Conversations with God [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Pat~

11-09-2008, 12:08 PM

AMC, his writings are not seen as Holy text, part of the Bible, or inspired, simply because they do not reflect the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible tells us in His Word to 'test the spirits,' because many false prophets will come along to try to deceive His people (1 John 4:1). In the Bible, even the Bereans are commended for checking what Paul was saying against scripture (Acts 17:11). For surely God's revelation of Himself to humanity will be consistent down through the ages, as He has declared Himself the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (Hebrews 13:8), and the God who does not lie or change (1 Sam. 15:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). And so any 'new' revelation of God to man would not deny or contradict the old (Isaiah 8:20); that would be a litmus test for false prophets.

I have looked at this site, and have also read excerpts of Book One and Book Two in order to address your question. Below are just a few of the many things this man writes which contradict what the God of the Bible (in blue) has already said:

Conversations with "God" - Book 1

by Neale Donald Walsch

NDW: "How can I know this communication is from God? How do I know this is not my own imagination?"

"God": "Do you not see that I could just as easily work through your imagination as anything else?" (6)

The God of the Bible: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding." (Prov. 3:5)

"Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: 'Hear the word of the LORD!" (Ezekiel 13:2)

"God": You are always in the process of creating. Every moment... Events, occurrences, happenings, conditions, circumstances – all are created out of consciousness. Individual consciousness is powerful enough. You can imagine what kind of creative energy is unleashed whenever two or more are gathered in My name. And mass consciousness? Why, that is so powerful it can create events and circumstances of worldwide import and planetary consequences." (35)

The Bible: "If two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:19, 20)

[The doing is not done by the power of individual or mass consciousness, but by God Himself.]

ORIGINAL SIN
"This alleged state of imperfection in which you are said to come into this world is what your religionists have the gall to call original sin. . . Some of your religions have built up whole theologies around this misconception. . . Yet, in order to justify the idea of a punitive God, your religions needed to create something for me to be angry about.. . . Sop you’d better do something about all of this… or you’ll go straight to hell. This, in the end, may do nothing to mollify a weird, vindictive, angry God, but it does give life to weird, vindictive, angry religions." (119-120. See also 136)

"Only humans are judgmental, and because you are, you assume that I must be. Yet I am not…" (183)

The God of the Bible:

10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one..."
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:10-12, 23-26).

"He commanded us to preach...and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead." (Acts 10:42)

"For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

[All have sinned and God, in His justice, judges sin.]

"God": "I find it amusing… that you humans have such a need to break everything down into right and wrong. It never occurs to you that you’ve made those labels up to help you define the material – and your Self." (194)

The Bible: "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and loving toward all he has made." (Psa. 145:17)

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10)

[See also the Ten Commandments in Exodus.]

"God is the energy you call imagination. God is creation. God is first thought. And God is last experience. And God is everything in between." (198)

(Already covered. God is Creator, not creation. God supplies us with imagination; God is not our imagination itself. God is not 'everything'...that is pantheism.)

REINCARNATION
NDW: "Is there such a thing as reincarnation?"

"God": "You have had 647 past lives, since you insist on being exact. This is your 648th. You were everything in them. A king, a queen, a serf…. No, there is not such thing as karmic debt – not in the sense that you mean… You are not obligated to do anything." (204)

"...it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

PSYCHIC POWER
"Using psychic ability is nothing more than using your sixth sense. Obviously, this is not "trafficking with the devil," or I would not have given this sense to you. And, of course, there is no devil with whom to traffic." (205)

Just a few passages in the Bible concerning God's attitude toward divination, fortune telling, and the like:

Lev. 19:26, ‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.
Isaiah 44:25, "Causing the omens of boasters to fail, making fools out of diviners, causing wise men to draw back, and turning their knowledge into foolishness."
Acts 8:9,18-22, "Now there was a certain man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city, and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great . . . 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you."

Lev. 19:31, "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."
Lev. 20:6, ‘As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."
Isaiah 8:19, "And when they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

And, the God of the Bible most assuredly believes in the devil.

Christ, speaking to the Pharisees: "44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:44-47)

CONVERSATIONS WITH "GOD," Book 2

"Whatever works for you, whatever makes it happen – whatever ritual, ceremony, demonstration, meditation, thought, song, word, or action it takes for you to 'reconnect' – do this. Do this in remembrance of Me." (25-26)

17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; [I]do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:17-20)

THERE IS NO EVIL
"Hitler went to heaven." (35)

"Because Hitler did nothing wrong. Hitler simply did what he did." (55)

"...The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage. . . . No one who has experienced death ever mourns the death of anyone." (42)

"Hitler was created by you. He arose out of your Collective Consciousness.... The consciousness of separation, segregation, superiority – of 'we' versus 'they,' of 'us" and 'them' – is what creates the Hitler Experience. The consciousness of Divine Brotherhood, of unity, of Oneness, of 'ours,' not just 'yours/mine,' is what creates the Christ experience." (55)

15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. (1 John 3:15)

ALL ARE CREATORS
"Everyone is creating everything now being experienced. . . for I am everyone. . . . There is only one of us." (68)

"God is the All, and the Goddess is everything, and there is nothing else that is;" (92)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1, 3)

"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)

25 "To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.

26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:25-26)

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God...I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things...Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?'...This is what the Lord says--the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:...it is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts....I am the Lord, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:5-18).

G: "You must always put yourselves first! . . . Putting yourself first does not mean being what you term "selfish" – it means being self aware." (98)

The God of the Bible: "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." (Phil. 2:3)

"Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others." (1 Cor. 10:24, 13:5)

G: "The real question is not why do governments impose so many rules and regulations on the people, but why do governments have to? The answer has to do with your Separation Consciousness." (p.168-169)

The God of the Bible says that our human government is what He has instituted to provide direction and have authority over us, to punish wrong and commend right--and these rules are not because of our 'separation consciousness' (which sounds like God with a decidedly New Age drawl.)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13:1)

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

"...you are damaging and depleting your mother, the Earth, the giver of all life, out of a complete disregard for her needs and natural processes." (182)

The God of the Bible has said He is the giver of all life, not 'mother earth.'

5 This is what God the LORD says—
he who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it...(Isaiah 42:5)

(See also above passages in Isaiah 45.)

__________________________________________________ ___________________
(excerpts from "Conversations with God," Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., 1997, as googled and found on a 'Kjos Ministries' website. Bible references are my own response, quoted from the NIV or NKJV Bible.)

AMCrenshaw

11-09-2008, 07:11 PM

AMC, his writings are not seen as Holy text, part of the Bible, or inspired, simply because they do not reflect the God of the Bible.

Another thing I wanted to ask is what real evidence is there that this book is not a true revelation and that the Bible is?

All of what you highlighted can be argued not to be contradictory, but reconfigured to fit our 1990 - 2000 minds. For example, mass consciousness isn't something the Jews talked about (or I don't think so, anyway). But there are beliefs about God being the only real consciousness - that humans have no consciousness except what is through God. The "all create" business goes back to the Adam and Eve story; God makes humans, then humans make themselves. It is through free will that humans make themselves. The "put yourselves first" admits that by saving yourself you save others; we are all connected in one body in Christ.

"...you are damaging and depleting your mother, the Earth, the giver of all life, out of a complete disregard for her needs and natural processes."

Sure God made the earth which is the giver of all bodily life; if you read more of those books, that becomes obvious. Do you know if the whole text is on that website that I can use citations?

NDW: "How can I know this communication is from God? How do I know this is not my own imagination?"

"God": "Do you not see that I could just as easily work through your imagination as anything else?" (6)

The God of the Bible: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding." (Prov. 3:5)

Pat, don't be too literal. Are there no stories in the Bible that reflect human doubt about God? The statement means: I, God, am omnipotent; I can reveal myself anyway I choose to. Is this contrary to the Bible?

PSYCHIC POWER
"Using psychic ability is nothing more than using your sixth sense. Obviously, this is not "trafficking with the devil," or I would not have given this sense to you. And, of course, there is no devil with whom to traffic." (205)

Not that I don't find psychic ability absurd, but certainly the context surrounding spiritism and divination is a whole lot different now than it was when the Bible was written. (I know a lot of people, for example, who ignore... certain Mosaic Laws and are perfectly devout followers of Christ.) If one recognizes that these "rules" are contextually based, how can we say that using psychic ablility (which God is just fine with, according to this particular communication) is wrong if it does not harm others? Isn't the aim to do all to the Glory of God? If one uses psychic ability to the Glory of God, how is it sin?

"Hitler was created by you."

This is the most important thing to remember: we, humans collectively, caused Hitler. Again, this allusion to "this" and "that" is found in Genesis; the knowledge of Good and Evil is the birth of humankind's self-isolation. That is precisely what NDW is referring to here.

He arose out of your Collective Consciousness.... The consciousness of separation, segregation, superiority – of 'we' versus 'they,' of 'us" and 'them' – is what creates the Hitler Experience.

How contradictory is this passage?

The consciousness of Divine Brotherhood, of unity, of Oneness, of 'ours,' not just 'yours/mine,' is what creates the Christ experience." (55)

I think what "God" in this book is calling us to do is to see how His Will is always being done, and to trust Him. That even Satan (of the Old Testament, at least) has his purpose. NWD also goes into how God does not punish people for choosing what they want-- but that there are natural consequences for "doing what you want" -- ie, harming others brings suffering to the human "collective consciousness", which brings suffering to the individual. It's what he calls karma.

He does contradict the Christian idea of the soul (especially with the reincarnation), but there are Christian mystic traditions that include it; I personally don't see how or even why. But I guess it has something to do with all soul's evolution back toward God (even C.S. Lewis in one of his books -- The Great Divorce I think-- speculates that/likens heaven and hell to have a bus running between them, and people choose to leave or go. I might have that wrong! The point being that a speculation like that might have been taken too literally). These notions aren't scripturally supported, just speculations by Christian thinkers and philosophers. Many of who have been excommunicated and ridiculed for their ideas.

G: "The real question is not why do governments impose so many rules and regulations on the people, but why do governments have to? The answer has to do with your Separation Consciousness." (p.168-169)

The God of the Bible says that our human government is what He has instituted to provide direction and have authority over us, to punish wrong and commend right--and these rules are not because of our 'separation consciousness' (which sounds like God with a decidedly New Age drawl.)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13:1)

(First, do be careful about how speak about New Age. We don't know who's listening.) Secondly, God doesn't say anything about human institution. Paul, on the other hand, says a lot. His record of divine inspiration is, to me, no more convincing than that of NDW. That is, why should I listen to a government? I know in my heart that they do not reflect the will of God. Besides, shouldn't we only follow one master?

And, according to whoever wrote 1 Peter, the nazis' actions were consistent with the Bible for it said: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

And that all soldiers, good or bad in heart, who have killed, taste no life: 15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. (1 John 3:15)

See what's happening here?

AMC

Pat~

11-10-2008, 09:37 PM

Another thing I wanted to ask is what real evidence is there that this book is not a true revelation and that the Bible is? That would be a whole 'nuther thread on the Canon, I suppose. But here are two links for starters, if you're interested: Bibliology (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=691), and the Survey of Bible Doctrine (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=176). The only comment about the canon I'll make for now is that the decision as to what is 'holy' or inspired scripture is not based on a group of people all getting together and saying 'how about this new writing?'--and then taking a vote on it. The canon is a compilation of scriptures that had already historically been recognized to be inspired and true, as meticulously passed down through Christendom, and the Councils that met simply formalized this, in response, partly, to the many heretical beliefs that were springing up.

All of what you highlighted can be argued not to be contradictory, but reconfigured to fit our 1990 - 2000 minds. For example, mass consciousness isn't something the Jews talked about (or I don't think so, anyway). But there are beliefs about God being the only real consciousness - that humans have no consciousness except what is through God. The "all create" business goes back to the Adam and Eve story; God makes humans, then humans make themselves. It is through free will that humans make themselves. The "put yourselves first" admits that by saving yourself you save others; we are all connected in one body in Christ.

First of all, I don't see this so-called prophet 'reconfiguring' scriptural truth to fit 1990-2000 AD minds. I see him outright denying some key elements of it, especially concerning sin, evil, and God's holiness and intolerance of those. What Neale is 'reconfiguring' is the God revealed in scripture--to fit a 'god' concept that he is much more comfortable with. Many people would be much more comfortable with a Big Daddy who simply tells us how much He loves us and allows that nothing we do is either "right" or "wrong" (concepts Neale obviously thinks are fictitious "labels" we silly humans cling to in order "to help you define the material – and your Self.") See, if you're going to believe in a All-powerful and Good God, you must also believe in a Just God--(an all-powerful god that would turn a blind eye to evil is no longer a good god). But to do away with any aspects of a "punitive" God (which Neale scorns), it follows that one must do away with the concept of right or wrong--that Good and Just God must never have to actually 'judge' anyone for their wrong. So what Neale has done is to simply deny the reality of Evil (as seen in his statements about Hitler). Now, if you can do that with a straight face and clear conscience, that's certainly your choice. But I would hate to live in your world. I much prefer one that recognizes Evil for what it is and attempts to eradicate it.

Sure God made the earth which is the giver of all bodily life; if you read more of those books, that becomes obvious. Do you know if the whole text is on that website that I can use citations? Again I'll say, that the God of the Bible is credited for making the whole earth AND all bodily life. "The earth" is not credited with being the giver of all bodily life anywhere in the Bible that I can find. God used components from the earth to create man, and God breathed life into man. The earth could never have 'created' man or given him life on its own, in biblical thought.

The whole text is not anywhere that I can find, except in his books of course. But the text that I already have read would keep me from buying into the rest of it. ;)

NDW: "How can I know this communication is from God? How do I know this is not my own imagination?"

Pat, don't be too literal. Are there no stories in the Bible that reflect human doubt about God? The statement means: I, God, am omnipotent; I can reveal myself anyway I choose to. Is this contrary to the Bible?

I don't see literality as being the issue here. Of course it's good and human to question whether or not something that comes to us is of God. I take no issue with Neale's questioning here--in fact, I think he does well to question it, as the responses he's getting don't seem to me to be coming from God, either.

What this opening quote reveals to me is a scenario much like in the Garden of Eden, with Satan sidling up to Eve, and saying, "Did God really say...?" and suggesting 'new' ways to Eve that she might interpret what has already been revealed to her in no uncertain terms by God. Her response to Satan is to get a bit flustered, NOT to immediately double-check what God said with God Himself or with Adam (who was there with her), and to simply respond, "God said we must not eat of the Tree OR TOUCH IT, lest we die." (This capitalized part was the fabrication of her own imagination.) See how the progression into error begins? Yes, God CAN speak to us through our imagination--but we must first test it against what He actually has already said. Because it is all too likely our imaginations will start filling in the blanks with our own nonsense if we don't.

As per God's omnipotence:while it is true that God in His omnipotence can do anything He wants, He still has the limits of His own self-definition (eg. God cannot sin). So it is true that He CAN reveal Himself to us through our imaginations, but it is not true that He can do so in a way that would deny His own attributes (Truth being a key one here). And God, knowing how unreliable our own imaginations are, has not historically shown Himself prone to relying on them concerning His revelations to us. He did reveal Himself to the prophets through the visions and dreams He sent them, but these were not conjured up by the prophets themselves. The Word He sent them was from Himself, verifiable by its own Truth--it aligned with scripture rather than contradicting it, and many times was even fulfilled verifiably in the person's own lifetime.

Not that I don't find psychic ability absurd, but certainly the context surrounding spiritism and divination is a whole lot different now than it was when the Bible was written. (I know a lot of people, for example, who ignore... certain Mosaic Laws and are perfectly devout followers of Christ.) If one recognizes that these "rules" are contextually based, how can we say that using psychic ablility (which God is just fine with, according to this particular communication) is wrong if it does not harm others? Isn't the aim to do all to the Glory of God? If one uses psychic ability to the Glory of God, how is it sin?

