isn't wholly outside of ourselves. God dwells within us, each of us.

Logically it is an either or proposition. You can't get around it. . . unless you design your own God. The bible prohibits this. It is called idolatry. It is specifically addressed and forbidden. Quite frankly, I question the logic of a designer God. . . one who refects our own selves. . . I am looking for the object who matches the reality, not creating one.

But you too have created one. You have created one that you can read on a page, that is contained within a book. And no matter how well you know that book, there will still be parts you are missing and/or parts you may have wrong. The same is true for me. Even the epistles talk of how now we see through a glass darkly. That will be true for as long as we live in flesh and blood bodies.

So I don't think your either or scenario is logical. Either or scenarios are often logical fallacies simply because they leave out the vast array of options in between.

As a woman of faith, I put my finite self into the hands of an infinite God. He proclaims Himself in the bible, but never defends Himself. Have you ever wondered about that?

Do you see the illogic of that statement? If God is infinite, who could he possibly be contained only within the pages of a single book?

Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism.

Abi, that is a wonderful illustration for a bunch of kids and glass of water. . . . but we are talking about a specific reality, a being, who has made specific revelations about Himself. In other words He has told us the reality of the glass being half full. It has been defined for us. I have blue eyes. . . I can slap some green contacts on, but I still have blue eyes. That reality does not change. If something is round. . . it is not square at the same time? I may not like round, but it is round. Defined, descriptive and understood as the reality.

Yes, concrete, five senses objects can be defined and by and large contained within a definition. But God is not a five senses reality. So, it is sort of apples to oranges, no? And even those things that are five senses defined are still ever changing. Take a window. Glass, hard, solid. but is it really? Because scientists will tell you glass isn't a solid, it is a liquid. Almost everything on this earth is in a constant state of change - though the change may occur so slowly that we fail to perceive it. And yet, despite the contiuous change, there are some properties within the change that are ever constant and unchanging.

he bible says it is inspired by God. . . a revelation of Himself to man. . . if true. . . it's specifics concerning who He is are true. . . No? How can it possibly be that if it is true. . . it is not true for everyone? What we understand or choose to believe does not reality make. I can choose to believe I am 5' 10" and chronologically 21 years old. Not the reality. I like the idea better. . . but I am 5' 5" and older than 21 :) . Moreover, the bible states that God does not change. In it He states. . . I am that I am. He does not state, I am what you want me to be.

And yet, if you could truly convince yourself that you were 5'10" and 21 years old, people may not believe you are only 21, but they would perceive you as being younger than you are. :)

i am that I am . . . . and that I am is so much bigger than we can perceive and understand. The NT says it is inspired by God. I don't believe the OT makes that claim. The NT also is often addressed to specific groups of people, I don't believe the OT does that. So, it works for you, it is addressed to you, perhaps. And hontestly, I respect that you have found a way to God that fits you. I just don't believe it is the ONLY way to God.

The bible clearly covers man's rebellion towards God's authority. . . over and over again--ad nauseum in fact. What does one rebell against? Authority right? Rebellion can have many faces. . . it is still rebellion. Could you not call redefining something clearly defined as rebellion?

What exactly is rebellion? Because there are many instances recorded in the OT of people violating the laws God gave, and God didn't reckon them rebellious. Rebellion is a state of heart, IMO

It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way.

I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it.

Abi, I can relate on many levels to your journey. I don't judge it. But, I have to ask you. . . what God do you believe in? The one who acts and behaves in a manner you consider loving? As a finite being, could it not be, we don't always understand what the true loving thing is? That God's ways are above our ways? That there is a greater, higher purpose at work? Stands to reason, that if we are not omtipotent, and He is. . . He might have an edge. If you tell your child they can't play in the street, they could be hurt, but they think it is okay. . . are you being unloving? Or are you being more loving? It also stands to reason that we can surely believe that God exists. . . without believing in Him.

Oh, I certainly agree that I can't and don't understand all of God's ways. If I did, I'd be a god, no? But I still have to follow those things that sit peaceably in my heart. To do othewise, to do something my consiouce says is wrong simply because someone points to scripture and tells me "thus sayeth the Word" THAT would truly be wrong, IMO.

When one decides what is or is not loving. . . that is a declaration of what God should be. . . not the other way around. That is fine. But, when the bible says that God willingly sacrificed His Son. . . for us. . .and one rejects this based on what they consider loving or tolerable. . . it is based on a feeling. All authority of scripture is discarded for our own way. No? If the bible says A, B, and C are all true and we don't like A or B, but C is okay with us, so it is true for us. . . how reliable is B? Not very.

For you those things are true, Geisha, because you follow the bible. But remember, I do not follow the New Testament. So when you say "the Bible says God sacrified his son" it is not hard for me to disagree with that notion. I have a different frame of reference, a different world view. Now, I can accept that you believe those things. But I still see that concept as a glaring contradiction coming from a God that hated human sacrifice.

Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then.

I was less studious I am afraid. However, logic is more than simply the mathematics of words. . . . There are laws to logic. Identity, P is P--noncontradiction--P is not non P--excluded middle either P or non P.

If I say it is snowing. . . you know what that means. It is a true statement (if it IS snowing). It is a statement applied to the reality? No? Everything is itself and not something else. . . snowing is identified.

If I say "It is snowing". . . that cannot be true and untrue. . . it may not be snowing where you are, but that does not mean it can snow and not snow in the same place at the same time.

It is snowing. . . . is a statement that is true or false.

These are fundemental laws governing reality. Can't get around them without creating your own reality.

If you really consider, to deny them is self-refuting. They are what is assumed in scripture.

But you are comparing the 5 senses with spiritual matters, Geisha. Spiritual matters are not so easily and readily defined. We can not see them, taste them, smell them. They are not so concrete. Even the writings contained within the Bible are not so concrete - if they were there wouldn't be so much disagreement and debate about them!!

As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective.

Is God a reality or an idea?

Both. I believe there is a reality that is God. I also think that what we see is in part the reality of God and in part an idea.

I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first.

You have about the cutest kids I have seen. Truly. . you are a lovely family. Is it the truth that changes with our perception. . . was your son actually attacked? The law of identity defines an attack as specific. We know what an attack is. Right?

Was the person who gently touched him attacking? As defined. . . as we know the reality of an attack? No,

Do you see at all, the logical fallacy here. . . . His perception did not make the reality of the gentle touch an attack. . . He percieved it as such, it was his reality. But, an attack is specific. . . a gentle touch is specific. . . The law of non contradiction Abi. . . it is not an attack and a gentle touch at the same time. . . they are two different things.