AMC, I've underlined your assumption here. How I can say using physic ability is "wrong" is because I don't believe in that particular communication as coming from God. I believe what the Bible says about it instead. The Bible calls it Sin, and no sin ever brings glory to God--it is the antithesis of bringing glory to God in the Bible. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23 quoted above). (And no 'physic ability' story in the Bible ever glorifies God, either. I even printed one of them out for you above.)

If we judge 'sin' or 'wrong' by our own opinions as to whether or not they 'harm anybody'--then we are setting ourselves up as the originating standard for defining 'good' (in other words, making ourselves god). I know by experience that my own heart is not reliable enough to clearly judge that, nor am I close to being omniscient enough to discern that. In my opinion we avoid a lot of mess if we don't follow Eve's example, but go back to the Source for that judgment call.

This is the most important thing to remember: we, humans collectively, caused Hitler. Again, this allusion to "this" and "that" is found in Genesis; the knowledge of Good and Evil is the birth of humankind's self-isolation. That is precisely what NDW is referring to here.

Of course it isn't. The knowledge of Good and Evil has nothing to do with Neale's absurd statement--and he would deny it if you asked him. He doesn't believe that good and evil are real things--only labels we silly humans assign things 'to differentiate between Self and the material' (whatever that means).

He arose out of your Collective Consciousness.... The consciousness of separation, segregation, superiority – of 'we' versus 'they,' of 'us" and 'them' – is what creates the Hitler Experience.
How contradictory is this passage?

I find this vague and wishy-washy verbiage, so would find it hard to comment on how 'contradictory' it is. Sounds like he's simply trying to say that the evil that Hitler perpetuated was a result of Sin (man's separation from God causing the heart strife of superiority and antagonism). But of course he can't say that if he doesn't want to believe in sin...so he's left with vagaries that attempt to point the finger at no one.

I think what "God" in this book is calling us to do is to see how His Will is always being done, and to trust Him. That even Satan (of the Old Testament, at least) has his purpose. NWD also goes into how God does not punish people for choosing what they want-- but that there are natural consequences for "doing what you want" -- ie, harming others brings suffering to the human "collective consciousness", which brings suffering to the individual. It's what he calls karma.

Well, sounds to me like NWD does a lot of self-contradictory writing then. If God's will "is always being done", then is it God's will that people "choose what they want" and that that brings about suffering and harm?

He does contradict the Christian idea of the soul (especially with the reincarnation), but there are Christian mystic traditions that include it; I personally don't see how or even why. But I guess it has something to do with all soul's evolution back toward God (even C.S. Lewis in one of his books -- The Great Divorce I think-- speculates that/likens heaven and hell to have a bus running between them, and people choose to leave or go. I might have that wrong! The point being that a speculation like that might have been taken too literally). These notions aren't scripturally supported, just speculations by Christian thinkers and philosophers. Many of who have been excommunicated and ridiculed for their ideas.

First, I'm not all that informed as to reincarnation, but am not sure that it denies the existence of soul. I'm not aware of any 'Christian mystic traditions' that believe in reincarnation, but if they do they aren't biblically supported. I have C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce (one of his best works, but which does not ascribe to the belief you've stated above), and highly recommend it. I think you'd find it fascinating and it would profoundly address much of what we're discussing here. Here's just a bit from the preface:

"Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If I have written of their Divorce, this is not because I think myself a fit antagonist for so great a genius, nor even because I feel at all sure that I know what he meant. But in some sense or other the attempt to make that marriage is perennial. The attempt is based on the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable "either-or"; that, granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain. This belief I take to be a disastrous error. You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys; on one journey even your right hand and your right eye may be among the things you have to leave behind. We are not living in a world where all roads are radii of a circle and where all, if followed long enough, will therefore draw gradually nearer and finally meet at the center; rather in a world where every road, after a few miles, forks into two, and each of those into two again, and at each fork you must make a decision. Even on the biological level life is not like a pool but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes continually more different not only from evil but from other good.

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot "develop" into good. Time does not heal it. The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, "with backward mutters of dissevering power"--or not at all."

...

And then the rest of the book is an allegorical dream sequence about a fictitious journey on a bus full of people headed to heaven or hell--and what they believed. It is not meant to imply that Lewis believed that people could, after death, choose the realities of heaven instead of hell; if anything I suspect he believes that aspects of living in 'heaven' and 'hell' actually begin here on earth (and I'd agree). This at least is what I get from reading further:

"But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself."

The bus journey and conversations are a vehicle (excuse the pun!) for Lewis' discourse about human reasonings for their choices between the two existences.

BTW, you might be interested in Lewis' definition of Good in this book (p. 98 in my paperback--this is from his conversation with his real-life Christian friend and allegorical Teacher-Guide in heaven, George MacDonald):

CSL: "Keats was wrong, then, when he said he was certain of the holiness of the heart's affections."

GM: "I doubt if he knew clearly what he meant. But you and I must be clear. There is but one Good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him. And the higher and mightier it is in the natural order, the more demoniac it will be if it rebels. It's not out of bad mice or bad fleas you make demons, but out of bad archangels. The false religion of lust is baser than the false religion of mother-love or patriotism or art: but lust is less likely to be made into a religion..."

(First, do be careful about how speak about New Age. We don't know who's listening.) Secondly, God doesn't say anything about human institution. Paul, on the other hand, says a lot. His record of divine inspiration is, to me, no more convincing than that of NDW. That is, why should I listen to a government? I know in my heart that they do not reflect the will of God. Besides, shouldn't we only follow one master?

Well, AMC, I've never actually worried much about 'who's listening' (or reading) my posts. I aim to speak the truth in love, and usually if anyone has a problem with something I post they let me know and we work it out.

Regarding your comment about Paul, I guess I'd have to say that if one believes themselves to be a Christian, they base that belief on the divine inspiration/promises of scripture. In other words, the same scripture by which you might consider yourself to be a Christian is also divinely inspired when it instructs you to obey earthly governments, etc. Your saying "God doesn't say anything about human institution" is based only on your assumption that not all (or any?) of scripture is inspired--which is something one needs to resolve first. And resolving the issue of divine inspiration is not done by simply choosing which passages one is comfortable with, and calling those 'inspired' and others not.

In reference to following 'evil' world governments, the apostle also tells us that "we ought to obey God rather than man"--as seen in this example from Acts 5:

17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20"Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."

21At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23"We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." 24On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.

25Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

so we can see here that the verses about obeying governmental authority are not binding concerning governments that are instructing us to do something that would be abhorrent to God's expressed will. In that case, we bow to a higher Authority.

And, according to whoever wrote 1 Peter, the nazis' actions were consistent with the Bible for it said:

And that all soldiers, good or bad in heart, who have killed, taste no life:

You'll have to give me the quote from 1 Peter, as I've never read such a verse in there in my NIV or other translations.

15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. (1 John 3:15)
See what's happening here?

No. Tell me what you are 'seeing' though, in response to this verse.

AMCrenshaw

11-11-2008, 12:10 AM

I have nothing to add to the reincarnation; I'm not learned in it, either. Thanks for the bit with CSL, though! :)

And God, knowing how unreliable our own imaginations are, has not historically shown Himself prone to relying on them concerning His revelations to us. He did reveal Himself to the prophets through the visions and dreams He sent them, but these were not conjured up by the prophets themselves. The Word He sent them was from Himself, verifiable by its own Truth--it aligned with scripture rather than contradicting it, and many times was even fulfilled verifiably in the person's own lifetime.

The exact assertion is that God walked through the imagination! If God said that he did it, why should you not believe? NDW isn't saying he imagined it, but that God walked through the imagination. So your argument is that since NDW contradicts the Bible (which is easy to do since the Bible contradicts itself so much), he can't possibly be communicating with God.

The Word He sent them was from Himself, verifiable by its own Truth

This applies maybe to the New Testament, but certainly not to all the books of the Old Testament. That is, when the first prophet had received the Law, what "Truth" did he have to compare it to? None. Absolutely none. You may argue (all you want) that it came from God himself, but I will argue that is precisely what is claimed of all the revelations. How are the books of Moses (the first revealed truths of the Old Testament) more "from God" than NDW's communication? If the basis of your argument is the truth of revelations is dependent on whether or not they are supported by their own truths, already established by scripture, the books of Moses had no scripture to compare; ie no Old Testament/revelation of God's nature had previously existed, so that revelation is perfectly on even ground with NDW's revelation.

Well, sounds to me like NWD does a lot of self-contradictory writing then. If God's will "is always being done", then is it God's will that people "choose what they want" and that that brings about suffering and harm?

This is not self-contradiction at all: in fact, it is very similar to many fundamental Christian arguments that go something like: "Even though people have free will, God knows who will do good and who will do evil." God knows who will hurt others and who will hurt themselves by "doing what they want".

NDW argues: God's will is always being done (through humans no less!). Everyone has a purpose. Even Hitler. Even Satan. The 'punishment' and 'reward' system of Christianity is human-based "this" and "that". An action just is.

I find this vague and wishy-washy verbiage, so would find it hard to comment on how 'contradictory' it is. Sounds like he's simply trying to say that the evil that Hitler perpetuated was a result of Sin (man's separation from God causing the heart strife of superiority and antagonism). But of course he can't say that if he doesn't want to believe in sin...so he's left with vagaries that attempt to point the finger at no one.

God in CWG declares that He Is One - that defining him as this or that does not suffice. It is human's separation of things into this and that which causes them suffering:

The consciousness of separation, segregation, superiority – of 'we' versus 'they,' of 'us" and 'them' – is what creates the Hitler Experience.

Now, if anyone is being self-contradictory, it is whoever wrote about government:

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

You cited Acts 5: in reference to following 'evil' world governments, the apostle also tells us that "we ought to obey God rather than man"--as seen in this example from Acts 5

YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS!

Which is precisely what NDW said: why do you need to follow or obey government when there is a higher authority? Why do you need them [governments]?

so we can see here that the verses about obeying governmental authority are not binding concerning governments that are instructing us to do something that would be abhorrent to God's expressed will.

And the Christian contradiction comes through: expressed will or not, human will is corrupt, it is drenched in sin; it cannot do Good because it is not Good; only God is
Good and we are not God. Institutions affected by humankind must be, absolutely must be corrupt exactly because they are built by humans. Nothing short of a nation built by Christ himself would be Good. Only "The Kingdom of God" would suffice. Funny, too, that during Jesus' life the most humanitarian thing he did was...what? Right. Challenge the government and establish the Kingdom of God.

Well, AMC, I've never actually worried much about 'who's listening' (or reading) my posts. I aim to speak the truth in love,

Deeming something drawl is the exact opposite of loving. Be mindful of condescension. Be mindful of the beam in our own eye is all I'm saying. Of self-righteousness.

For all intents and purposes, think of me as being a "New Ager" - as someone whom you would not want to offend with harsh, grotesque phrases which reveal close-mindedness, lack of education about the matter, active intolerance, or something else which would presumably be hurtful rather than educative or, as you might call it, loving.

AMC

Tell me what you are 'seeing' though, in response to this verse.

How the Bible contradicts itself. Examples are above.

Gehanna

11-11-2008, 12:37 AM

For all intents and purposes, think of me as being a "New Ager" - as someone whom you would not want to offend with harsh, grotesque phrases which reveal close-mindedness, lack of education about the matter, active intolerance, or something else which would presumably be hurtful rather than educative or, as you might call it, loving.

She is.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

11-11-2008, 12:47 AM

She is.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

To you, a Christian. But to refer to New Age as drawl and "verbiage" is not..let's say...reflective of open-mindedness - to me, whom she indeed did offend (probably unintentionally!); I attempted to meet her tact reciprocally with a simple reminder. Thank you for your future understanding.

AMC

Pat~

11-11-2008, 01:38 AM

AMC, before addressing your larger response, I do want to clear this one up with you:

Deeming something drawl is the exact opposite of loving. Be mindful of condescension. Be mindful of the beam in our own eye is all I'm saying. Of self-righteousness.

For all intents and purposes, think of me as being a "New Ager" - as someone whom you would not want to offend with harsh, grotesque phrases which reveal close-mindedness, lack of education about the matter, active intolerance, or something else which would presumably be hurtful rather than educative or, as you might call it, loving.

When I said that those words Neale wrote and attributed to God sounded like God with a 'New Age drawl,' I was referring to the fact that it did not sound like the God I hear speaking in scripture and speaking in my heart on a daily basis. It sounded more like what I have read in some New Age books which express their image of God using many oft-used expressions such as "consciousness" (etc.) and whose God bears very little resemblance to the one I know. I was stating a fact of difference, not one of value in that particular statement--he does sound different, and different with a decidedly New Age flavor. (Nor do I consider this a "harsh" assessment--there's no value judgment in such a statement. I myself have a southern "drawl" and to me, at least, that is not a derogatory thing to say about someone.)

On the other hand, I do have little regard for such a god, as the rest of my post probably makes clear. But that is simply because that sort of god is no 'god' in my opinion. My rejection of that sort of god has nothing to do with how I value you as a person. The fact that I have spent considerable time on these posts should assure you, I hope, of the personal regard I hold for you. And concerning tolerance, let me just say this--I am 100% tolerant of anyone's right to hold and express their own religious beliefs. That does not mean I need to nod in approval as to their correctness or validity in my own mind or even here in posting with you. That would be absurd...one cannot go through life believing (sincerely) that everything is equally good, right, and true. Some beliefs are undeniably contradictory.

Anyway, think on this. :) I've just gotten home, and need to go back out and pick up my daughter, and will get back to this later.

AMCrenshaw

11-11-2008, 06:43 AM

Sorry, Pat. I never did want to get into a side-discussion about the appropriateness of your post; however, I wanted to address the fact that I felt offended without accusing you of being offensive - that is, I trust you not to be intentionally harsh or mean or what-have-you, but that your obvious (and it is obvious to me) that it's probable you have some negative attitude toward New Age ideas. "Consciousness" is becoming more and more well-known to be a very fundamental part of not just our existence as humans, but to the universe itself. Certain Eastern religions believe that God is nothing other than Consciousness.

The fact that I have spent considerable time on these posts should assure you, I hope, of the personal regard I hold for you. And concerning tolerance, let me just say this--I am 100% tolerant of anyone's right to hold and express their own religious beliefs. That does not mean I need to nod in approval as to their correctness or validity in my own mind or even here in posting with you

If I've been unclear, let me now be clear: Be mindful also of appearances: you don't know who is listening. What is in your heart may not (and probably does not) show up in black and white on a forum. I do not question you either, but your aforementioned rhetoric. So because you are discussing (rather than debating, I would say), I trust you to be mindful, and urge you to be more mindful. This isn't a matter of sacrificing what you believe, but understanding "the other" from their POV.

Tolerance: "Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference." (http://www.tolerance.org/about/tolerance.html)

Your rhetoric, in my (the person with whom you're conversing) opinion, reflected dismissiveness and rather than accuse you, Pat, of dismissiveness, I wanted you (and me, too!) to be more mindful of our prose, for it might falsely signify something.

For example, you say: "On the other hand, I do have little regard for such a god, as the rest of my post probably makes clear" which I could easily mistake the "sin" for the "sinner", so to speak (which you clarify, but I needed an example :)). I might think you mean that you have little regard for one who believes in that God. But you don't, I trust. I hope you see what I mean.

Also, I look forward to your response to the prior posts. If you want to address these latter posts, perhaps PMing might be more appropriate.

AMC

Deb Kinnard

11-11-2008, 07:46 AM

I'll weigh in on this, briefly, and then check back out.

I don't think anyone sets out to offend by discussing his/her take on the Biblical view of God. But it seems to me, having lived this life a while, every generation seems to want to put some sort of spin on the truth. In the 60s, when I went to school, Jesus was the ultimate radical. In the 80s people were preaching Jesus as the ultimate banker. I wasn't comfortable with either of those paradigms and I'm not comfortable with Jesus as New Age Communicator, either.

There is such a thing as Truth, bigger than you and me, bigger than the human capacity to comprehend it. Stick to that Truth as revealed in Scripture and you'll be able to ride above whatever this or the next decade insists is the current version of truth. There will always be someone who gets his or her 15 minutes of fame, standing on the mass media streetcorner yelling about the new revelation. These folks usually seem to want to take away from Truth, or add to it in unacceptable ways. Or both.

I'm not saying I can't see why these might be attractive to some folks. Anything new has its own pizazz and the added enticement of being "not your father's Oldsmobile." These aren't, however, the solid rock God says to build our houses on, but rather sand that tomorrow's tide of the NEXT new thing will wash away.

Back to my fiction WIP now.

MacAllister

11-11-2008, 08:04 AM

The only comment about the canon I'll make for now is that the decision as to what is 'holy' or inspired scripture is not based on a group of people all getting together and saying 'how about this new writing?'--and then taking a vote on it. The canon is a compilation of scriptures that had already historically been recognized to be inspired and true, as meticulously passed down through Christendom, and the Councils that met simply formalized this, in response, partly, to the many heretical beliefs that were springing up.

Ooops, careful, there.

The rather detailed written records we have contradict that version of history pretty clearly. There are records of bribes paid to and from various Cardinals.

Many of the various councils didn't even agree with each other, frankly - so you're in murky water, there. It's a case of this denomination chose that interpretation, and some other denomination chose another.

From an overview of the Council of Trent (http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1990/issue28/2842.html), frex.

The council dealt extensively not only with morality, but also with doctrine. It reaffirmed the traditional medieval understanding—and rejected contemporary Protestant teaching—on nearly every subject.

The council held that there are seven sacraments, not two as the Protestants claimed, and that these are necessary for salvation. All the Protestant interpretations of Communion were condemned, and transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and wine become in substance the body and blood of Christ) was re-affirmed.

Protestants were worshiping in their own languages, but the council upheld the Latin Mass, and it defined more precisely the sacrificial understanding of the Mass.

On the critical issue of justification, the council could not support the Reformation understanding of salvation by faith alone. It affirmed that no person can know for certain he or she is justified, and that good works do contribute to a right standing with God.
The article points out that doctrine that came out of the Council of Trent wasn't significantly revisited until the 1960's.
(It's my understanding that the current Pope, in fact, is actively campaigning to roll back doctrine to pre-Vatican II, btw.)

Pat might speak for her own specific accepted canon in her own version of Protestantism - but certainly not for every Christian, or all of Christianity. :)

ETA: There's a really interesting and informative overview of "canon" (http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm) (or the various versions of accepted canon) here-
Catholic versus Protestant Bibles

Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading.

Higgins

11-11-2008, 09:01 PM

That would be a whole 'nuther thread on the Canon, I suppose. But here are two links for starters, if you're interested: Bibliology (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=691), and the Survey of Bible Doctrine (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=176). The only comment about the canon I'll make for now is that the decision as to what is 'holy' or inspired scripture is not based on a group of people all getting together and saying 'how about this new writing?'--and then taking a vote on it. The canon is a compilation of scriptures that had already historically been recognized to be inspired and true, as meticulously passed down through Christendom, and the Councils that met simply formalized this, in response, partly, to the many heretical beliefs that were springing up.

Ooops, careful, there.

The rather detailed written records we have contradict that version of history pretty clearly. There are records of bribes paid to and from various Cardinals.

I don't think Pat has to be all that careful there. The main parts of the NT canon were fixed by say 140 AD and more or less as she says it was fixed...ie by consensus and not by Councils. It's the OT that remains an open question which is not surprising given that the Christian OT canon owes a lot to the Septuagint. And of course such wondrous things as the Book of Enoch -- which is canonical in the Eithopian Church tradition.

As far as I can recall, the Council of Trent only affirmed the canonical status of everything in the Septuagint or at least Jerome's version of it. Not really a big deal, and a fine thing for fans of the Book of Tobit (which includes fishy antidotes to demonic forces and so on).

Pat~

11-11-2008, 09:16 PM

Y'all, dear sweet people...this thread has gotten so interesting...and I am not feeling well today enough to tend and respond. Keep up the respectful and interesting convo, and I'll check back later.

MacAllister

11-11-2008, 09:25 PM

I don't think Pat has to be all that careful there. The main parts of the NT canon were fixed by say 140 AD and more or less as she says it was fixed...ie by consensus and not by Councils. It's the OT that remains an open question which is not surprising given that the Christian OT canon owes a lot to the Septuagint. And of course such wondrous things as the Book of Enoch -- which is canonical in the Eithopian Church tradition.

As far as I can recall, the Council of Trent only affirmed the canonical status of everything in the Septuagint or at least Jerome's version of it. Not really a big deal, and a fine thing for fans of the Book of Tobit (which includes fishy antidotes to demonic forces and so on).
Actually what Pat said, Higgins, was this:the decision as to what is 'holy' or inspired scripture is not based on a group of people all getting together and saying 'how about this new writing?'--and then taking a vote on it. (emphasis added)Perhaps that's true of new writings - but certainly not of extant writings, and there are extant versions of the manuscripts that have been discovered since the Councils met (and hotly contested which versions of what made the cut.)

So, sources, please, Higgins? There are different versions of books between the different Bibles, to this day. The editorial decisions made about the Bible have most certainly been ongoing, and the translation choices vary pretty widely. The versions of the Bible we read now are most assuredly not what they were calling the Bible in 140 AD. They didn't speak English, ya know.

This does, in fact, have some bearing on AMCrenshaw's question - that is, who decides what texts are Divinely inspired.

Medievalist

11-11-2008, 09:41 PM

If you want to talk "when was the canon fixed," the real date to begin with is Carthage in 397--because they not only cited and selected the books in the canon, they chose versions. 397 pretty much picked Alexandrian as the major stemma.

But that wasn't enough. Later conferences picked mss. again, and omitted sections.

Even the two best mss. are missing bits of key passages--and editors decide whether to include them, and which ms. version to take them from.

Biblical studies are no more pure in terms of editorial influence than those of any other textual tradition.

Higgins

11-11-2008, 09:52 PM

Actually what Pat said, Higgins, was this:Perhaps that's true of new writings - but certainly not of extant writings, and there are extant versions of the manuscripts that have been discovered since the Councils met (and hotly contested which versions of what made the cut.)

So, sources, please, Higgins? There are different versions of books between the different Bibles, to this day. The editorial decisions made about the Bible have most certainly been ongoing, and the translation choices vary pretty widely. The versions of the Bible we read now are most assuredly not what they were calling the Bible in 140 AD. They didn't speak English, ya know.

This does, in fact, have some bearing on AMCrenshaw's question - that is, who decides what texts are Divinely inspired.

I thought you were talking about what is technically known as canon formation in the early Church, but apparently not. Anyway the core of the NT canon was close to being fixed ("canon", not text, and "NT", not Bible) by the time of Justin Martyr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

http://www.ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml

I am in fact aware that no one spoke English in 140 AD, but I evidently made the mistake of taking a discussion of the Biblical canon as having something to do with that canon as it actually developed historically.

Higgins

11-11-2008, 10:10 PM

This does, in fact, have some bearing on AMCrenshaw's question - that is, who decides what texts are Divinely inspired.

Maybe the case of the Gnostic Marcion can clarify matters. He rejected the OT (whatever that might have been at that point) and tossed out all of the NT except Paul's letters and John's Gospel.

So...if a canon can be revised by a Gnostic in about 140 AD, there must already be a canon to revise.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-canon-of-marcion.htm

III

11-11-2008, 10:30 PM

http://www.cwg.org/main.php
http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-God-Uncommon-Dialogue-Book/dp/0399142789/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225991759&sr=8-2

Why isn't this book considered a Holy text, or part of the Holy Canon, or even the Bible. It's a recorded Conversation with God, a recorded prayer. God says a whole lot in it that is very interesting, including scriptural support for the "claims" of God. And if we can't believe Walsch, which we probably don't, why not? Many of the statements are Biblical in nature in that they refer to themselves as being the words of God. Is Walsch a faker, a heretic, a blasphemr even though God warns him in the book that people will call him such (and that he's not)?

Why is this dialogue not seen as modern divine inspiration?

Thoughts?

AMC

The New Testament Canon had the criteria of Apostolic Authority. The letters and writings had to come from an Apostle or someone directly associated with them. There's lots of good discussion in this thread about how that played out, how authorship was verified or disputed, but that's the main criteria. Also, as Pat pointed out, the writing could not contradict existing scripture.

So in that sense Scripture is generally considered closed, so the church isn't going to add Walsch's conversations with God or Billy Graham's conversations with God or even my conversations with God to the Bible. That's not to say that people don't speak to God or that God doesn't speak to them, just that it's not put on the same level as Scripture since it doesn't meet the criteria of Apostolic Authority.

There is, of course, a diversity of belief within Christianity about special Papal revelation, but I think that's a different topic than your original question. I hope this helps.

Medievalist

11-11-2008, 11:22 PM

If you're really interested in New Testament textual scholarship, and the history of the NT canon, a super place to start is The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. Make sure you look at the 4th ed. Oxford: 2005.

I'd also suggest The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford: 2003.

And then The Book: A History of the Bible by by Christopher De Hamel. Paidon: 2005 is both lovely and readable; De Hamel is one of the top paleographers in the world, and this is a coffee table book with lots of images and yet a fair amount of easy to follow text too.

Finally, for something both very readable and a bit controversial but based on solid scholarship: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Whyby Bart D. Ehrman. HarperOne: 2007.

And if you're thinking of buying any of these via Amazon, remember you can use the Amazon link for Absolute Write (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fhomepa ge.html%3Fie%3DUTF8%26redirect%3Dtrue&tag=absowrit-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957).

Roger J Carlson

11-11-2008, 11:47 PM

Higgins

11-11-2008, 11:48 PM

Higgins

11-11-2008, 11:51 PM

Well, if you don't mind a decidedly non-academic answer, I'd say that God decided what was scripture and what was not. Not by councils, but by God.

If you believe that there is a God who is the Creator of and in control of the Universe, it is inconceivable (at least to me) that he could be wringing His hands up in Heaven moaning, "Oh no! They've got it all wrong. That's not what I meant!"

The whole idea strikes me as silly.

This isn't something I can prove, and I don't intend to try. But if you remove the authority of God from the picture, then the Bible becomes nothing more than the words of men -- long dead men at that. It just becomes the "meaningless talk" that Paul warned about in 1 Timothy 1: 3-6.

Perhaps, but since God supposedly has bothered to talk to people, I'd say He has done so at the risk that they will understand what He has said in the ways that people understand things. If God wanted to be understood perfectly well all the time, He should have created a less linguistically-obsessed species.

JoNightshade

11-12-2008, 12:09 AM

To go back to the OP:

Why isn't this book considered a Holy text, or part of the Holy Canon, or even the Bible. It's a recorded Conversation with God, a recorded prayer. God says a whole lot in it that is very interesting, including scriptural support for the "claims" of God. And if we can't believe Walsch, which we probably don't, why not? Many of the statements are Biblical in nature in that they refer to themselves as being the words of God. Is Walsch a faker, a heretic, a blasphemr even though God warns him in the book that people will call him such (and that he's not)?

Why is this dialogue not seen as modern divine inspiration?

Thoughts?

You could very well ask this same question of any, ANY person who has "conversations with God." I know people who keep a prayer journal and write down what they feel God is speaking to them as if it is a conversation. Why aren't those held up as holy texts? Why do we not consider them the Word of God? Why don't we believe everyone who says they heard from God?

Well, first of all because that would be silly and stupid. People have done some horrific things because they thought God told them to. How do we know whether someone is speaking from God or not? Like others have pointed out, the only standard we have is the scriptures already accepted as the word of God. For those who want to argue about which books have been put in and which have been left out - as far as I am aware there is no argument about the pentateuch (the first five books of the bible), and the 4 gospels are all first-hand accounts of the life of Christ, and they agree 99% of the time. (And even the few contradictions are so slight as to be arguable.) So if something doesn't agree with those texts, it's out.

You also mentioned that you think this guy is offering a "modern" updating of the bible.

If God is God, he needs no updating. None. His truths are absolute, and they are true for all generations. God is unchanging, and so are his statutes.

Ever read Psalms? Think about how long ago they were written, and how utterly different that society was from ours today. If we changed places with someone from that time period, neither one of us would even be able to comprehend the world we'd been placed in. And yet the Psalms SPEAK to us, today, just as they always have. The truths contained in them, about God, about the human condition, about life, remain the same.

We don't need a new interpreter, because God has already spoken. We only have to LISTEN.

III

11-12-2008, 12:57 AM

Perhaps, but since God supposedly has bothered to talk to people, I'd say He has done so at the risk that they will understand what He has said in the ways that people understand things. If God wanted to be understood perfectly well all the time, He should have created a less linguistically-obsessed species.

I think that's a large part of the role of the Holy Spirit - to speak directly to us and to help us understand the mind of God, both in the Scriptures and personally. The Holy Spirit was the active force in the writing of all Scripture and continues to be the instructor, not just of the linguistics, but of the transformational truth in the heart.

AMCrenshaw

11-12-2008, 02:24 AM

The Holy Spirit was the active force in the writing of all Scripture and continues to be the instructor, not just of the linguistics, but of the transformational truth in the heart.

NDW claims that God spoke to him. Not even just the Holy Spirit inspiring him, but God Himself spoke.

Like others have pointed out, the only standard we have is the scriptures already accepted as the word of God.

the writing could not contradict existing scripture

First, a lot of scripture just goes ahead and contradicts itself; I provided a good example in a previous post (concerning "good" and "evil" government).

My response to the "It contradicts Scripture, therefore must be false":

This applies maybe to the New Testament, but certainly not to all the books of the Old Testament. That is, when the first prophet had received the Law, what "Truth" did he have to compare it to? None. Absolutely none. You may argue (all you want) that it came from God himself, but I will argue that is precisely what is claimed of all the revelations. How are the books of Moses (the first revealed truths of the Old Testament) more "from God" than NDW's communication? If the basis of your argument is the truth of revelations is dependent on whether or not they are supported by their own truths, already established by scripture, the books of Moses had no scripture to compare; ie no Old Testament/revelation of God's nature had previously existed, so that revelation is perfectly on even ground with NDW's revelation.

AMC

MacAllister

11-12-2008, 06:09 AM

Roger is, of course, absolutely right in this qualification - the scholarly arguments, interesting as I might find them - exist outside the belief in the Bible as the Divinely-Inspired, literal, Word of God. And while there are many Christian traditions that exist outside that belief (and honestly that was my only point in getting involved in this discussion) there are also many Christian traditions that acknowledge the historical brangles over the text, but maintain that God's Will was eventually done regardless of human meddling and attempted intervention. :)Well, if you don't mind a decidedly non-academic answer, I'd say that God decided what was scripture and what was not. Not by councils, but by God.

If you believe that there is a God who is the Creator of and in control of the Universe, it is inconceivable (at least to me) that he could be wringing His hands up in Heaven moaning, "Oh no! They've got it all wrong. That's not what I meant!"

The whole idea strikes me as silly.

This isn't something I can prove, and I don't intend to try. But if you remove the authority of God from the picture, then the Bible becomes nothing more than the words of men -- long dead men at that. It just becomes the "meaningless talk" that Paul warned about in 1 Timothy 1: 3-6.