I think terms have to be defined. Facts are facts are facts. They the fact that the grass is green is somewhat unchanging (unless it is winter). Truth is how we perceive the facts. So the fact was, there was no attack. But the truth as my son percieved it was that he was attacked - that was what he knew, what he perceived.

hahahaha, think of a married couple having an argument. She goes to her mother and said he did thus and thus. He later tries to explain to the mother no, I didn't do thus and thus and did this and this. Odds are really good they both are telling the truth as they perceived things.

Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become?

Classic postmodern argument . . . . text book. Truth as defined in a cultural --social and linguistic construction. It serves a specific purpose. I get it. No objective reality beyond our cultural boundries. Reality described differently. But, what if there IS a God's eye view and an objective reality?

I have no doubt there is a God's eye view and an objective reality. I just don't think WE will ever see things from that God's eye view while we are living in these flesh and blood bodies.

This understanding of cultural truth. . . it is what scripture opposes. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. Social customs or personal opinions. . . do not create truth. When the bible says Jesus is Lord. . .you perceive that as a Christian tradition and cultural language. . . . I get that. . . . the bible. . . . claims it as truth about an objective reality. Truth with a corresponding object.

Which is why. . . when someone comes on these forums. . . and expresses Jesus is the only way to God. . . they are expressing an objective reality. Not that they are better. . . . NO. . . they are saying. . . there actually is no other way to God. No other path will get you there. . . He is the only way to the Father. Not that it is the elite way. . . or their favorite way. . . or the fun way. . . or even the pretty way. . .

Why? How can we do that? Because the bible proclaims itself to be true, and to be authoritative. If it is. . . people have a problem. . . . if not, I am just a misguided jerk and it is all good. When we cherry pick what we like. . . we lose any universal standard or objective reality. We create our own. . .

I am banking on the revelation of God revealed in scripture. . . whether I like it or not. My reality conforms to something outside myself. . . which claims the authority of reality. . . not my own idea of it. . . .and. . . it is not like I have not examined the evidence or other faiths. The bible is unique in its continuity, circulation, translation, teaching, influence and survivability.

And that is the crux of the matter. YOU are banking on that idea and for you, that idea is reality. Others do not bank on that idea, others do not proclaim themselves to be Christian, so for them that idea is not reality.

One of the strongest testaments to the God of the bible. . . is the Jewish people. A great nation out of Abraham. YEP. A dispersed people. I am a historian by nature and education. . . in each place the Jews have been. . . they have been driven out. Usually because they prospered. Wandering for 1900 years. Persecuted, from everywhere. Look at the Holocaust. But, what is utterly amazing is . . . Israel. . . reborn on May 14, 1948. Through all of this. . . they have neither perished. . . or lost their national identity. 5 generations is about as far as people get before they disappear without a home. Unique and special people.

Why am I not Jewish? Because I am one of the gentiles the bible speaks of. . . who was grafted in. . . you know the rest. :)

Abi, I appreciate the time and the honesty. . . I anticipated your responses. . . in truth, I could have written them for you. As you may have gathered. . . I have thought these things out once or twice. It is not like I do not understand your perspective. . . I just cannot embrace it. Doesn't mean I can't embrace you though. . . . :) It never means that.

So you are saying I am predictable? :) HA! And it is okay with me if you don't embrace my perspective. I am truly enjoying our conversation here.

I guess I would be asking different questions. I would ask myself why is a human life so precious and the shedding of innocent blood so dear? I would also

ask myself why God would consider the unwilling innocent life sacrificed to idols. . . . an abomination.

Then I would wonder why. . . He would do this Himself. . . with a willing heart and willing sacrifice. . . as the ultimate and final sacrifice forever. What was the

meaning behind it. . . I would consider what that is in relation to scripture. A source we do have and can look at for meaning. The book of Hebrews discusses

much of this very thing.

Geisha, I have been reading Hebrews this morning and started to put together a response to this. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to do it without it becoming unwieldy and extremely lengthy. I will continue to think on it and see if I can come up with a way to share my thoughts in a shorter, more cohesive post than the one I started to write. :)

Glad you liked it, Garth.

Abi,

You are a very pragmatic thinker Abi, I say this with a little bit of confidence given your worldview. Very much a postmodern philosophy. Would you agree? I don't want to assume anything and can only go by what you tell me.

Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. :) ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on.

Would you say that you reject the idea of a comprehensive or authoritative worldview being within reach? You are a bright woman so I assume you understand what postmodernism is. . . a less rational worldview that opts for a cluster or cobbling together of ideas. Postmodernists often believe that to claim a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. That it is arrogant.

Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really? :) I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it?

I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together.

Narratives used to describe reality as a whole. . . the bible for instance. . . have to be deconstructed? Broken down until they have no authoritative meaning? Meaning they become subjective? Does any of this sound like your thought process? Or am I wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.

Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. :) However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism.

The reason I ask is that it is evident in your answers to me. It is a paticular philosophy that one could describe . . . as reactionary to another thought process. It never surprizes me on these forums. It makes perfect sense to me in terms of faith. . . .given our shared history. Most movements in history are reactions to something.

It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way.

I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it.

I really do respect your intellect so. . . I wanted to ask you a few things. If you want to answer. . . I would love it. . . if not, I get it.

Do you consider logic as something which is arbitrary? Correct reasoning not attainable? I bet you know that logic. . . is approached with basic laws. . . not unlike our laws in society. A kind of set of rules to follow. . . If want to get somewhere and you go in the opposite direction, logically you are not going to make it to your destination. . . right?

Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy :) I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then. :)

Your above post makes me think of the law of noncontradiction. P is not nonP

Can something be true for me and not for you? Or is it true and not true at the same time? Or is it true and we don't believe it? Does truth change with the person or is truth a reality that is unchangeable with perception? What do you think? Can you believe that blue is a color and not a color at the same time? Is the moon made of cheese because I believe it is?

As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full :) ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective.

Truth has to be a match up to a reality Abi. It is by its nature not subjective. Do you agree with this? Or, am I wrong? I have been waiting for months for someone to bring up the blind men and the elephant. :)

I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first.

So, how can there be so many truths? The very idea contradicts what the bible states. That leaves it an either or proposition. Either we conform our beliefs to the reality of God in the bible. . . or we do as it states and cobble our own belief system from many paths and parts.

Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become?

Now, here is the problem with that. What is the reality? Where does the actual object i.e, God, intersect. Still with me? Relativism and postmodernism is much too selective for logic. It leaves behind the reality of objective truth.

Again, I disagree. What you call relatiivism and postmodernism is far far more logical than the black and white, either or, you speak of and I have explained why. Add to that, I don't believe there is an actual, concrete God. God is spirit and there is nothing concrete about spirit. God dwells in all of us and there is no way a black and white, concrete being could possibly do that!

How does human wisdom become sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God?

Define human wisdom, Geisha. For that matter what is a spiritual knowledge? You know what the biggest sin a man can commit is? It isn't a "sin against god" via "breaking God's law." The two biggest sins are to sin against yourself and to sin against man. To do those things which you know in your heart are wrong. And how do we know they are wrong? "It is written in our hearts and our hearts tell us so." So, I don't view my belief system as "man's wisdom." I view it as that which has been written in my heart.

All that a belief in all paths lead to God does. . . is negate any path as true.

Becaue no one path is true. Neither is any one religion. We all have bits and pieces of truth.

Even the relativist believes that those who don't agree with them are . . . . . wrong or put more politely "Misguided".

Well then I guess I am not a relativist, because I don't see you as "misguided." I simply believe we have taken different roads that will ultimately get us to the same place.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed He was the only way to the Father. . . . anybody who says this is either a liar or telling the truth. There is no excluded middle. Any attempt is a weak argument. . .

What was the "only way" that he claimed, exactly? He didn't claim Romans 10:9 & 10, someone else did that. So, what exactly did Jesus mean when he said he was the way? BTW, Jesus was Jewish. Judaism teaches that we are all sons of God, so for Jesus to refer to himself as a son of God would be logical.

Abi,

Still have my mind in the hell thread!! But, here is something that may provoke thought or debate here. I am still working on pluralism, but truly this is an important issue. I do understand the Jewish perspective on this. So, maybe this will help a wee bit.

I also understand that Jewish people do not believe that one man can atone for the sins of another, that Jesus, being a man, did nothing more than offer a human death. . . and God being eternal cannot die. Geeze. . . . Who was this guy Jesus anyway? :)

HA! I like your sense of humor in all of this, Geisha! Though I would add, I do not take Jesus so lightly. I do think that perhpas he was one of the great teachers and worthy of study!

This is from a post I found with a search. Honestly, I couldn't find it again, but I will try. . . . I used to sell Geisha Girl China. . . a collectible, and I would do the auction circuit. I became friendly with this woman who was very religious, Jewish. She even brought her rabbi to meet me one night. He and I became frenemies. . . all on his part. . . I liked him. He didn't want me to discuss my faith with my new friend. I respected that. . . but he and I went around and around. . . he even tried to get me to go to a Kabutz(SP). This is the issue. . . we never made it around.

Maybe Romans will help us a bit. . . who knows.. . . either way it is interesting.

It is interesting and I look forward to our discussions. Perhaps you will be relieved to know I do not follow a particular rabbi or sect, but rather study a variety of them. I take what sits peacefully in my heart from each of them and dismiss the rest. Once again, the beauty of being free from cultic black and white thinking is the freedom to pick and choose. :)

And really, there is much disagreement and debate among the differing sects of Judaism and the Rabbis regarding the meaning and application of various verses - not so very different than Christianity or any other major religion.

You will find Messianic Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah. You will find Jews who believe that humanity collectively will be the messiah when/as we reorder the world. You will find Jews who believe in heaven and hell and Jews who do not.

Like Christianity, there are some basic fundamental things that knit us together (such as lighting the sabbath candles on Friday night) and then there are vast differences.

Yes, God hates human sacrifice which the nations practiced and Israel sometimes copied. But to compare the sacrificing of a child against their will, to Jesus willingly laying down His life so that we could have eternal life, is a gross misunderstanding. I’m really not sure why you have a problem with this.

I do see the distinction between forcing a child against their will and an adult freely willing. Where the distinction becomes lost, for me however, is with the notion of a parent freely offering. I do not understand and cannot comprehend how a parent can sacrifice the life of a child. Not a human parent and certainly not an all loving diety parent. Especially if that diety not only allegedly "planned" and "foreordained" the death of his own child, but made it so that the only way mankind could be redeemed was through this plan.

Read again the following quote… Your own Rabbis didn’t used to see this as a problem. They understood this because they knew that God was far to holy to simply approach on the basis of our own good works. They knew that it was God who demanded a blood sacrifice. For example, consider the following Rabbinic quote concerning Zech 12:10

There are many arguments among many Rabbis. The conclusion I have come to is that God did not demand a blood sacrifice as atonement for sin in the way that tradition Christianity teaches it. I think I covered this issue in the "hell" thread, so I will leave it there for now. :)

Sacrifice for sin, because of, the beginning.

Who really sinned in Genesis?

Indeed, Cman. :) And what, exactly, is sin?

You got it. You nailed it!! He was speaking to those who did this in His name. Here is the thing though. . . . those who do this have followers. What is explained about these people in scripture is that they are lead astray. Remember the verse in 2 Timothy that tells us. . . . "always learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". The context is men and women, jumping from one false teaching or cult to another. Without ever coming to a real understanding of God's saving truth in Jesus Christ.

It is their outward form of Christianity and morality that makes them all the more dangerous. People become easy prey for these deceitful false teachers. They are weak in knowledge and weighed down with emotional and spiritual guilt of their sins.

Settling for all the false signs and wonders does not touch the heart or make them whole as Jesus did with the woman at the well.

Yet, do they appear as Christian? These false teachers are SO good at it. . . . the outward appearance. . . they even get into the church. They have Mega Churches!!

People follow their ways. They never come to know the truth, they stop and accept. Which is why Jesus will say on that day. . . . depart I never knew you.

If I am reading this right, you are saying that people who search their entire lives for God may be told "depart, I never knew you" because they were led astray by false teachers? Yet earlier you said if people search, God will answer? I ask because it seems to be contradictory and I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

Conversely, in the OT God says do this, do that, concerning sacrifices, but He also told them to prepare their hearts to worship. Seems they could NEVER get this together for very long. . . fair enough?? You asked why God would require human sacrifice?

There was never any remission of sins without blood. . . was there? Didn't God give Adam and Eve animal skins to cover them? Wasn't the whole plan for a perfect and complete sacrifice? This is what is revealed in the OT? Jews understand the purpose of sacrifice and atonement.

I believe the point behind the sacrifices (and remember many did not involve blood) were to remind mankind to be thankful for the food they were getting. To respect the earth they were put on. To give thanks because something died so that they could live.