Roger J Carlson

11-12-2008, 05:34 PM

Roger is, of course, absolutely right in this qualification - the scholarly arguments, interesting as I might find them - exist outside the belief in the Bible as the Divinely-Inspired, literal, Word of God. And while there are many Christian traditions that exist outside that belief (and honestly that was my only point in getting involved in this discussion) there are also many Christian traditions that acknowledge the historical brangles over the text, but maintain that God's Will was eventually done regardless of human meddling and attempted intervention. :)And I don't really mind a scholarly discussion of the history of the Bible's compilation or a textual analysis of the New Testament. Just don't be too surprised when I reject anything that differs significantly from existing scripture. Not because I'm close-minded, but because I've tested it against scripture and found it wanting.

III

11-12-2008, 05:54 PM

First, a lot of scripture just goes ahead and contradicts itself; I provided a good example in a previous post (concerning "good" and "evil" government).

Regarding that particular point. In 2 Peter, Peter was giving general guidelines to the Church who was facing deadly persecution at the time. Within the context of the letter, he was answering a lot of their questions about this "new religion" they were following. One of the questions (addressed many placed in the NT) was "is it okay to just go ahead and rebel violently against the government"? Peter was telling them, no, rebellion is not the answer. Rather, the solution is to live good, pure lives of love.

In the other scripture you quoted, where the Apostles were "breaking the law" (which was a Pharisaical law) by preaching the gospel, they said that when the law contradicts God's command, then they were to obey God rather than the law. It's a very different situation than the one addressed in Peter. Peter is saying "submit yoursleves to their authority", not "do every single thing they tell you, even if it goes directly against God's teaching."

I hope this helps.

Medievalist

11-12-2008, 10:03 PM

There is a point where, as a Christian, as interesting as the textual issues are, that you must have faith.

And honestly, most of the things people see as "contradictions," disappear if you read the text in context with where, and why, and how it was written.

AMCrenshaw

11-12-2008, 11:47 PM

There is a point where, as a Christian, as interesting as the textual issues are, that you must have faith.

In God. The Word, not necessarily the words.

And honestly, most of the things people see as "contradictions," disappear if you read the text in context with where, and why, and how it was written.

Most, but surely not all. (Maybe another matter of personal belief. But I feel there are many times "Paul" contradicts Jesus, for example).

AMC

Medievalist

11-13-2008, 04:27 AM

In God. The Word, not necessarily the words.

Most, but surely not all. (Maybe another matter of personal belief. But I feel there are many times "Paul" contradicts Jesus, for example).

AMC

Yes. And, while I'm loathe to be a Pauline apologist, a lot of that is because we are seeing the epistles out of context--we only have his letters in response to, not what he's responding to . . . and the time frame, and the place, is such that things are confusing.

And the Epistles, in terms of textual transmission, are . . . well, they're messed up. There are large differences in terms of the order of sections within the epistles, and missing bits, and sometimes key verbs and nouns are different, in even the three very best earliest mss. So it's all the more confusing.

Pat~

11-13-2008, 12:40 PM

Ooops, careful, there.

The rather detailed written records we have contradict that version of history pretty clearly. There are records of bribes paid to and from various Cardinals.

Many of the various councils didn't even agree with each other, frankly - so you're in murky water, there. It's a case of this denomination chose that interpretation, and some other denomination chose another.

From an overview of the Council of Trent (http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1990/issue28/2842.html), frex.

The article points out that doctrine that came out of the Council of Trent wasn't significantly revisited until the 1960's.
(It's my understanding that the current Pope, in fact, is actively campaigning to roll back doctrine to pre-Vatican II, btw.)

Pat might speak for her own specific accepted canon in her own version of Protestantism - but certainly not for every Christian, or all of Christianity. :)

For sure, the canon is a huge and complex study, and there are variations even within branches of Christianity (eg. the Catholic Bible vs. Protestant). But, the main issue still (in response to AMC's OP) is that whenever councils convened to discuss the canon--and even if they were to call a council today--nothing would be accepted as canonical that was contradictory to what had already been accepted on the grounds of apostolic authority and the authority of Christ's own words (which also established the authority of the Law and the Prophets, Matthew 5:17). In other words, Conversations With God would not be accepted by any branch of Christianity (eg. Protestants or Catholics), based on the scriptures those branches believe in that I presented in my first post.

...There are different versions of books between the different Bibles, to this day. The editorial decisions made about the Bible have most certainly been ongoing, and the translation choices vary pretty widely. The versions of the Bible we read now are most assuredly not what they were calling the Bible in 140 AD. They didn't speak English, ya know.

This does, in fact, have some bearing on AMCrenshaw's question - that is, who decides what texts are Divinely inspired.

I'm pretty sure that orthodox Christianity holds that the original texts were inspired and inerrant, and that based on the meticulous copying down through the ages and the sovereign power of the God who gave us those texts and continually preserves them, we can have confidence that even the translations we currently have are the real, complete, and true essence of God's message to us. (There are differences of opinion within Christianity as to whether today's versions could technically be called 'inerrant' and 'inspired'). What you've mentioned here concerns both translation (putting a document into a new language) and transmission (copyists recreating an identical document word for word). The latest mss we've discovered keep pointing back to the amazing accuracy of transmission down through the ages by copyists. We can see, humanly speaking, where that may have come from when we consider some of the obsessive 'rules' that the early copyists had to follow that contributed to this accuracy:

Early Talmudists (100-500 AD):

-No word or letter must be written from memory without the scribe looking at the codex before him

-Between every consonant the width of a hair or thread must intervene

-Between every section (parashah), the breadth of nine consonants

-Between every book, three lines

-The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line, but the rest need not to do so

(and several more, including being bathed, dressed in full Jewish dress, and even ignoring the king if addressed by him during the writing of the divine name.)

The Massoretes (500-900 AD):

"They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letter of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we may right consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle, not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter, of the Law should pass away or be lost."

[These taken from How Reliable is the Bible (Poling) and Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (Kenyon) respectively.]

Even translation into hundreds of different languages can be done accurately if the translators keep going back to the oldest available Greek or Hebrew mss for that translation--and that is how they typically proceed (there is one version, I think, that was translated from the Septuagint ? but can't remember off the top of my head). Virtually all the English Bibles we have today are from the ancient Greek and Hebrew mss; scholars don't translate using modern versions or other translations as their starting point.

NDW claims that God spoke to him. Not even just the Holy Spirit inspiring him, but God Himself spoke. Well, in Christian theology, the Holy Spirit and God are One...saying the Holy Spirit inspired the words that are written is the same as saying those are God's words (spoken or written). So "God" does not outrank the Holy Spirit, nor does God's speaking outrank the Holy Spirit's inspiring.

First, a lot of scripture just goes ahead and contradicts itself; I provided a good example in a previous post (concerning "good" and "evil" government). There is no contradicition there. Consider two concentric circles. The largest one is that we ought to obey One Master (God). Within that large circle is a littler one that says we ought to obey the governments put in authority over us by that Master. But sometimes those earthly governments stray outside of the Master's will...that littler circle strays outside the big one, going past the edge. We are not to go past the edge with it, is all. That is the point of departure, the exception to the smaller rule because it is subservient to the larger.

Pat~

11-13-2008, 01:13 PM

Sorry, Pat. I never did want to get into a side-discussion about the appropriateness of your post; however, I wanted to address the fact that I felt offended without accusing you of being offensive - that is, I trust you not to be intentionally harsh or mean or what-have-you, but that your obvious (and it is obvious to me) that it's probable you have some negative attitude toward New Age ideas. "Consciousness" is becoming more and more well-known to be a very fundamental part of not just our existence as humans, but to the universe itself. Certain Eastern religions believe that God is nothing other than Consciousness.

If I've been unclear, let me now be clear: Be mindful also of appearances: you don't know who is listening. What is in your heart may not (and probably does not) show up in black and white on a forum. I do not question you either, but your aforementioned rhetoric. So because you are discussing (rather than debating, I would say), I trust you to be mindful, and urge you to be more mindful. This isn't a matter of sacrificing what you believe, but understanding "the other" from their POV.

Tolerance: "Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference." (http://www.tolerance.org/about/tolerance.html)

Your rhetoric, in my (the person with whom you're conversing) opinion, reflected dismissiveness and rather than accuse you, Pat, of dismissiveness, I wanted you (and me, too!) to be more mindful of our prose, for it might falsely signify something.

For example, you say: which I could easily mistake the "sin" for the "sinner", so to speak (which you clarify, but I needed an example :)). I might think you mean that you have little regard for one who believes in that God. But you don't, I trust. I hope you see what I mean.

AMC

I'm glad you addressed your offense with me, AMC. That kind of thing always needs clearing up, and I think publicly if the issue is a public one. Again, I separate my regard for you as a person from my regard for what it is you believe--I do that with everyone. I respect your diversity, your expression, and your ways of being different from me. And while our views do not always harmonize, and we don't pretend they do, we can both post in here 'harmoniously'--we can remain kind and respectful towards one another and enjoy the discussion. :e2flowers

Pat~

11-13-2008, 02:23 PM

I have nothing to add to the reincarnation; I'm not learned in it, either. Thanks for the bit with CSL, though! :) You're welcome. :)

The exact assertion is that God walked through the imagination! If God said that he did it, why should you not believe? NDW isn't saying he imagined it, but that God walked through the imagination. But you seem to be missing the point that NDW could've simply imagined that God was speaking to him. He has no proof. He was alone, in bed, with a yellow legal pad. There were no eyewitnesses 'hearing' the voice along with him. It's simply this one man making an interesting but unsubstantiated claim.

Compare this to Moses, (which you have mentioned elsewhere): When God spoke to Moses from a burning bush, and said, 'Go tell my people such-and-so, and go tell Pharoah such-and-so' Moses' first reply was 'well, how will they believe me--how will they know that God did, in fact, speak to me?' And God supplied the authority that was lacking (since they had no scripture yet to measure his authority by)--He said to take up a serpent, which turned into a staff, and with that Moses would do miracles that would show his people and Pharoah that this message indeed had come from God. And so he did, from the plagues to the crossing of the Red Sea.

Later on, Moses himself outlined the testing of the prophets:

Accurate Predictions:

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)

Accurate Theology:

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Now, according to this, even if NWD had made predictions which came true (which he hasn't) or had a serpent that turned into a staff, and could do signs and miracles, (which he has not)--if what he is claiming comes from God does not match the God we already know and worship (as revealed by now in the Law), then he is a false prophet. The God Moses revealed to the people, the God of the Law, was a God who acknowledged indisputably the presence of Good and Evil.

So your argument is that since NDW contradicts the Bible (which is easy to do since the Bible contradicts itself so much), he can't possibly be communicating with God. There's a big difference between 'contradictions in the Bible' (many of which are only apparent, and understood within context, as Medi pointed out) and a 'contradictory' God giving entirely opposing revelations of truth. The Bible is the firm foundation of what Christians take by faith to be the revelation of the nature and purposes of God. It's the measuring rod by which we measure all truth. If someone claims (as many have down through history) to speak for God, the truth of that claim is measurable...you simply line it up with the God of scripture and see if it's a match. If it's diametrically opposed to what the God of scripture says, there's simply no way it's going to be construed as a match, or as words coming from the same God. It may even look or sound similar on the surface, but the Bible calls false prophets wolves in sheep's clothing. The best deception, after all, is something that is similar, but not quite the same.

This applies maybe to the New Testament, but certainly not to all the books of the Old Testament. That is, when the first prophet had received the Law, what "Truth" did he have to compare it to? None. Absolutely none. You may argue (all you want) that it came from God himself, but I will argue that is precisely what is claimed of all the revelations. How are the books of Moses (the first revealed truths of the Old Testament) more "from God" than NDW's communication? If the basis of your argument is the truth of revelations is dependent on whether or not they are supported by their own truths, already established by scripture, the books of Moses had no scripture to compare; ie no Old Testament/revelation of God's nature had previously existed, so that revelation is perfectly on even ground with NDW's revelation. The truth of 'revelation' is based on the authority behind it--that's my assertion. In the case of Moses, where there was no prior written revelation, the authority of his message and calling was substantiated through divine miracles. Moses then designated scripture (and the One Jehovah God revealed to them there) and fulfilled prophecy as being authoritative rods of measure.

This is not self-contradiction at all: in fact, it is very similar to many fundamental Christian arguments that go something like: "Even though people have free will, God knows who will do good and who will do evil." God knows who will hurt others and who will hurt themselves by "doing what they want".

NDW argues: God's will is always being done (through humans no less!). Everyone has a purpose. Even Hitler. Even Satan. The 'punishment' and 'reward' system of Christianity is human-based "this" and "that". An action just is.

If God's will is always being done, what do you do with the verse that says, "He is not willing that any should perish?" (referencing unbelievers, Matthew 18:14; 1 Timothy 2:4). Because, obviously, some do die without believing. God's will is not so simply stated, I don't think. God is all-powerful and sovereign, entirely. But within that sovereignty He allows men to make wrong choices, too. Man's sin is not God's will. And I differ with your take on Christianity's system; it's not a punishment and reward system. If it were, there'd be no Cross of Christ. We'd all simply be 'rewarded' for our sin with the punishment due us.

Thankfully, the 'grace' system of Christianity is God-based, not human-based anything.

Now, if anyone is being self-contradictory, it is whoever wrote about government:

You cited Acts 5:

YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS!

Which is precisely what NDW said: why do you need to follow or obey government when there is a higher authority? Why do you need them [governments]? Covered this already...it's not an 'either-or' situation; it's a 'both-and,' 'except-when' situation.

And the Christian contradiction comes through: expressed will or not, human will is corrupt, it is drenched in sin; it cannot do Good because it is not Good; only God is Good and we are not God. Institutions affected by humankind must be, absolutely must be corrupt exactly because they are built by humans. Nothing short of a nation built by Christ himself would be Good. Only "The Kingdom of God" would suffice. Funny, too, that during Jesus' life the most humanitarian thing he did was...what? Right. Challenge the government and establish the Kingdom of God. The kingdom that Christ established was 'not of this world'--it was a spiritual kingdom, not one established to challenge the current Roman government, though his accusers tried to make it appear so. (It didn't; even Jesus said, 'give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' concerning the paying of taxes and that fish miracle.) The human will is corrupt, true. But--amazingly enough--God works even through corrupt rulers, corrupt humans, (even you or me!) to accomplish His own good purposes. He trumps evil, in other words. He doesn't make evil 'good' per se, but He brings the good that He wills in spite of it. A good case in point is with the story of the Babylonian captivity in the Old Testament. There were prophecies specifying by name that Nebachudnezzar, would conquer Judah and carry them off into captivity to Babylon, and then Cyrus (future ruler of Babylon) would escort the remnant back to Jerusalem 70 years later (Jeremiah 25:11-14; Isaiah 44:28). And this happened. It made no rhyme or reason, but Cyrus not only allowed them to return to their homeland, but had them escorted for safety, and even sent with them funding for the rebuilding of the Temple. It wasn't that pagan Babylon suddenly became God-fearing--it was simply God working through even pagan human government to accomplish His will.

Higgins

11-13-2008, 06:38 PM

Even translation into hundreds of different languages can be done accurately if the translators keep going back to the oldest available Greek or Hebrew mss for that translation--and that is how they typically proceed (there is one version, I think, that was translated from the Septuagint ? but can't remember off the top of my head). Virtually all the English Bibles we have today are from the ancient Greek and Hebrew mss; scholars don't translate using modern versions or other translations as their starting point.

As Medievalist has pointed out, the texts in the Biblical canon are texts just like other texts in that they show a very complex series of alterations over time. Moreover their sources are pretty diverse. I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a problem for the faithful. It seems to me that if your religion is part of history (ie it transpired over time), you also have to accept the fact there are multiple viewpoints built into it. Presumably God could have dropped an monolith from the sky with the texts on it, but He has chosen not to and it seems an acceptance of the full humanity of human history must be part of the Divine message.