Many of the sacrifices were rituals that man needed to make the more ethereal concepts concrete and understandable. I don't believe God needed the sacrifices, but that man needed the rituals, the concrete. I think many of them probably stemmed from pagan rituals and were modified to make them more humanitarian.

Others served different purposes. For instance, if you ever study the laws of kosher food preparation, you will see that part of the design behind them was a way to prepare healthy foods in a way that was the least cruel to the animals that were being eaten. You will find that such kosher laws do not exist for plant life.

I believe Jesus did live and die. that he freely gave his life (though I remain unconvinced it was some plan predisted by God). I think we God would like us to follow the example Jesus set. I just don't believe Christianity has some "hold" on that. Nor do I think merely performing Romans 10:9 & 10 is the answer.

The example Jesus set was one of love and sacrifice. That is what God requires of us as well. To love one another, to make sacrifices of ourselves to help one another and in doing so, to reorder the world. None of us will ever do it perfect, but in TRYING to do it we learn oh so much and become better people. It is too easy to just shrug your shoulders and say "I'm never going to do it perfect, jesus paid the price, so I don't really have to try." And the very people who say those things, are often the very people who believe they don't have to try, because it has all been done for them already. They are often the ones who preach condemnation to those who believe it is our responsibility to do something to fix this mess of a world we live in - that we do have to try!

To quote a song that often brings tears to my eyes

I told the priest -

Don't count on

Any second coming.

God got his foot kicked

The first time he

Came down here slumming

He had the balls to come,

The gall to die and then

Forgive us -

No, I don't wonder why

I wonder what he thought

It would get us -

Hey he, good try -

Tomorrow, Wendy's,

Going to die

But God says jump,

so I set the time

'cause if he ever saw her

it was through these eyes of mine

and if He ever suffered

it was me who did His crying...

Hey, hey, good bye...

("Tomorrow Wendy" by Concrete Blonde)

Jesus was not only a sacrifice, but a willing sacrifice. Why would God do this? For God so loved the world. . . . God made the perfect and willing sacrifice with the heart of love behind it. He not only showed us how. . . but He did it Himself.

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. . . . . He offered one perfect sacrifice for sins for all time. Something He truly loved. . . the main thing He loved. . . this is my beloved Son. . . what does the word sacrifice mean? What does atone mean? Why Jesus? It was a worthy sacrifice which is able to atone for sin forever. God did this out of a heart of love for us.

It took God Himself to make the sacrifice. . . the effective sacrifice that does not just cover sin. . . it effectively removes it.

But it didn't remove it. Now someday in may be removed, but in there here and now sin is alive and doing quite well. And, people justify their sins by saying "Jesus saved me, I can't save myself and I don't have to try. I can just keep on sinning because I am an imperfect human being.

It is a gift from a loving God. . . also the reason WE can't boast! LOL

Great is the mystery of Godliness revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up into glory. . . .

I do have a point here. . . it is coming. . . now when I ask you something, you may understand more where I am coming from.

I suspect the gift from God most people are seeking through Jesus is forgiveness. That is what is often at the heart of the teacdhings behind redemption - the notion that God forgives you for your imperfections and sins. Those are great concepts and teachings. Most people probably feel a need to be forgiven at some point in their lives and if Christianity can offer them that, then great!! Not all of us find forgiveness through Christianity, some of us find other paths to forgiveness from God.

Geisha,

I would opine that most (if not all) of us who spent time in TWI were genuinely asking, genuinely seeking. Yet, look where that got us?

Judas didn't betray because he had a passion for God and believed Jesus to be false. Judas betrayed out of greed. Not so very different, perhaps, than VPW or LCM?

On the other hand, many here are where they are today (at least in part) because of what they experienced while in TWI. So to say to George, or Oakspear, or Bramble, or Garth, "you are going to spend eternity in an everlasting hell because you turned your back on God and/or Jesus" . . . .

Well I'm sorry, but I just can't take to that type of doctrine. I would bet money that George, Oakspear, Bramble, Garth . . . they have all at some point or another genuinely sought out God and God's answer appears to to have been TWI???

I believe Oakspear and Bramble have found God. They call Him by names different than I. They worship Him in ways different than I. But I believe it is the same God. That they called and God answered in a way that fit their relationships with him.

Garth, George, they too searched and God answered in a way that fit for them. A way that allows them to be good, decent human beings and function within our society - even if they now call upon the God who is "no god."

I also believe that if, as you would propose, Jesus is the only way - then it will be God's job to show me that. To show Bramble that. To show Garth that. etc. And in the long run, I believe telling people "if you don't believe my way you will go to everlasting hell" doesn't help God to show us anything. I believe it would probably make God's job that much harder to reach people. It sure doesn't turn me on to the notion of Christianity!

But then, I don't believe God will send me or anyone else to an everlasting hell, simply because we found a path to him that differs from yours, or RG, or each other's. I believe hell is reserved for those who are truly hateful and harmful to mankind. And maybe even that isn't the case. Maybe those who are truly hateful and harmful to makind are that way for reasons you and I can never understand, but that God can. Perhaps, God will simply heal them? I don't know. When it comes to those types of Judgments, I can only speculate, I suppose.

I get the basic concept of sacrifice. I think we all make sacrifices, for our children, our family, our community and country, etc. Many men and women have sacrificed their lives for our country, for instance. Most parents would sacrifice their own life to save the life of their child, I imagine.

I can get behind the notion that Jesus sacrificed his own life. It is the idea that God set in motion a specific plan that required Him to commit a human sacrifice of his own (and allegedly only begotten) son, as the only way for man to be redeemed that I have trouble comprehending. Especially if this God who set in motion this plan, is supposed to be the same God of the OT who so hated human sacrifice. Over and over we read in the OT how the Jewish people angered God for worshipping idols. But if you look closely at those scriptures, it isn't just that they were worshipping idols, it was that they were sacrificing human beings.

There are many instances where Jewish people broke the laws and things worked out well, even though they broke the laws. But, whenever they started performing human sacrifices, that was when God really seemed to get ticked off. So how, then, could HE have possibly set in motion this plan whereby the only way for man to be redeemed was by doing the very thing he seemed to hate?

That was one of the things TWI taught, that I always sort of struggled with. It seems to be taught in other sects of Christianity as well.

Looking forward to your thoughts, Cman!!

RG, do you see the similarity between what you are preaching and what we were taught in TWI?

The attitudes that exude from your posts?

'I didn't write the book, God did'

'if you don't believe my way then you are wrong/off the Word/out of fellowship, and I am right'

'if you don't believe my way you are rejecting God'

Even the 'black and white' God?

All you have to do is read the OT to know that God isn't black and white and that He was full of compassion and forgiveness even before Jesus' life. Moses broke the law and married an 'unbeliever.' David ate of the shew bread. Abraham was going to commit child sacrifice. Sarah laughed at God. I could go on and on and on. Even the great ones from the OT didn't have it perfect and yet, God loved them and forgave them.

When you were in TWI, were you not equally convinced that you had the "only truth" and everyone else was misled, an unbeliever, a rejector of God? Do you not recall how hard-hearted and unloving it all became?

Do you not see how you appear to have fallen into that same way of thinking all over again?

[As a side note - am I the only one who sees the contradiction in the notion that a God who so hated human sacrifice in the OT would set up a "plan" whereby human sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) was the ONLY way to redeem man?]

Ask away, Geisha. It is not likely I will take offense, and honestly it is not likely I will convert. Oh that I could!! It would be much simpler, living in this society, to simply converst and go with the masses!! :)

Garth,

Am I seriously proposing the gene theory? Ummm, not really. Do I think the gene theory COULD be right? Sure, I think it is possible. All I have to do is look at my two boys and remember what they have been like since infancy (so very different from each other too). They have convinced me that to some degree or another, our personalities are genetically programmed.

So, no, I don't believe the gene theory has been proven, but I do think it could be one of many possibilities. But mostly, I was just having fun with George.

Hold on a sec - I left before all of this happened with Martindork changing all of this stuff...do you mean to tell me that God who created the universe actually gave a dam about Eve getting it on with a pseudo female? Besides I thought that spirit was sexless...never mind lemme go pour some more Drambuie.

Yup, welcome to my world. I didn't get involved until after LCM was in charge and VPW was long gone. That is pretty much how LCM taught it. Eve had lesbian relations with "the serpent" :blink:

As hooked as I was by the time I took the WAP class, even I had a hard time swalling that.

Aww, George, you can drive by post in the doctrinal section anytime.

Btw:

Despite "witnesses" to the contrary and all sorts of studies - and even universities - devoted to some sort of intellectual pursuit of religious notions, it occurs to me that "spiritual" concepts and ideas are primarily driven by emotion and feelings. When you have a text as dubious and variously interpreted and as uncertain in origin as most Holy Writs tend to be, how can you EVER claim any sort of "intellectual" veracity?

Just thought I would mention that there are studies that would suggest it isn't driven by emotions and feelings alone. Some studies suggest it is genetics. That your DNA programs you to believe or not to believe.

So, perhaps it simply isn't in your DNA? And if it isn't there, it isn't there. Not your fault, not your choice?

Drive by again sometime soon. :)

Doesn't it always boil down to phrases like "I just FEEL the Lord is showing me such and such", or "I'm being GUIDED to believe such and such", or - the common Wayfer phrase "I just KNOW blah, blah, blah".

"Belief" is a lot of things, but a rigorous intellectual discipline it's not...

Notta, maybe this will trigger your memory?

I can think of two possibilities

In Genesis, amongst all the begots there is Enoch who walked with God, thn was no more, because God took him away.

Later, there is Elijah in 2 Kings who went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So many conversations going on here at once, I really wish I could keep up!!! But for now I will stick with this one, because it is where I started. :)

Geisha, I am going to do my best to answer your questions here, but I am not entirely sure I understand them, so I may need some additional input from you. (p.s. use smaller words so I don't have to grab my dictionary ;) ).

Hi Abi,

I will start a thread soon and maybe we can look at Romans. . . . seems a good place to take a peek from a Jewish perspective. Thanks for your answer and

hope when you get a chance you can look at what I said about what it means to follow Jesus. I am hardly perfect or an expert at it. . . but I keep on trying.

Perspective, Geisha. What it means to follow Jesus truly is a subjective matter of perspective. I believe I do follow Jesus (though I don't label myself Christian) in many ways, though certainly not perfectly.

I have ALWAYS wanted to ask something here, but vitriolic responses have often precluded me from posing this, but, since I have your ear for a moment, and know you to be willing to honestly consider.. . . . . .

When one turns to another faith after claiming Christianity as their faith for sometimes as long as 20 years. . . . how, can one say, with real intellectual honesty, that they reject the concept of true and opposing false believers within Christianity?

And this is where I begin to get lost and become unsure of what you are asking. I think you are asking either a) how I can reject Christianity after being one or b) how I can reject the notion that there are false believers within Christianity.

I'll start with a) how could I reject it after claiming it:

First, you have to understand I was not raised Christian. My parents were non practicing Jews. I did pick up on bits and pieces of Christianity while growing up, because our small community was largely composed of Christians. I even when to catechism (sp) for a time as a child, because I was curious and interested. Outside of that, my only real exposure to Christianity was with Jehovah Witnesses (I never became one but I did study with some for a time) and TWI. I think by your definition of Christianity, then, I may never have truly been a Christian?

I also went to a number of churches off and on both before and after my time with TWI. What they taught just never sat right with me. Truly, even when I look back on my time with TWI, I had issues with things that were taught, though some of it I did believe and some of it I desperately wanted to believe and some of it I wanted to reject and some of it I wished I could reject.

After leaving TWI, I spent quite a few years studying a variety or religions. I eventually realized that what I was really looking for was that "connection to God" that I felt I had as a child. TWI gave me head knowledge, but in gaining that head knowledge I lost any sense of a true connection with God that I once had. Eventually, I decided to return to my roots and study the relgion of my heritage. There I found the peace that I had been searching for, for nearly my entire life. There I have at least begun to find that connection with God that I had lost for so many years.

That said, while I don't label myself a Christian, I don't reject Jesus either. (and because of that I am sure there are plenty within Judaism, though certainly not all, who would reject me!). I very much believe in what Jesus taught and I do believe he was sent by God to teach, as were many of the great men and woman of the O.T.

So, while I label myself Jewish, there are those who would not. While I don't label myself a Christian, there are those who probably would, if they fully understood what I do and do not believe. :)

Which sort of brings me full circle to part b) how I can reject the notion that there are false believers within Christianity:

For this, I think I would need to understand your perspective of false believers within Christianity. From my perspective, it does not matter what label you assign to your religious beliefs. In the end, Christian, Jew, Pagan, you will have some of it right and some of it wrong. What does matter, at least to God IMO, is that you are learning and growing. That your heart is with Him.

I hope somewhere in all of that I have answered your question. If I haven't, then please be patient with me and try to re-state it your question so I can try again. :)

Especially as the bible has specific verses exclaiming Christ ability to keep us? That no one is able to snatch us from His hand. . . . even us. The bible tells us Jesus will leave the 99 sheep of His own flock to find and carry back on His shoulders the one who has wandered away?