For example, since you note the Septuagint (various Greek versions of something resembling the OT) and the various Hebrew texts that have some bearing on what the Christians think should constitute the OT...it is worth pointing out that:

1) the Septuagint is a translation
2) but older than the texts we have of what might be thought of as the "original" (Septuagint circa 200 BC...Hebrew texts much later)
3) the Septuagint is based on a more original or earlier version of the "original"
4) it differs from the other "originals"
5) it is the text that came to have authority for Latin and Greek orthodoxy
6) it is the basis of the Latin Bible (Old Latin and, to a lesser extent, the Vulgate)'s OT.

I don't think there is anything to do about that but accept that texts and religions have histories and the idea of a pristine original text's ever having existed is a myth.

Pat~

11-13-2008, 06:54 PM

Higgins, my mentioning the Septuagint was not to comment on its source, but to comment that I think one version today used it as their translation source, rather than going back as far as the earliest reliable mss and translating directly from those.

And yes, I do believe in 'pristine original texts'--I also know we won't find them, in that Moses shattered them at the foot of the mountain thousands of years ago. ;) (And yes, I don't worry too much about finding the other originals, either.)

ETA: Seriously, though, to comment on your last statement, I don't agree that the only choice left is to accept that earlier transcripts, right down to each original one, are "myth." The other choice would be faith, as Medi pointed out earlier. One can choose to ignore centuries of mss and say it's all myth, or one can use reason and faith to assume that there were original ones much like the tens of thousands already resembling each other so closely.

Higgins

11-13-2008, 07:18 PM

Pat~

11-13-2008, 09:49 PM

I'm just saying the idea of some perfect text out there is a myth. I think people have to come to terms with the imperfections of the texts or rather the variability and interpretability of the texts since that is one of the hazards of history.

Yes, or here's a thought; would we even recognize the 'perfect text' if we saw it?

Higgins

11-13-2008, 10:05 PM

Yes, or here's a thought; would we even recognize the 'perfect text' if we saw it?

Apparently it can be surprising (as when parts of the probably originally Aramaic book of Enoch turned up in the Qumran scrolls in Aramaic)...on the other hand things may not be all that ellusive. For example the Septuagint apparently is closer to whatever tradition the Qumran scrolls are based on than it is to other traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

AMCrenshaw

11-15-2008, 09:43 PM

Accurate Predictions

Accurate Theology

In truth, a matter of belief, as Roger said. Because there is no way that you, Pat, or me, AMC, can figure out if this is actually true:

The God Moses revealed to the people, the God of the Law, was a God who acknowledged indisputably the presence of Good and Evil.

we can only think it, or believe it so. What I mean is that many people claimed to do miracles, and many were recorded. No one believes in "Ulysses" or in "Hercules", who were (very interesting) mythological figures, who did amazing things. So a matter of belief.

The kingdom that Christ established was 'not of this world'--it was a spiritual kingdom, not one established to challenge the current Roman government, though his accusers tried to make it appear so.

Hear of Binding the Strong Man ? http://www.amazon.com/Binding-Strong-Man-Political-Reading/dp/0883446200

Might be worth a read. If anything, it will deepen your faith about Jesus' life and actions.

It's more about his "politics", if you want to call them that. About his subversion of Roman power (from Mark's eyes). It is scripturally and contextually supported with interesting scholarship. As I said, you might like to read it.

But--amazingly enough--God works even through corrupt rulers, corrupt humans, (even you or me!) to accomplish His own good purposes.

Which is what NDW would say.

AMC

Pat~

11-15-2008, 10:11 PM

In truth, a matter of belief, as Roger said. Because there is no way that you, Pat, or me, AMC, can figure out if this is actually true:

we can only think it, or believe it so. What I mean is that many people claimed to do miracles, and many were recorded. No one believes in "Ulysses" or in "Hercules", who were (very interesting) mythological figures, who did amazing things. So a matter of belief.

Of course; it is ultimately a matter of belief. But the point is, it is a matter of biblical Christian belief--and you asked in your OP why Christians didn't consider Neale's writings holy scripture or inspired. Hence this whole explanation.

Hear of Binding the Strong Man ? http://www.amazon.com/Binding-Strong-Man-Political-Reading/dp/0883446200

Might be worth a read. If anything, it will deepen your faith about Jesus' life and actions.

It's more about his "politics", if you want to call them that. About his subversion of Roman power (from Mark's eyes). It is scripturally and contextually supported with interesting scholarship. As I said, you might like to read it.
AMC

I've always thought of Jesus as a-political, personally, not as one to subvert any government in power. I'll take a peek at that site later on today if I have time, though.

AMCrenshaw

11-17-2008, 03:10 AM

A side-point!

These books

Politics of Jesus
Starving Jesus
Jesus for President
The Subversion of Christianity

to name a few, elucidate the so-called "politics" of Jesus. I don't think they threaten faith, but they certainly call Christians to action.

AMC

James81

12-03-2008, 09:07 PM

First of all, I don't see this so-called prophet 'reconfiguring' scriptural truth to fit 1990-2000 AD minds. I see him outright denying some key elements of it, especially concerning sin, evil, and God's holiness and intolerance of those. What Neale is 'reconfiguring' is the God revealed in scripture--to fit a 'god' concept that he is much more comfortable with. Many people would be much more comfortable with a Big Daddy who simply tells us how much He loves us and allows that nothing we do is either "right" or "wrong" (concepts Neale obviously thinks are fictitious "labels" we silly humans cling to in order "to help you define the material – and your Self.") See, if you're going to believe in a All-powerful and Good God, you must also believe in a Just God--(an all-powerful god that would turn a blind eye to evil is no longer a good god). But to do away with any aspects of a "punitive" God (which Neale scorns), it follows that one must do away with the concept of right or wrong--that Good and Just God must never have to actually 'judge' anyone for their wrong. So what Neale has done is to simply deny the reality of Evil (as seen in his statements about Hitler). Now, if you can do that with a straight face and clear conscience, that's certainly your choice. But I would hate to live in your world. I much prefer one that recognizes Evil for what it is and attempts to eradicate it.

The trouble with this is, if you believe God recognizes Evil, then you must ALSO believe that God CREATED evil. Because nothing exists outside of God, because God is "omnipresent" (meaning he is everywhere), you must also believe that God also exists in this hell that he talks so feverishly about.

See where that all begins to fall apart? Because a Just and righteous God can NEVER be evil, and yet evil HAD to come from him if evil exists because nothing exists without God. ;)

I think Walsh's explanation makes WAYYYYY more sense. That there is no good and evil. That good and evil are constructs of man, or a way for us to experience GOOD and a way to bound us up in our finite universe. Things are what they are, and that we, as people, can never truly and FULLY grasp the idea of God.

I also believe that the bible is a GUIDE. It's not some canon, unchanging, unwavering writing with which we are supposed to hinge on EVERY word (god christians love to do that), but rather a road map with which we can attain goodness and redemption within ourselves.

James81

12-03-2008, 09:13 PM

And to add an addendum to that...

Our job is to seek and find redemption/"enlightenment" in whatever way we can. Christians like to ram rod people down ONE and ONLY one path, and that is so ridiculous. The IMPORTANT thing we must learn is that God exists and that our "job" is to live a life that will return us to him and make us one with him again (man, I LOVED that last line of Chapter 2--I think it was ch. 2--that said "THERE IS ONLY ONE OF US. That was so powerful because it means that you, me, and everyone around us all are parts of God, because God lives within is. It also makes so much sense because it explains why prayer is so powerful because when we all come together, we all connect different "parts" of God together to wield more power than we could ever find within just ourselves, and hence miracles happen).

That is our goal. The means with which we attain that goal (I'm reading stuff about Buddhism right now and boy it sure sounds like a great way to do that) isn't as important as actually doing it. We can never be perfect (despite the dogmatic teachings of the church that we should strive for perfection), but rather we ARE perfect the way we are. Our "sins" are immaterial to that perfection because they exist outside that perfection because they are our OWN constructs.

Roger J Carlson

12-03-2008, 10:09 PM

I also believe that the bible is a GUIDE. It's not some canon, unchanging, unwavering writing with which we are supposed to hinge on EVERY word (god christians love to do that), but rather a road map with which we can attain goodness and redemption within ourselves.I guess I don't follow this. If the Bible is a road map, then shouldn't you follow it? The Bible says explicitly that all have sinned. Jesus said explicitly that He was the only way to God. If the Bible is ever changing to say whatever it is we want, then it's not a roadmap, it's a mirror.

You are of course free to believe that we should find redemption in any way we can, but that's not based on the Bible, so why even bring the Bible into it?

James81

12-03-2008, 10:38 PM

I guess I don't follow this. If the Bible is a road map, then shouldn't you follow it? The Bible says explicitly that all have sinned. Jesus said explicitly that He was the only way to God. If the Bible is ever changing to say whatever it is we want, then it's not a roadmap, it's a mirror.

You are of course free to believe that we should find redemption in any way we can, but that's not based on the Bible, so why even bring the Bible into it?

I see the bible as more of a road map, because on a road map there is more than one route to take to get to a single destination.

My own personal inclination is to take everything that is written in red (Jesus' words, in case others reading this don't know that) as the message God wants us to know, and throw the rest out. The rest of it is just man's interpretation or inspired version, and, IMO, is no more or less valid than Mr. Walsh's own book. ;)

But those words in Red, that's FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. Think of it like this. You are God. You see all your creation looking to you for your word, your message. They want to hear what YOU have to say on how to be saved. So you send your son, but the catch is you only have about 33 years to get your message across, and for whatever reason you only spend about 3 of those years preaching. Wouldn't you think that you, as God, would want to include EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KNOW about how to be saved in those 3 short years?

But so much of the doctrines in church's today actually hinges on what PAUL wrote in the epistles. And churches use those letters (they are LETTERS for crying out loud, not even a "book") as GOSPEL to try and tell people how to live their lives.

For example, find me ONE red scripture that talks about homosexuality. Can you do it? (I know that's veering off the path a little here)

The point is, that the bible as a whole should be seen as just a guide. If you want to canonize something, canonize the words in red, cause I doubt God would send his son to do a half-assed job of getting his message across. I'm fairly confident that if you were to follow Jesus' words, you're pretty much covered.

And let's not forget this fact: the bible, as we read it today, is comprised of 66 books that were decided in a council (Council of Trent??? can't remember if that is the right name or not) 2000ish years ago about which of the scrolls to include and which not to include.

Have you ever read the book of Thomas? It's not in the bible, but it was written by one of his disciples. What makes the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John more valid than the book of Thomas? Man has decided that. Granted, they didn't find the book of Thomas until after that council, but now that we have it, it SHOULD go in there, shouldn't it?

That's why I have a hard time believing in the bible we have as the only form of canon there is. Because that bible has been meddled around with by man for centuries and if there's one thing that man is really good at, it's ****ing things up.

Roger J Carlson

12-03-2008, 11:43 PM

I see the bible as more of a road map, because on a road map there is more than one route to take to get to a single destination.

My own personal inclination is to take everything that is written in red (Jesus' words, in case others reading this don't know that) as the message God wants us to know, and throw the rest out. The rest of it is just man's interpretation or inspired version, and, IMO, is no more or less valid than Mr. Walsh's own book. ;)

But those words in Red, that's FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. Think of it like this. You are God. You see all your creation looking to you for your word, your message. They want to hear what YOU have to say on how to be saved. So you send your son, but the catch is you only have about 33 years to get your message across, and for whatever reason you only spend about 3 of those years preaching. Wouldn't you think that you, as God, would want to include EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KNOW about how to be saved in those 3 short years?

<snip>

The point is, that the bible as a whole should be seen as just a guide. If you want to canonize something, canonize the words in red, cause I doubt God would send his son to do a half-assed job of getting his message across. I'm fairly confident that if you were to follow Jesus' words, you're pretty much covered.All right, words in red.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

He doesn't say A way, A truth, and A life, he says THE way, THE truth, and THE life. And he's pretty adamant that he is the only way to God.

"Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed from death to life" (John 5:24).

He clearly states that hearing and following His word gives eternal life.

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7: 13-14)

This shows Jesus' thought about there being many ways to heaven. Most of them lead to destruction.

James81

12-04-2008, 12:21 AM

All right, words in red.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

He doesn't say A way, A truth, and A life, he says THE way, THE truth, and THE life. And he's pretty adamant that he is the only way to God.

Does "comes to the father" EQUAL "be saved"????

That sounds more to me like that we can't really talk to God directly, so we have to go to his son first and his son goes to God on our behalf.

"Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed from death to life" (John 5:24).

He clearly states that hearing and following His word gives eternal life.

That scripture mentions nothing about "following." According to that verse, we have to do TWO things to get "eternal life" and not be condemned. Those two things are:

1. Hear his word.
2. Believe him who sent him (which I assume means God)

And that was the whole point of Grace to begin with. We no longer have to perform a bunch of rituals and sacrifices to be saved. All we have to do is believe it.

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7: 13-14)

This shows Jesus' thought about there being many ways to heaven. Most of them lead to destruction.

This is your strongest arguement, but let me pitch this to you.

That scripture says "wide is the gate." How do you know that you aren't already being deceived? I mean, in our country today, all these doctrines we're taught in church are pretty widely accepted and they aren't hard to follow.

I'll tell you what IS hard to do though. And that's things like "love your enemy" and "do good to those who hurt you." That's REALLY hard. How many christians out there are actually doing those things?

And those types of things are present in many other religions. Buddhism comes to mind right away. Taoism is another one.

AMCrenshaw

12-04-2008, 01:29 AM

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

And of course this is one moment we must take the Bible literally, not metaphorically. Right? Oh how do we know? We can't know unless Jesus told us, and he never said anything about taking the Holy Bible literally or metaphorically. Or did he? What's all that business of the parables, anyway?

He clearly states that hearing and following His word gives eternal life.

Roger, I am putting this question here for you, not to offend or to attempt to bewilder, but for you and your faith. You wrote "following His word" gives eternal life". First, where does Jesus say follow the Bible that will be written and compiled and changed and manipulated years and years after my death? Secondly, more importantly, what does this mean to you, personally in light of what you already said (which was, again, that following His word gives eternal life):

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

As James pointed out, this is clear: All things, up to and including concepts of evil-- and evil itself. Weren't they created? Or is evil the only thing that is un-created? If it is created, who creates it? If not God, then humans? Do humans have the power, capacity, ability, or whatever to create evil, and God does not? What does this ancient paradox mean? Is John 1:1 a lie, or just half-true, or must I not take it so literally? Or is God the creator of evil, which is a thing that is created...? And if God is all Good, does that not mean that all evil serves Good no matter what? What does that say about "evil" human beings? That, what, they successfully foil God's "plan" or God's will? Does evil serve a purpose? If not, why did God create it? If so, what's the use in being Good, except to be Good for the sake of goodness (it's the holidays ya know)? Why not be who you are, which is a thing made in the image of God, and whose soul has its being in God? Why not serve God's purpose by being who you are? NDW, might ask...

AMC

Roger J Carlson

12-04-2008, 02:22 AM

Does "comes to the father" EQUAL "be saved"????

That sounds more to me like that we can't really talk to God directly, so we have to go to his son first and his son goes to God on our behalf I will grant that it means a lot more than "being saved", but it certainly includes that. If by being saved we mean eternal life ("For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16) and going to heaven, how could it not? How could you have eternal life with God if you can not come to him?