One of the places where God is portrayed as a woman through a parable is where the woman who goes through every inch of her house to find the smallest coin while not regarding the riches she already posseses.

Our faith in reality rest completely in His ability. Faith is a gift and if it is truly from God, it is a perfect gift. It would be one that is able to acomplish that which is its purpose. The bible exclaims the abilty of God to accomplish His purpose.

If faith is truly a gift to be received only from God and rests completely in God's ability, than certainly we cannot lay blame at the feet of those who are lacking in faith, can we? Would not their lack of faith then be God's fault, if it can only come from Him? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Jesus own words. . . . depart----I never knew you. . . to cries of Lord, Lord,. . . did I not. . . in your name. Give us a glimpse of the opposing true and false believer. . . . don't they?

But who was Jesus speaking to? Was he speaking to the sinner, the atheist, the pagan? Or was he speaking to those who would oppress others out of their greed for power, money, lust?

Yet, I have read and seen a pluralistic or relativist debate ensue about Christianity as a faith in the most voracious manner. This, by the very same people who faked it for years. Debating, while being a living illustration of the opposing viewpoint just strikes me as ironic, does it not strike you that way?

I am not sure what you mean by this or what you are asking. Could you try to restate it please?

I have always wondered here on these forums. . . . about this very thing. It would also not be a stretch to surmise that there are specific things which make one a Christian. If, there are. . . . we may not have had them in TWI. Most have gone their own way, haven't we? As a person claiming Christianity as a one time faith, but now having moved on to something else. . . one could deduce that the element missing to allow this. . . could be a relationship with Jesus and knowing Him enough to hear His voice and causing Him to come collect us. . . . should we stray. No?

Well, in a sense you may have answered your own question - at least with respect to me. If there is a very specific thing that makes one Christian, and we may not have even gotten that specific thing from TWI, then it is quite likely that from your perspective (and the perspective of others, do doubt) that I never was a Christian. If having a relationship with Jesus is a requirement for being Christian than I can honestly say I never was one. I did not have a relationship with Jesus while in TWI. In TWI I grasped the concept that God is all loving and forgiving (via the teachings of Jesus and the example of Jesus) but I never had an actual relationship with Jesus. I have had a relationship with God, but not Jesus.

And this brings us back to pluralism, perhaps. If I say I have a relationship with God and you say you have a relationship with Jesus, is it not possible we both have a relationship with the same being, but simply assign different names? If Oakspear or Bramble have relationships with several gods, is it not possible they actually have a relationship with one and the same God, but for whatever reason, they view the different aspects of God as different dieties?

I used to have a tag line that said something to the effect of "all the gods are but one god." It was a paraphrase from a line in one of my favorite novels. It goes back to labels and rituals, which are but forms and fashions to help our human minds understand that which we otherwise cannot understand. I think God is much bigger than the human labels, forms, and rituals we assign, but He understands our human frailty and "winks" at it, so to speak.

Geisha,

I am short on time, but I wanted to respond to you. You have another post in here somewhere I want to respond to as well, if I can. I am going to attempt to place my responses in red within your reply, so the chain of thought isn't lost. :)

Does he save us from our sin by dying? Or does he save us from our sin by setting the example of being WILLING to die because he so LOVED? I don't believe the act of dying, in and of itself, saved anyone. I don't believe resurrection saved anyone. I do believe by following the example he set, we do cast away our sins and become the loving people God desires us to be. We are saved from sin by following the example of love. By setting aside greed, lust, selfishness, etc. etc.

Well, yes and no. . . . YES He does teach us to love by this very act, but no, He doesn't save us from our sins by teaching us how to make ourselves good enough, I am sure you understand from the OT about God's holy nature. I am also sure you understand the fall of man.

I do understand the fall of man, as it is taught within Christianity. I also have issues with the teachings and concepts. It makes no sense to me that a loving God would impune the errors of two upon the entire world. Judaism does not believe in the fall of mankind the way Christianity does. Somewhere in the back (or middle) pages of the doctrinal forum there are some threads I participated in that deal with this issue.

This simplest way to explain it is that the Tree of Knowledge was always meant to be eaten of. It wasn't that they ate from the tree but that they ate of it before they were properly prepared. This resulted in chaos. Now, mankind must help eliminate that chaos and help restore order. That is quite oversimplified, but time is short so I am doing the best I can here.

We understand that . . . . try as we might. . . the ten commandments are impossible for us to keep. Heck, we can't even do the first two!! :) Which leaves us in a rather hopeless situation. The whole point of Christ sacrifice is that God actually became flesh, lived on the earth, knew what it was like to live as a man(So, he gets our situation) and He became our sacrifice. This is actually a bit bigger than someone paying your speeding ticket for you. :)

I understand you see it that way. But, it is not how I see it. I believe that we will never achieve perfection in our lifetime, but that we are to continue to strive for it and it is in the striving and failing that we grow and become better. Moreover, I do not believe an all loving, all knowing God ever had a need to become like man in order to understand man. I believe he has always understood man and knows we are but dust.

It only takes one offense against a Holy God. . . . I can do that before breakfast. . . . in fact a good Christian prayer is "God, I have kept my thoughts on you, not sinned at all and have done as you require, but now I need your help. . . . because I am going to get out of bed"

And again, this is not a concept I can wrap my mind around and still see God as all loving. Heck, I am a mother and an imperfect human and I can still love my children bigger than that. When I read the OT, the laws and the continual breaking of the laws that occured by man kind, I see a story of a Father who loved his children no matter how many times they messed up. Just as we continue to love our children no matter how many times they mess up.

What a Christian understands is that no code of conduct will ever make us right with God. We couldn't keep it. So, in order for God to put things right, (remember He did this while we were still at odds with Him), He made a way for His wrath against sin to be satisfied and for us to have a relationship with Him. To enjoy Him.

You are correct, no code of conduct in and of itself will make us right with God. Nor is even God's code of conduct from the OT without its difficulties, because for every rule there will always be situations that require an exception. I believe that is one of the big lessons from the OT. No rule will fit every situation. This is why God looks on the heart and not just the action. Moreover, there were many OT men and women who had a relationship with God before Jesus was ever born.

His wrath? Well, God is Holy and cannot abide sin. . . . so if God is truly just and He claims He is. . . He would have to mete out judgement. . . enter Jesus. . . now, here is the rub. . . He took on that wrath and judgement in our place. BTW, no mere man could stand that. The sins of the world?