. That scripture mentions nothing about "following." According to that verse, we have to do TWO things to get "eternal life" and not be condemned. Those two things are:

1. Hear his word.
2. Believe him who sent him (which I assume means God)

And that was the whole point of Grace to begin with. We no longer have to perform a bunch of rituals and sacrifices to be saved. All we have to do is believe it.
No, he didn't say "follow" here, but he does in other places:

Luke 23-26: [23] Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. [24] For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. [25] What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? [26] If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."

It's not about rituals, it's about denying yourself, dying to yourself (take up your cross) and follow him, put your trust in him, turn your life over to him.

This is your strongest arguement, but let me pitch this to you.

That scripture says "wide is the gate." How do you know that you aren't already being deceived? I mean, in our country today, all these doctrines we're taught in church are pretty widely accepted and they aren't hard to follow.

I'll tell you what IS hard to do though. And that's things like "love your enemy" and "do good to those who hurt you." That's REALLY hard. How many christians out there are actually doing those things?

And those types of things are present in many other religions. Buddhism comes to mind right away. Taoism is another one.How do I know I'm not deceived? By testing doctrine against Scripture. That's what Christ did when he was tempted by Satan. This strikes me as far more reliable than testing it against what I think is right. I've thought many things throughout my life that I've later changed my mind on. My thoughts are fickle. God's Word is eternal.

And I'm not willing to concede that only the words in red are God's Word. I believe the whole Bible is for reasons I have addressed here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2948276#post2948276).

Roger J Carlson

12-04-2008, 02:27 AM

I would like to remind everyone that swearing (even starred out) is not allowed in the Christian Forum.

Sean D. Schaffer

12-04-2008, 08:12 AM

http://www.cwg.org/main.php
http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-God-Uncommon-Dialogue-Book/dp/0399142789/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225991759&sr=8-2

Why isn't this book considered a Holy text, or part of the Holy Canon, or even the Bible. It's a recorded Conversation with God, a recorded prayer. God says a whole lot in it that is very interesting, including scriptural support for the "claims" of God. And if we can't believe Walsch, which we probably don't, why not? Many of the statements are Biblical in nature in that they refer to themselves as being the words of God. Is Walsch a faker, a heretic, a blasphemr even though God warns him in the book that people will call him such (and that he's not)?

Why is this dialogue not seen as modern divine inspiration?

Thoughts?

AMC

Interesting thread, AMC. A man who really wants to know the Lord is doing all he knows to find Him. Sadly, I think he's looking in all the wrong places.

A test Mr. Walsch might want to give the spirits he talks to: he should see 1) if the spirit says that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and 2) if the spirit's words come true. If a spirit does not confess Christ, it's not of God, and if the spirit's words are not 100% accurate, then Mr. Walsch will have no reason to fear or respect its words. God is all-knowing, and so therefore, if someone's words are God's words, they'll all be true.

I pray that Mr. Walsch will find the truth he is obviously seeking, and that the said truth will set him free. I don't know who he is, but that doesn't matter. What matters is he is obviously seeking out the truth. Like the Bible says, "Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and the door shall be opened unto you." These words of the Lord Himself promise that those who seek the truth of God will find it. But at the same time, he has to accept that truth when it presents itself to him. No amount of searching will do any human being any good if we do not accept the truth that God has already given us in His Word.

Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man will open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me." Christ is the Truth of God, and He is the only One Who can give us real freedom through the real truth. I hope and pray Mr. Walsch finds what he's looking for.

God bless. :)

--Sean

James81

12-04-2008, 04:24 PM

I will grant that it means a lot more than "being saved", but it certainly includes that. If by being saved we mean eternal life ("For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16) and going to heaven, how could it not? How could you have eternal life with God if you can not come to him?

You ever notice when Jesus spoke about being "saved" or redeemed or whatever that the only qualifications he put on it were to "believe on him"?

I find that interesting, because the church of today doesn't believe (they don't TRULY believe) that anymore for some reason. The church of today has a process that they push all christians through.

First, we gotta get you into a church. You gotta come to church. There's no way that I, a christian, can witness to you, a non-christian, and lead you to god outside of a church. (I'm not speaking of myself here, but rather the general attitude of those who are christians who've came to me and witnessed to me) Why aren't these people MORE focused on leading people to God? Who cares if they go to YOUR church? Just focus on their soul and whether they believe and stop trying to add numbers to your pews.

Secondly, (and I'll flip over and use "they" this time) they have to get you to their altar. And "ALL" (I use quotes there) you have to do to be saved is follow the "ABCs."

Ask
Believe
Confess

Ask god to forgive you of your sins (why? where does Jesus say that again? remember, i'm talking about BEING SAVED here, not FOLLOWING HIM, which Jesus makes a distinction between the two when he talked), Believe on him and that Jesus is savior (ok, they get this one right), and confess that you are a sinner and confess your sins to God.

You notice how the church of today sandwiches true salvation between making ourselves out to be unworthy of true salvation. The beauty of grace, the whole reason that Jesus died on the cross for us, HAS BEEN LOST today because we are too focused on how bad we are and how much we don't deserve it.

All Jesus EVER said was to hear his word and believe on him. THAT'S IT. You don't have to ask him to forgive your sins. HE'S ALREADY DONE THAT. All you have to do is BELIEVE IT. Just believe it. You realize how hard that is for some people to do? It must be pretty hard, because literally no one does it. Everybody who ever gets saved always has to talk about their sins as if they matter to God. Your sins have already been covered by the blood of Jesus on the cross. That was the whole point of that. The whole reason he died. He's ALREADY forgiven you of your sins. Just believe it.

.No, he didn't say "follow" here, but he does in other places:

Luke 23-26: [23] Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. [24] For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. [25] What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? [26] If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."

It's not about rituals, it's about denying yourself, dying to yourself (take up your cross) and follow him, put your trust in him, turn your life over to him.

Yes, in those other places he's usually already talking to a supposed "christian" when he says it. Someone who already believed. I'm not saying that once you believe that's all you have to do. But it's all you have to do to BE SAVED. Just believe.

The rest comes AFTER you TRULY believe. Because when you TRULY believe, you will WANT to follow him.

How do I know I'm not deceived? By testing doctrine against Scripture. That's what Christ did when he was tempted by Satan. This strikes me as far more reliable than testing it against what I think is right. I've thought many things throughout my life that I've later changed my mind on. My thoughts are fickle. God's Word is eternal.

And I'm not willing to concede that only the words in red are God's Word. I believe the whole Bible is for reasons I have addressed here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2948276#post2948276).

What scripture? How do you know you're not missing out on some important scriptures? A council decided which scriptures belonged in the bible (a council of MEN I might add). And we aren't even reading the scriptures in their original language anymore.

That's another problem with churches today. They think that in order to hear god's voice, they have to read the bible. They don't truly believe that God can talk to and inspire them or that god exists within them.

And that's why you don't see "miracles" today. And that's why jesus said "if you have faith the grain of a mustard seed....." You realize how small a mustard seed is? It's pretty small. And do you realize how many christians don't even have that much faith? it's uncanny. It's uncanny that people go to church, read their bible, and pray every day but they never take the time to listen to God. It's uncanny that we believe we are not good enough to be saved and that we are constantly asking God to forgive us for our sins WHEN HE HAS ALREADY DONE SO. It's uncanny that we have taken one of the most powerful religious experiences ever known to man and have turned it into a ritual that has sucked 95% of the power out of it.

That's all I'm saying.

James81

12-04-2008, 04:26 PM

Oh, btw, I love these books and am reading them right now.

But:

1. I don't really believe he's hearing the voice of God. I think that's bunk.

2. I think he has a LOT of great concepts and ideas, but I don't believe everything he's saying. I'm able to separate out the stuff I don't believe in though, just to gain a clearer understanding of the things I do believe in.

Roger J Carlson

12-04-2008, 05:06 PM

What scripture? How do you know you're not missing out on some important scriptures? A council decided which scriptures belonged in the bible (a council of MEN I might add). And we aren't even reading the scriptures in their original language anymore. Well that's where we differ then, because I don't believe the bible was decided by a council of men. It was decided by God. If God cannot even control His written Word, then I'd have no reason to believe he can control anything else. If I doubted the truth of parts of the bible because men could have corrupted it, then I'd have no basis for believing ANY of it because ANY of it could be corrupted.

I have much more respect for the atheist who believes in none of the Bible than in the Christian who believes that only parts of the Bible are true.

That's another problem with churches today. They think that in order to hear god's voice, they have to read the bible. They don't truly believe that God can talk to and inspire them or that god exists within them. Most Christians I know do believe that God exists within them and can talk to and inspire them. But they believe that he does so through his written word -- the Bible.

If you look at the Christian based cults, most of them were started by men who had a "divine revelation" directly from God. Such direct revelations, especially when they contradict scripture, are very dangerous. That's why it's vitally important to read and understand the Bible so you can weigh new (or even existing) doctrine against what God has already said.

James81

12-04-2008, 06:39 PM

Well that's where we differ then, because I don't believe the bible was decided by a council of men. It was decided by God. If God cannot even control His written Word, then I'd have no reason to believe he can control anything else. If I doubted the truth of parts of the bible because men could have corrupted it, then I'd have no basis for believing ANY of it because ANY of it could be corrupted.

I have much more respect for the atheist who believes in none of the Bible than in the Christian who believes that only parts of the Bible are true.

Well, I personally am not a christian, although I was raised in christian churches (the hardcore ones: Pentecostal Holiness).

I don't believe God is "controlling" anything. If he DID control things, there would be no sickness, etc. My own personal belief is that God created his creation to be self-sustaining and evolving and that, for the most part, he does not interfere.

I believe that he offers his WISDOM to those who seek it though. And that those miracles we see in the bible were not God reaching down his hand and causing something, but rather him KNOWING in full advance WHAT was coming and leading his people THROUGH HIS WISDOM to those places in such a way as they can be safe. That belief, to me, explains why God doesn't answer some of our prayers today. It has nothing to do with our "faith." It has everything to do with with us not tapping into the wisdom of God. Ever notice how people request prayers in church?

"Please pray that God will heal my brother's sisters cousin's baby."

And then when he doesn't, does that mean he doesn't care? Our prayers should never be for God to CHANGE something. Our prayers should always be for God to show us his wisdom, give us guidance, and help us to cope with the things we cannot change.

As for only believing parts of the bible, I look at the rest of the bible in much the same way I look at Mr. Walsh's books. They are divinely inspired to help me understand the way a little clearer and to help me live the best life possible. I don't take everything literally, though, and I don't see THAT as God's word. God's word is JESUS (John 1:1-? read that and tell me I am wrong).

Most Christians I know do believe that God exists within them and can talk to and inspire them. But they believe that he does so through his written word -- the Bible.

If you look at the Christian based cults, most of them were started by men who had a "divine revelation" directly from God. Such direct revelations, especially when they contradict scripture, are very dangerous. That's why it's vitally important to read and understand the Bible so you can weigh new (or even existing) doctrine against what God has already said.

Yeah, those people who have "divine revelations" tend to make me roll my eyes. I roll my eyes at the idea that Mr. Walsh was actually hearing God.

What *I* do in cases like that is I match it up with what feels right based on what Jesus said and what makes sense. If something makes absolute sense to me and I don't have a "this is bullcrap" feeling about it, I'll believe it.

Most of the time, though, I take everything I hear/read with a grain of salt, meditate on it, and work it out in my mind to what feels right to me.

Pat~

12-04-2008, 11:47 PM

The trouble with this is, if you believe God recognizes Evil, then you must ALSO believe that God CREATED evil. Because nothing exists outside of God, because God is "omnipresent" (meaning he is everywhere), you must also believe that God also exists in this hell that he talks so feverishly about.

See where that all begins to fall apart? Because a Just and righteous God can NEVER be evil, and yet evil HAD to come from him if evil exists because nothing exists without God. ;)

I think Walsh's explanation makes WAYYYYY more sense. That there is no good and evil. That good and evil are constructs of man, or a way for us to experience GOOD and a way to bound us up in our finite universe. Things are what they are, and that we, as people, can never truly and FULLY grasp the idea of God.

No, I don't believe that because evil exists it had to be created by God. I don't believe God created Evil, because I also don't believe God created Good. Good and Evil are not 'created things'--they're moral choices or leanings. Good has always existed, in that God is Good, and God has always existed. Evil has not always existed, but also was never 'created' by God. But He did create His highest beings (angels and mankind) to have free moral choice. That was because that was the only way He could truly experience relationship with them; otherwise they'd simply be robots, created to perform His will. But His reason for creating them was relationship.

Evil was never 'created'--but it began on the day that Lucifer (an angel) made the free moral choice to compete with God, to usurp His authority and choose his will over that of God's. With that rebellion, he and his follower-angels were thrown out of heaven, and since the fall of man has been allowed limited sovereignty here on earth. So while in a certain sense it may appear that God is not "controlling" everything, He is continually Omnipotent; God does not override every evil with His own goodness, but has chosen to allow Satan some reign/rein for His own divine purposes (a key one of which is to bring mankind voluntarily back to Him).

When God created man and woman He declared that creation perfectly 'good.' But part of that goodness in man was free moral choice (which alone forms the basis for a true love relationship). Part of the goodness of free choice is the consequence attached to it; love for God (which also means obedience to His will) brings peace and unhindered relationship with Him, which is a perfect 'fit' for us, in that we were custom-created for that. There is no higher good for mankind, in other words. It was the Eden existence before the Fall.

The consequence for bad moral choice is seemingly 'bad'--lack of peace, hindered relationship with God--but is essentially 'good,' in that it also brings us back to that relationship with Him as we repent and seek forgiveness and are restored to relationship with Him. See, it's not as simple as saying Good is always "x" (something agreeable to me) and Bad is always "y" (something disagreeable to me)...rather, it's a bit like saying "Food is good" and then qualifying that by admitting that not only is chocolate good, but so is liver. One tastes good, and has its obvious delights; the other is good, essentially, for us, though we may look at it with extreme distaste.

And yes, I do believe God is omnipresent. He is present even in our hells. The hell you're referring to is actually a place created by God NOT originally created for man, but created for Satan and his demons. But those who follow his lead and choose to exalt self and disregard God are already in a hell of their own choosing in this life, not to mention the next.

I also believe that the bible is a GUIDE. It's not some canon, unchanging, unwavering writing with which we are supposed to hinge on EVERY word (god christians love to do that), but rather a road map with which we can attain goodness and redemption within ourselves. Well, that same 'road map' also tells us repeatedly that we have no goodness or redemptive ability within ourselves, apart from Christ's goodness at work within us once we accept Him into our lives.

I don't believe God is "controlling" anything. If he DID control things, there would be no sickness, etc. My own personal belief is that God created his creation to be self-sustaining and evolving and that, for the most part, he does not interfere. Well, how do you think we're doing with that plan? Are we on a path of self-preservation and self-sustenance? I don't get that kind of feedback from the scientists of this age. I see the natural order of things as a daily decline and decay, and on a larger scale things seem to point to an eventual end of this planet as we know it, with diminishing natural resources, destruction of the ozone and global warming, etc. I just don't see this earth as lasting forever. Furthermore, if the God I believed in created this earth for self-preservation and perpetual self-sustenance, I think something obviously must've been lacking in the plan...making Him not the great, all-knowing God I know Him to be.

I believe that he offers his WISDOM to those who seek it though. And that those miracles we see in the bible were not God reaching down his hand and causing something, but rather him KNOWING in full advance WHAT was coming and leading his people THROUGH HIS WISDOM to those places in such a way as they can be safe. That belief, to me, explains why God doesn't answer some of our prayers today. It has nothing to do with our "faith." It has everything to do with with us not tapping into the wisdom of God. Ever notice how people request prayers in church?

"Please pray that God will heal my brother's sisters cousin's baby."