I disagree. Yes, God is just and holy and loving. Yes, he gives Judgement, but not on the letter of the law. Even David ate of the shew bread, remember?

He became sin who knew no sin ( He was sinless. . . a perfect sacrifice) . God poured out what was owed to us on Jesus.

So now, God can treat us like we lived Jesus perfect life. . . . no sin. . . . brillant really!

The concept is not one that sits peacefully in my heart. The notion that someone can go out and rape and murder, rob people blind and get a "free pass" because they believe in Jesus and someone who is honest and loving their whole life but doesn't believe in and perhaps never heard of Jesus is condemned to hell or gravedome or whatever term you want to use.

And Abi, I would LOVE to discuss the epistles and Isaiah with you. . . I would be honored.

It would truly be a labor of love. I have been wanting to do a comparative study of the Epistles and the OT from the perspective of the teachings of Judaism, but it would be a lenghty process, to say the least. If you would be interested in picking a starting point from the Espistles and starting a thread, I'd be happy to work on it with you. Just be patient in that I may not get to the thread more than once or twice a week because of time contraints and my desire to really "do it right" so to speak. :)

Hi Abi,

I am so glad to see you!! I can also understand that you don't count the NT in your faith. . . you are Jewish right? That makes sense.

So, I do have to wonder why you would use the epistles as a basis for explaining something? :)

I use them for a couple of different reasons. First, because I recognize them as books that you use, and thus assume they communicate well to you. So, while I suppose I could have said the same thing without them, I think my meaning is more easily communicated by using them.

I also use them because they are filled with the teachings of Judaism. Paul, for instance, was extremely well versed in Judaism. His writings contain many of those teachings. He took the lessons from the stories in the OT and wrote them down in a way that was probably quite easily understood by the culture to whom he was writing.

First let me say this. . . it is important to really express this. . . I see compassion in the pluralistic perspective. . . I see a non-judgmental attitiude. . . I really do see good hearts. . . I have become quite fond of some of you heathen hoard.( Referencing a JOKE!!) I promise . . . a lame attempt at humor.

I saw it earlier and got a chuckle. Believe me when I say, while I disagree with you doctrinally on some things, I do believe you are a loving soul with nothing but the best of intent. And man, am I thankful that (IMO) intent of the heart is what matters most to God. I don't think he could care one lick (for instance) if someone is dunked or not. Similarly, I'm not convinced he cares whether or not we eat pork. Nor, do I believe he cares if we call him Allah or God or whatever.

And YES. . . . these are the ones Jesus did not take to. . . the greedy, mean, religious, politicians. . . yes yes yes!! I don't know. . . but from reading the gospels, I get the sense He did not like them.

I would go so far as to say. . . there may be some who post here who exhibit more love and understanding IRL more than some who call themselves Christian. I mean that.

However, Jesus did speak often of judgement. . . often of hell. . . and also of salvation. He claimed to be the Messiah. The Son of God. He told the rich young ruler that he was to sell His things and follow Jesus. . . but how do you follow someone you don't believe is who He says He is? He then becomes a liar. But, if He is whom He claims. . . and we reject His claim. . . where is the salvation. . . and if there is no hell. . . what are we saved from?

What, exactly, does it mean to follow Jesus? It certainly must be more than TWI taught - giving lip service to a couple of verses while inflicting pain upon your brother and sister, yes? It certainly must be more than simply labelling yourself as Christian or Jew or Muslem, no? WHY would he tell the rich young ruler to sell his things and follow him? What was Jesus really saying? Perhaps the rich young ruler was caught up in the love of power and greed and Jesus was simply telling him to give up that love and replace it with a love for his fellow man?

Abi, if He was the promised Messiah. . . the one sent to save us from our sin. . . to redeem us. . .and the OT is true concerning it telling of Him. . . HE has to be the way to salvation.

Does he save us from our sin by dying? Or does he save us from our sin by setting the example of being WILLING to die because he so LOVED? I don't believe the act of dying, in and of itself, saved anyone. I don't believe resurrection saved anyone. I do believe by following the example he set, we do cast away our sins and become the loving people God desires us to be. We are saved from sin by following the example of love. By setting aside greed, lust, selfishness, etc. etc.

I try not to quote to much scripture here. . . I imagine people scroll down like I do!! LOL But I just have to . . . .

Geisha, I understand the Christian interpretation of those verses. But surely you must realize that Jewish people understand those verses differently, no? And while I could go through them and give you the Jewish understanding of them, it would probably completely derail this thread. So, I would propose, at some point if you'd like to, start another thread or 5 (it may take at least that many) and we can go through them. And really, I think it would be quite a challenge and really fun to do so! We could take on a similar endeavor with the Epistles and I could show you what I meat earlier. I must warn you though, tt may take a few years to get through it all though :)

Isaiah 9:6

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 53:1-3

1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isaiah 50:6

I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.

Isaiah 53:7

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Sombody's wrong here. . . either Jesus was a liar or He is the Messiah foretold of in the OT. . . . and if He is. . . and it is true that we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. . . this is the way God made for us to be redeemed. . . no matter how good we are. I guess all the OT accounts of the holiness of God are helpful in understanding why we need a savior.

The either or is a logical fallacy, Geisha, because there are other options. Sure, Jesus could have been a liar (and I do not believe he was) or Jesus could have been the Messiah foretold of in the OT (which I also don't believe) or it could simply be a misundertanding of what Jesus was saying, or it could be there were translational erros, or . . . .

I surely do NOT believe I am better than anyone. . . maybe I think I am worse in many ways. But, Abi, I want you to really consider my POV, I ask you because I know you actually do consider things. . .

I do get your POV, Geisha, really. It is because I understand your point of view that I don't take offense by some of the things you write. It is because I get your POV that I can say with honestly that I like you and think you have a good heart with good intentions, even if I disagee with you.

I see compassion in accepting all ways. . . but. . . if there is really only ONE way as I believe and as the bible states . . . all other paths lead to destruction. . . how compassionate would I be . . . how loving. . . how really caring. . . if I did not share this?

And I do get that. I might even go so far as to say I hedge towards the notion of there being only one way. I just happen to disagree with what that one way is. While you see the one way as having some relationship with Jesus (which I can understand in an esoteric kind of way but cannot understand in any experiential way) I believe the one way is rooted in love - regardles of what label you give to yourself or what name you call upon God with, or what rituals you perform.

It still comes down to "Who is Jesus".

Who said they were personal problems. Geez...Abigail was making a general observation...regarding the doctrinal discussion.

heehee, thanks Oaks. But I think Rainbow was actually quoting and responding to Dooj, not me. :) Still, I am guessing your sentiment applies eithe way. :)

Baptist dunk. . . . others sprinkle. . . . some raise hands and voices other quietly contemplate. . . . but all Christian denominations hold to the basic tenants of Christianity. . . other things are personal preference . . . . some things are cultural influences. Others are a focus on an aspect of faith.

If I bow to Mecca 6 times a day and claim Allah as my God and then proclaim myself a Christian. . . . well, am I? No, not likely.

Well, you certainly wouldn't label yourself Christian, no. But what is the word "Allah?" Is it not simply another name for God? As is Jehovah to some and Jesus to others. Words are used to communicate an idea. Allah communicates to me the concept of God, just as the word God, Jehovah, Elohim, etc. etc.

There are basic tenants to the Christian faith. . . . creeds are an attempt to establish these basic traditional tenants. If this is not the case. . . . than there is no foundation for faith. . . no abberant practices and no wrong way. People CAN have a relativist view of Christianity from outside the faith. . . or stand outside it while trying to redefine it. That is what we did in TWI. Nothing new.

There are basic tenants to all faiths. And when you remove the labels, the common thread among them is love, which is exactly what Jesus taught. Now, you can argue over semantics, labels and rituals and most do, even within their own sect, but that doesn't remove what is supposed to be the common theme of love.

If really curious. . . denominations often begin as a renewal. . . . the reformation spawned denominations to restore teachings of justification by faith. . . . and God's sovereignty in salvation. . . denominations split when parts cave to a more liberal view. . . . Baptistis came within the reformation tradition. . .

See, I believe differently. I believe denominations split when love begins being replaced by laws, rituals, greed for money or power. They fight over whether or not to dunk, instead of simply loving one another.

Diversity within the church is not always a bad thing. . . . as long as false teaching is avoided. . . . there is such a thing as apostasy within the church. It is important as a Christian to really examine a church teaching and practice...

diversity in a church is awesome, as long as love remains. False teachings is often a lack of love. The teachings themselves may or may not be false. But it is the lack of love for one another and the love for laws and rituals that divides.

There is a great website for anyone interested. . . . on how to find a good church. . . . http://www.9marks.org/

As for what about a Christian(Key word Christ) who doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus? You got me on that one. . . . do they really exist?

Geisha, do not even your epistles speak somewher of those who "know not God" yet do the things of God, as being better than those who know God but do not do the things of God?

It is, IMO, quite possible to follow Jesus' example without ever having heard of him. It is my opinion that "everlasting hell" is not for those who are agnostic, athiest, or some variety of non-christian. "Everlasting hell" is for those who do not love. For the religious leaders, politicians, executives, rapists, serial killers, pedophiles who are motivated by nothing more than their own greed for power, money, lust, etc. etc. Those who will knowingly and intentionally harm others to get what they want.

The nature of Jesus' claims BEGS the question. . . . was He telling the truth. . . the nature of His statements BEGS the question. Who was this guy. . . As C.S Lewis was known to say. . . was he a liar and a lunatic? He claimed to be the Son of God. . . He claimed He was the only way to salvation. . . He claimed all other ways lead to destruction. . . He spoke of a hell. . . . He spoke of consequences. . . .He was unequivacle. . . the humilty He required was to Him. . . to accepting Him as the only way. . . . The narrow gate. . . His way or the Highway.

Now, if He was just some nut. . . no problem. . .call me crazy too. . . BUT, if He is who He says He is. . . uh oh. . . because He will have the power and authority to back up His claim.

Okay, I will be the first to admit I am getting rusty on the gospels, but I'm going to toss this into the mix anyway.

Lets say Jesus was telling the truth and not a nut case. Well, first Jesus was Jewish, so of course he believed he was a son of God. The (as in the only) that is not what I believe he was teaching, it would be contradictory with the teachings of Judaism, the teachings Jesus studied.

So, what was his way? Was it the book of Romans? Nope, Romans wasn't written in Jesus' life time and Jesus didn't author it. Nor did he author any of the other epistles. So, what was his way? His way was to love the samaritan. To love the "sinner." To say, simply, "go and sin no more." I guess then, we would have to do, is understand what sin was, in the mind of Jesus.

But his way was not "worship me, bow bow down to me, etc. etc." Jesus' way was simply to love. It had absolutely nothing to do with books that were written after he died. Books by people who claim they received revelation from God, which may or MAY NOT be true. There are still plenty of people out there, even today (aka VPW) who claim to get revelation from God - that doesn't make it so.

So, if one assigns themself the name "Wiccan" or "Jew" or "Muslem" or "Christian" those are nothing but labels. Words. Words that mean entirely different things to different people. Jesus didn't use such words. His way was to love. He loved the Jews, he loved the samaritans, he loved the sinners. The only ones who seemed to truly anger him were those who were caught so caught up in religion and laws they couldn't see the forest for the trees. They couldn't love, they could only impose their wills upon the wills of others.

BTW, I'm not sure Jesus ever did teach much that would "define" God. He offered us some glimpses of characteristics. He may have referred to him as the God of Moses, etc (though I am not sure if he did or didn't), but I don't think he ever stated one must believe in a trinity or lablel themselves Christian, or believe in Rom 10:9 & 10. I think he wanted us to follow his example of love. He wanted us to toss aside religious doctrines that enslaved and oppressed people.

Geisha, you know I like you and I truly believe your intentions are good. I understand where you are coming from. But honestly, I find that what you teach is the very enslavement and oppression that Jesus stood against. I know that is a very harsh thing for me to say, given your beliefs about Jesus. But I am being honest here. I don't think you intend to enslave or oppress, but I do think that is the result nontheless.

Did the Family and Sex class say anything about adultery?

What about premarital sex?

If you don't remember anything particular about this- what impression did you get from Wierwille (or Martindale or Coulter) about premarital sex or sex outside marriage?

In the interest of the thread topic (now there's a notion!!!) I took both the VPW and Martindale class. They both discussed pre-marital sex. VPW indicated it wasn't "best" but it was "acceptable" because men had needs. WD, that certainly is not a word for word quote, I will acknowledge that up front. But it was the impression left upon me, regarding this topic, after taking the class.

Martindale's teaching was similar, however, I recall him saying something about how people should get their parent's permission before engaging in pre-marital sex - even if they were adults, they should have parental permission. (and I would speculate - yes, WD, speculating is allowed - that Martindale was thinking of his daughters when he added that piece about parental consent. )