And then when he doesn't, does that mean he doesn't care? Our prayers should never be for God to CHANGE something. Our prayers should always be for God to show us his wisdom, give us guidance, and help us to cope with the things we cannot change. But what if God, in His timeless all-knowingness, also knew that those prayers were coming, and effected change as a result of them--even while also knowing ahead of time that we'd pray and He'd effect that 'change'? Answered prayer is very, very tricky to figure out--a lot like murky topics such as the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. The reason is, God is not in the same dimension of time and space as we are...we are linear beings, and can't fathom how God operates in His nonlinear intersections with this world.

As for only believing parts of the bible, I look at the rest of the bible in much the same way I look at Mr. Walsh's books. They are divinely inspired to help me understand the way a little clearer and to help me live the best life possible. I don't take everything literally, though, and I don't see THAT as God's word. God's word is JESUS (John 1:1-? read that and tell me I am wrong). Well, the problem with that is that Jesus Himself saw the Bible (at that time, the Old Testament scriptures) as being God's Word and quoted them giving them that authority on several occasions.

What *I* do in cases like that is I match it up with what feels right based on what Jesus said and what makes sense. If something makes absolute sense to me and I don't have a "this is bullcrap" feeling about it, I'll believe it.

Most of the time, though, I take everything I hear/read with a grain of salt, meditate on it, and work it out in my mind to what feels right to me.As you have said, the Bible is chock full of wisdom. One of the wisest men who ever lived wrote (2x) the following:

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death. (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25)

And this:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5, 6)

James81

12-05-2008, 01:00 AM

I'll address the rest of that post when I get more time, but for now let me address that last part. Here's two more scriptures:

"Work out your own salavation with fear and trembling."

"There is none righteous, no NOT ONE."

If you really need me to reference chapter and verse, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

AMCrenshaw

12-05-2008, 06:52 PM

Whoa whoa. Let me get this straight: Evil is uncreated?

Isn't the only uncreated thing...well... God?

I have much more respect for the atheist who believes in none of the Bible than in the Christian who believes that only parts of the Bible are true.

Do you really mean to say that?

Well, the problem with that is that Jesus Himself saw the Bible (at that time, the Old Testament scriptures) as being God's Word and quoted them giving them that authority on several occasions.

It could be argued that the people to whom he spoke gave it authority, and he used that fact to his advantage. *tongue-in-cheek.

AMC

Pat~

12-06-2008, 03:08 AM

Whoa whoa. Let me get this straight: Evil is uncreated?

Isn't the only uncreated thing...well... God?
God is the only uncreated Being, and the ultimate source of all that is created.

Not only Evil, but I also believe that Good was never 'created.' Those are concepts concerning moral choices, moral bents. Goodness is also the essence of God, who is eternal. But supposing you disagree...if you believe God is Good, when would you say good was created? (I hold that it has always been, because it has 'been' as long as God has been in existence--eternally.)

AMCrenshaw

12-06-2008, 06:32 AM

But evil is different than Good. Let's say God is Good, so Good is uncreated. Evil is an emergent phenomenon of only that which exists due to creation. Right?

AMC

Gehanna

12-06-2008, 06:42 AM

AMCrenshaw,

Why are you attempting to classify God?

Sincerely,
Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

12-06-2008, 09:10 AM

Classifying God isn't my doing. The Bible does that fitfully, doesn't it?

And the question itself, which may offend the non-ness of your God (and more the non-ness of your God-concept), is actually a question stemming from years of theology and philosophy. The first cause. The thing-in-itself. Are these phrases new to you? That last question isn't meant to belittle you, Gehanna, or anyone, but to press simple paradoxes involved in Christian teaching. NDW offered a way to reconcile the problem of "evil" which many of the Christians here have flat-out ignored. That is, NDW thinks that even Satan and, say, Hitler serve God's purpose (can/does not God turn evil into good?). That neither can really "defeat" the will of God-- and that the only alternatives to defeating God's will are serving it or...being neutral? So, in realizing your self, you always serve God's will. It's the people who believe that God is Love who also classify God. It is those who believe that God's ways are all represented in the Bible who classify God. Who's trying to limit what, anyway?

AMC

Pat~

12-06-2008, 04:09 PM

But evil is different than Good. Let's say God is Good, so Good is uncreated. Evil is an emergent phenomenon of only that which exists due to creation. Right?

AMC

Evil emerged as a result of free moral choice, which is a characteristic of God's created beings. Free moral choice itself is not evil (in fact, I believe it is definitely "good"; without it, love would be impossible)--but the choices angels or men make with it can be.

Pat~

12-06-2008, 04:17 PM

NDW thinks that even Satan and, say, Hitler serve God's purpose (can/does not God turn evil into good?). That neither can really "defeat" the will of God-- and that the only alternatives to defeating God's will are serving it or...being neutral? So, in realizing your self, you always serve God's will.

Forgive me for answering your post to Gehanna, but I just had some thoughts about it as well...

I believe that all things, all people are able to do what they do only because an omnipotent God has allowed it. But I disagree that all people do the "will of God"--simply because evil and sin are not what a holy God "wills." God hates sin. The thing to remember is that God wills our doing good, but He also wills our having free moral choice; He's relational, and that is essential to true relationship. So He wills our doing good; in His omnipotence He allows our sin (and follows up with consequences), and in His amazing grace, He overrides the evil with His greater good purposes. I don't believe He turns evil into good--evil will always be evil (otherwise, no man would be responsible for their sin); but He redeems evil, bringing greater blessing out of it (eg. Jesus' death on the cross). Redemption is God's trump card.

Does that make sense?

Gehanna

12-06-2008, 06:00 PM

AMCrenshaw,

I am only interested in what your intentions are as opposed to what they are not.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

12-06-2008, 10:00 PM

Evil emerged as a result of free moral choice, which is a characteristic of God's created beings.

Evil emerged as a result of what God created. God created the elements necessary for free moral choice to exist, which apparently includes "evil" moral choices. When you come down to it, it's almost necessary to say to ourselves: God created what was necessary for evil to exist, or for evil to be possible (i.e., he created humans with free will, thus there exists the possibility for evil to occur).

but He redeems evil, bringing greater blessing out of it (eg. Jesus' death on the cross). Redemption is God's trump card.

Does that make sense?

It does. This is what I meant by "turn evil into good"-- redeeming it. And that's precisely what NDW suggested: that, if nothing else, God will redeem evil-- no evil we can think of (not even Hitler) can topple or defeat the will of God. Nothing.

What does it mean to redeem the evils of humanity? On an individual level?

AMC

AMCrenshaw

12-06-2008, 10:01 PM

AMCrenshaw,

I am only interested in what your intentions are as opposed to what they are not.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

To what end? PM me for further side-discussion. Thanks.

Gehanna

12-07-2008, 04:41 AM

Are you really in such a hurry to get to the end? I recommend discovery of the end by slowing down and proceeding one step at a time. While you may find my comment about your intentions to be a side topic, I do not. I find that intention plays a major role in the discussion of those things considered evil versus good.

I am telling you this because I do not believe that your intentions are good. In fact, I find your posts offensive in the way I find anyone who attempts to force their beliefs on another offensive. Although you wish to present yourself as being peaceful, I find your posts to be very aggressive.

My intention for telling you that was to be direct and honest with you about what I think, right or wrong, knowing well that I will face consequences for doing so.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

12-07-2008, 04:58 AM

Although you wish to present yourself as being peaceful, I find your posts to be very aggressive.

Do you judge my heart?

Truthfully I doubt it. So I will defend neither myself, nor my intentions. My wish is to challenge and to be challenged. To educate and to be educated. Does the intellect offend God, or Christianity? I sincerely do not believe so. Further derailing of this thread will be forwarded to a moderator.

I'll try to handle your post as it actually deals with the discussion at hand: Intention has a lot to do with Good and Evil. And the intention of NDW is to show people that realizing their highest potential is the greatest gift of God. If you follow NDW's thought backwards and compare to other Christian thinkers throughout the ages, you will find that he'd have a lot to discuss with, say, Eckhart or Merton. Most people do not realize Who They Are- they do not realize their soul, which is given life by God and is part of God (in some beliefs). Fulfilling themselves is to allow the soul to speak, in a way, which gives to God glory. What MAN thinks of evil is perhaps an abstraction (and a useful one, we might say), a construct-- God is Good thus nothing God creates (up to and including possibility) is Evil. I don't think this is complex thought, either, but something a faithful Christian should confront. :) And one thing NDW does is reintroduce conventional good vs ultimate good (which is an adaptation of Eastern "conventional truth/ultimate truth"). Perhaps we don't know what goodness really is. Perhaps all we have is our own constructions of what good and evil are.

Perhaps we are not correct.

AMC

Pat~

12-07-2008, 05:29 PM

Evil emerged as a result of what God created. God created the elements necessary for free moral choice to exist, which apparently includes "evil" moral choices. When you come down to it, it's almost necessary to say to ourselves: God created what was necessary for evil to exist, or for evil to be possible (i.e., he created humans with free will, thus there exists the possibility for evil to occur). Yes, evil emerged as a result of what God created. But that still is not saying God created evil. When you say "God created the elements necessary for free moral choice" you are saying, to the best that I can understand, that God created us with brains, to consider, reflect, choose, and respond from the heart of our being. None of that is 'evil.' In fact, all of that is 'good' and an essential part to being human, as opposed to robotic. It is precisely what allows us to find joy in relationship with others. That's the best of what is good in human existence!

So if you say God created 'what was necessary for evil to exist' you must also acknowledge that that same exact 'creation' was equally necessary for man's ability to do and experience 'good.' The fact that He created something capable of both (our amazing brains with will, emotion, free moral choice) still does not mean He created evil. He created us with the potential to choose one or the other--but that potential cannot be said to be 'evil' because it is also the only thing that allows us to choose 'good.' If I love someone because I have no option not to, that is no longer 'love.' If you believe that love is the highest good, than you must believe that the creation of free will is 'good.' So the possibility of evil is the necessary risk in order to also have the truest, highest good.

It does. This is what I meant by "turn evil into good"-- redeeming it. And that's precisely what NDW suggested: that, if nothing else, God will redeem evil-- no evil we can think of (not even Hitler) can topple or defeat the will of God. Nothing. Yes; God is omnipotent, entirely--and He will accomplish His will...not to say we humans are always doing His will, though. He allows us to make our stupid or downright evil choices, and in His wisdom and power He still brings about the good that He wills. It reminds me of the story of Joseph, sold into slavery by his jealous, scheming brothers and carted off to Egypt. There he was a slave until his master's wife tried to seduce him; when he resisted and fled, she spitefully accused him of sexual assault and he was imprisoned for several years. I'm sure he was wondering all those years about the hand of God in his life; yet years later (after being restored to Pharoah's court and interpreting a dream that saved Egypt and Israel from the famine that eventually brought his brothers to the court begging for grain), he was able to look those brothers in the eye with forgiveness and say, "You meant this for evil; but God meant it for good." The individual actions of people in that story were sinful without a doubt (except for Joseph's); the overall outcome was an amazing, large-scale good, that never could've been imaged by people in the moment, but only as it played out in time.

What does it mean to redeem the evils of humanity? On an individual level? I believe, personally, that the evils of humanity are redeemable as we individually allow God to work in our lives and creatively respond to those ills through us.

Pat~

12-07-2008, 05:41 PM

Folks, this is a stimulating exchange, but let's keep things focused on the topic at hand. Gehanna, I know you are a lover of peace and gentle discussion, but if you want to question AMC's intentions, that might be something that is better taken up with AMC by PM. Thanks for your understanding.

Pat~

12-07-2008, 05:48 PM

And one thing NDW does is reintroduce conventional good vs ultimate good (which is an adaptation of Eastern "conventional truth/ultimate truth"). Perhaps we don't know what goodness really is. Perhaps all we have is our own constructions of what good and evil are.

Perhaps we are not correct.

With our potential for evil, there is always the possibility that man will be incorrect in knowing what goodness is. That is why we look to God alone to define that as He has in His Word, and in the sending of His Son to earth to demonstrate His essence to us. As Jesus said, "There is no one good but God." I do not see this as being NDW's criterion for defining good, though. NDW's criterion is his own ultimate reflection about it--which is a smorgasbord of what the Bible says, what eastern thought says, and what NDW imagines. Not only that, but as I've said before, he imagines that there really is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil' in the first place...making such things all relative and up for individual interpretation at best.

AMCrenshaw

12-07-2008, 07:50 PM

Yes, evil emerged as a result of what God created. But that still is not saying God created evil. When you say "God created the elements necessary for free moral choice" you are saying, to the best that I can understand, that God created us with brains, to consider, reflect, choose, and respond from the heart of our being. None of that is 'evil.' In fact, all of that is 'good' and an essential part to being human, as opposed to robotic. It is precisely what allows us to find joy in relationship with others. That's the best of what is good in human existence!

So if you say God created 'what was necessary for evil to exist' you must also acknowledge that that same exact 'creation' was equally necessary for man's ability to do and experience 'good.' The fact that He created something capable of both (our amazing brains with will, emotion, free moral choice) still does not mean He created evil. He created us with the potential to choose one or the other--but that potential cannot be said to be 'evil' because it is also the only thing that allows us to choose 'good.'

This is the most interesting response I've heard concerning the subject, albeit it may be a semantic one (:)); it wouldn't matter, a lot of discussion of good/evil can be semantics anyway.

In summary, to make sure I understand, the creation of potentiality should be considered Good - as that, at least, is God's will. What people do with free moral choice is usually a person's will, not God's.

I wouldn't say that creating robots would have been evil (I don't think of animals as being evil), but I understand how you see the creation of human's "free moral choice" to be the creation of neither good nor evil, but a Good and loving act of God.

ETA I forgot to mention that I wasn't suggesting God was evil for creating evil (which I think God created evil [or the potential for evil, knowing - as he knows all - that that particular potential would be fulfilled], and about which we'll have to agree to disagree, Pat :)), but that it might take even more faith in God's will to see possible Good in evil. I have many more problems with that, of course. I don't believe in absolute good and evil (which are ways, in my opinion, of classifying the unclassifiable).

AMC

Pat~

12-07-2008, 08:10 PM

This is the most interesting response I've heard concerning the subject, albeit it may be a semantic one (:)); it wouldn't matter, a lot of discussion of good/evil can be semantics anyway.

In summary, to make sure I understand, the creation of potentiality should be considered Good - as that, at least, is God's will. What people do with free moral choice is usually a person's will, not God's.

I wouldn't say that creating robots would have been evil (I don't think of animals as being evil), but I understand how you see the creation of human's "free moral choice" to be the creation of neither good nor evil, but a Good and loving act of God.

AMC

Well, semantics can certainly be spurious at times; but when discussing the issue of responsibility for evil, I think it likely becomes more important to make close distinctions come into sharper focus. I'd agree with you that creating robots wouldn't be 'evil', unless you consider boring 'evil' ;). I'm simply saying a robotoid existence, while preventing evil, also isn't the highest good that could be created by a Creator God--it would fail to allow for all those things we hold in highest regard--agape love, joy, humility, service, relationship, worship, and genuine giving to others from the heart. And yes, what a person chooses is their will, though if he so chooses, it can coincide with God's will.

Much of what I've come to think about this topic has been influenced by the writings of C.S. Lewis, AMC. I believe he covers a lot of this in Mere Christianity--a must read for anyone interested in the faith. :)

Pat~

12-07-2008, 11:05 PM

I don't believe in absolute good and evil (which are ways, in my opinion, of classifying the unclassifiable).

AMC

As I understand it, you do believe in God, then, but you don't believe in absolute Good. So would it be correct to say, then, that you don't believe God is absolute Good?

AMCrenshaw

12-08-2008, 02:34 AM

As I understand it, you do believe in God, then, but you don't believe in absolute Good. So would it be correct to say, then, that you don't believe God is absolute Good?

Goodness and evil depends always on frameworks which are always relative. If God exists, he may very well be 'Good', but if so, I'd have to ask: What do I have to compare God to? Other gods? The world? No such comparison can really be made.

So calling God "Good" is in my opinion a way of sorting out moral questions (for example, why worship a God that isn't absolutely morally good?), and not necessarily the most truthful account of God. I believe that if God exists that his creation is perfect, and that good and evil tarnish perfection because they tarnish nonduality and wholeness (which are to be favored for a variety of reasons, only 'good' to do so in specific frameworks).

AMC

Pat~

12-08-2008, 03:17 AM

I believe that if God exists that his creation is perfect...

I agree with this and understand it, though the rest of what you said has me befuddled. :o

But if your statement of logic above is true, it is true because of the assumption that God is absolute Good (therefore what He does or creates cannot be short of perfection.)

AMCrenshaw

12-08-2008, 03:23 AM

Pat~

12-08-2008, 03:50 AM

Not necessarily. It could be a judgment of his omnipotence. By perfection, I mean, it can be no other way and therefore has nothing to compare to. Since I don't believe morality has a substance beyond what we as humans give it, it might not be fair, or logical, to attribute our finite opinions to an infinite being, or our subjective thoughts onto an objective being. That is, God is good because we have a notion of God and a notion of good, and the two notions go together. What is real may or may not be what our notions are. I suggest not.

AMC

But the problem is that you are redefining 'perfection' with this response. Perfection doesn't mean "it can be no other way" - it means there is no way it could possibly be better--it is the pinnacle of excellence, without flaw. You don't deem something is 'perfect' because there is nothing to compare it to--that doesn't even make sense. "Perfect" implies that something is at the very peak of a hierarchy of comparative goodness.

AMCrenshaw

12-08-2008, 04:13 AM

Perfection doesn't mean "it can be no other way" - it means there is no way it could possibly be better--it is the pinnacle of excellence, without flaw.

Flawed compared to what?

Again, I don't believe in absolute morality; I believe that cultures have created morality and then have given them absolute natures in myths of divinity (or clarity, in the Buddha's case! :))

AMC

Pat~

12-08-2008, 04:58 AM

Flawed compared to what?

AMC

Yes, that was my point...if perfection means flawless, it must mean so as compared to something considered 'flawed.' That's why something wouldn't be called 'perfect' simply because

"it can be no other way and therefore has nothing to compare to"

But...I'm going cross-eyed and will likely bow out now, as we don't seem to be making much headway here...

AMCrenshaw

12-08-2008, 08:01 AM

I'll put it this way: perfection doesn't really get to it, either, but it's closest. Suffice it that I believe that if God exists, God is relative to nothing.

AMC

flutecrafter

12-08-2008, 01:54 PM

Goodness and evil depends always on frameworks which are always relative. If God exists, he may very well be 'Good', but if so, I'd have to ask: What do I have to compare God to? Other gods? The world? No such comparison can really be made.
Actually, in some respects, those comparisons can be made

*snip*
(for example, why worship a God that isn't absolutely morally good?),
*snip*many people do indeed worship gods that are not absolutely morally good.

*wanders off again*

Pat~

12-08-2008, 06:48 PM

I'll put it this way: perfection doesn't really get to it, either, but it's closest. Suffice it that I believe that if God exists, God is relative to nothing.

AMC

Well, I guess I'm trying to depart from the theoretical here, and nail what it is you consistently believe about God...and why. You "believe He exists" seems to be the only consistent belief about Him I've been able to pin down--(and even that is sometimes spoken of as "if").

I'm wondering if the issue might be basically one of confusing semantics. For instance, I, too, believe God is "incomparable"--He is beyond compare. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing to compare Him to. Like Mark just said, history is littered with lesser gods--the gods of the Romans and Greeks were very much like us, for example, with all our human foibles. But when I say the God of the Bible is incomparable, it means nothing comes close to Him on any scale of comparison. I believe that, by faith, based on how consistently that is spoken of in His revelation to me--in Creation, in the life of Christ, and in His Word--as well as in His personal dealings with me day after day. Nothing has disproved that yet; after almost 50 years, He keeps being 'incomparable' to any other thing or god one might put on that scale.

You mentioned to me an interesting analogy, AMC--and I hope you don't mind if I use it here. If I were to go out with my basketball and shoot a dozen freethrows--just me, all by myself--and I only made 4 of them...I could smile to myself and call that "perfection" in that there was nothing else to compare that score to (no one was competing with me), but does that make any kind of real sense? For all the sense that word "perfection" would hold, I could just as meaningfully call it chocolate soup. After all, wasn't netting the ball the goal or purpose to those shots in the first place? I suppose I could be the sort of person who might try saying, in hindsight, 'well, in actuality, I really only wanted 4 of those shots, so this result is "perfection"'--but I think, realistically, it'd be more accurate to call that sour grapes, or maybe even denial, and being slightly out of touch with reality. The fact is, there were grounds for comparison, if only in concept--when I go out to shoot 12 freethrows, I know that there is the distinct possibility I could net 12 of them (however slight ;)). I know there is absolutely NO possibility of netting 13 of them, and there is a very good chance I will net no more than half of them. In my head, then, IS the true existence of the concept of perfection--making 12 baskets.

In other words, God is incomparable, He is perfect, precisely because there are grounds for comparison...the concept of lesser gods, or the concept of man as his own god.

AMCrenshaw

12-08-2008, 09:57 PM

Hmm.

In other words, God is incomparable, He is perfect, precisely because there are grounds for comparison...the concept of lesser gods, or the concept of man as his own god.

I think it is humankind's folly to say that God- concept or real- has grounds for comparison. Humans are not gods. Lesser gods, like the God described in the Bible, are (to me) myths.

I don't believe in a god that is separate (at all, in any way; when I believe in God- which is not all the time- I'm a pantheist, Pat.) from creation-- if God exists it may have an existence beyond this one here and now, but here and now I can't be certain!

The reason I don't believe in God (of the Bible) is that panentheists have thought of a god that is more than even the Christian god-- literally more. The Christian God has a separate existence, but not an immanent one. A panentheist believes in both immanence and transcendence. I, on the other hand, cannot believe in transcendence in almost any form, so I do not believe in a transcendent God-- I do, however, easily admit that I don't know one way or the other.

The fact is, there were grounds for comparison, if only in concept

But in concept isn't necessarily what interests me. Concepts aren't the real thing (<-- another reason I am tugged between pantheism/nontheism/atheism). In concept doesn't matter. What if's are entertaining at best, crippling at worst. The paths we could have walked are infinite...in concept. What does matter is what is now and what is here before us, but more importantly what is inside us and among us now-- what is us.

I believe that only one thing exists (God), or that nothingness (still God) exists as the essence of the many apparent things, or that many things do actually exist but that they add up to one.

AMC

Pat~

12-08-2008, 10:23 PM

Hmm.

I think it is humankind's folly to say that God- concept or real- has grounds for comparison. Humans are not gods.
AMC

Well, that is the essence of the comparison, isn't it...God and what is other (for example, humans). Now if you're a Pantheist, you don't make that distinction...you also don't believe in a personal God nor do you necessarily believe in the existence of Evil. (I could not believe that, but that one's been covered earlier in our conversation).

But you tell me here...

I don't believe in a god that is separate (at all, in any way; when I believe in God- which is not all the time- I'm a pantheist, Pat.) from creation-- if God exists it may have an existence beyond this one here and now, but here and now I can't be certain!

The reason I don't believe in God (of the Bible) is that panentheists have thought of a god that is more than even the Christian god-- literally more. The Christian God has a separate existence, but not an immanent one. A panentheist believes in both immanence and transcendence. I, on the other hand, cannot believe in transcendence in almost any form, so I do not believe in a transcendent God-- I do, however, easily admit that I don't know one way or the other.

that you're sometimes a Pantheist, yet you don't believe in the God of the Bible because Panentheists (http://www.gotquestions.org/panentheism.html) believe in transcendence--which you do not...yet you're not a Panentheist...so...

I guess I can see at least why I'm confused as to what you believe. :o

AMCrenshaw

12-09-2008, 06:00 AM

I'm an agnostic about the transcendence of God.

I'm a half-of-the-time believer in the immanence of God. Half the time I'm an atheist. Remember that I think beliefs stand between us and divinity-- that is, we cannot believe in anything but our beliefs; if it is real, it does not require belief. None of this stops me (despite what any scripture any person might pull up on this) from leading a spiritual (or for that matter Christian) life.

AMC

p.s. I, like Benedict Spinoza, am convinced that both pantheism and panentheism are supported by scripture. Perhaps another time (when I have more time) I will go through the very many points that support my claim . If not, I do suggest reading [I]Ethics by Spinoza.

flutecrafter

12-09-2008, 07:08 AM

Well, I guess I'm trying to depart from the theoretical here, and nail what it is you consistently believe about God...and why. You "believe He exists" seems to be the only consistent belief about Him I've been able to pin down--(and even that is sometimes spoken of as "if").

I'm wondering if the issue might be basically one of confusing semantics. For instance, I, too, believe God is "incomparable"--He is beyond compare. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing to compare Him to. Like Mark just said, history is littered with lesser gods--the gods of the Romans and Greeks were very much like us, for example, with all our human foibles. But when I say the God of the Bible is incomparable, it means nothing comes close to Him on any scale of comparison. I believe that, by faith, based on how consistently that is spoken of in His revelation to me--in Creation, in the life of Christ, and in His Word--as well as in His personal dealings with me day after day. Nothing has disproved that yet; after almost 50 years, He keeps being 'incomparable' to any other thing or god one might put on that scale.

You mentioned to me an interesting analogy, AMC--and I hope you don't mind if I use it here. If I were to go out with my basketball and shoot a dozen freethrows--just me, all by myself--and I only made 4 of them...I could smile to myself and call that "perfection" in that there was nothing else to compare that score to (no one was competing with me), but does that make any kind of real sense? For all the sense that word "perfection" would hold, I could just as meaningfully call it chocolate soup. After all, wasn't netting the ball the goal or purpose to those shots in the first place? I suppose I could be the sort of person who might try saying, in hindsight, 'well, in actuality, I really only wanted 4 of those shots, so this result is "perfection"'--but I think, realistically, it'd be more accurate to call that sour grapes, or maybe even denial, and being slightly out of touch with reality. The fact is, there were grounds for comparison, if only in concept--when I go out to shoot 12 freethrows, I know that there is the distinct possibility I could net 12 of them (however slight ;)). I know there is absolutely NO possibility of netting 13 of them, and there is a very good chance I will net no more than half of them. In my head, then, IS the true existence of the concept of perfection--making 12 baskets.

In other words, God is incomparable, He is perfect, precisely because there are grounds for comparison...the concept of lesser gods, or the concept of man as his own god.nicely said Pat. :)

but I would point out to AMC that it is not the concept of lesser gods, or even
the concept of man as his own god...
It is, in reality, lesser gods and men posing as their own gods.
no theory or philosophy required, for me at least, as I have dealt with
examples of both.
Take your average Magician, for example.. yes a real one not an illusionist.
They tend to take themselves as being their own moral authority, and when
they are successful at their craft, it is somewhat easy for them to believe
that there is no god, just themselves.
On the other end of the magik paths.. you have those entities that are called
gods/goddesses.. yeah.. they really do exist as well.

Now, like I was saying earlier, there are many people that worship gods that
are far short of perfect, and admittedly so. They follow many different
pagan paths through life.

Just a little something for you to think about AMC.

Mark

Pat~

12-09-2008, 07:57 AM

p.s. I, like Benedict Spinoza, am convinced that both pantheism and panentheism are supported by scripture.

Even if he were convinced those were supported by scripture, I can't see why it would matter to him, as he did not believe scripture to be uniformly true, inspired, or authoritative.

Spinoza's theology devolved from his philosophy; Christian theology is derived from the whole of scripture; therein lies the significant difference.

AMCrenshaw

12-09-2008, 08:25 AM

Not something I haven't already thought about. There are also people who worship their own "reflections" and don't even know it, or what I'm talking about. Perhaps something for you to think about. :)

It is, in reality, lesser gods and men posing as their own gods.
no theory or philosophy required, for me at least, as I have dealt with
examples of both.

For me there is nothing morally wrong with this in any absolute sense. That's a fundamental disagreement between me and...say...90% of people in America right now. OK.

The fact is that here and now [which is literally all we have] I can see humans and nature at work, but what of God? Show me what God has done. Those who say everything are inherently wrong. Those who say this or that must be wrong (does God really have a limited existence?) What's between, then? People claim that God isn't paradoxical, and it makes me laugh. Sure, I shouldn't lean unto my own understanding, but my understanding, our understanding is all I have. With such an absolutely relative multiplicity of voices, there is no way I can trust one "Way" of truth. No possible way. What people are saying (what I'm saying, too, undoubtedly) is that one funnel of reality "makes sense" to them, or it "speaks to them", or it "feels right" - or, worse- that "it's proven true." But it hasn't, can't possibly have. Who here knows heaven? Hell? Who has actually experienced "death"? Who has actually met Jesus Christ outside of their own imagination, which is what it is despite what we think or hope (and which I personally don't find counter to Christianity at all). Who can claim with any certainty that they communicated with God Himself rather than with what they believed was God, or with what they unconsciously or not hoped for in imagination? Whoever thinks to themselves, "Yes", I really want to engage in that discussion with you. My question is how do you really, actually know? And since you probably don't know (I won't assume so, but I never have really known), why keep on with something you're not certain of? Is faith all of it, and enough?

One of my main points here, as an atheist, or a pantheist, or what I actually do call a follower of Christ, is that if God is real, worshiping "Him" requires absolutely no belief. What requires "faith" is action. Faith that the consequential action of worshiping God is God's will itself (if you believe in that) or that it follows the example we've been given and have consciously agreed to follow it for any number of reasons - as I have chosen to follow Christ for my own personal reasons...criticize how you may: I'll forgive a mythical figure for not knowing that if God exists he is unknowable - or, more appropriately, if knowable, then not describable. Not classifiable, not containable. Not by any thing. Especially not by a book.

Now, if the Judeo-Christian God is more than a concept, then our concept is a failure which may offend even the most simplest of intelligences, but brings wondrous joy to the hardest of hearts. Even seven year old children know that Santa Claus is a fiction, but don't care: they enjoy the rewards of being "nice". Who wouldn't want that?

AMC

AMCrenshaw

12-09-2008, 08:39 AM

Spinoza's theology devolved from his philosophy; Christian theology is derived from the whole of scripture; therein lies the significant difference.

Well he was Jewish, for one thing. And never gave up that identity, even though the Jewish community excommunicated him. Second of all, to my mind, Christian theology never really needed the help in pointing out inaccuracies or distortions. . .a matter of faith.

[third, sorry if my phrasing offended anyone.]

Pat~

12-09-2008, 09:22 AM

I don't see how the fact that Spinoza retained his Jewish identity has anything to do with the idea that his theology was subordinate to his philosophy, AMC.

I'm wondering as this thread has exhausted "Conversations With God" and has started spinning off into philosophy and Spinoza, if this perhaps needs splitting off...let me discuss this with Roger and for now lock this until I hear back from him on it.

Roger J Carlson

12-09-2008, 07:09 PM

Re-opening this thread.

Yeah, I think a discussion of Spinoza would be best done in its own thread. Let's keep this one on the original topic.

However, I would like to caution everyone to keep the discussion positive. It's one thing to say what you believe. It's another thing entirely to denigrate another's faith.

flutecrafter

12-10-2008, 05:22 AM

I never dreamed that you would find it to be morally wrong, AMC.
It was stated, however, that there was nothing upon which to base
comparisons. :)
It was also stated that people would not worship a god that they did
not consider to be perfect. :)

as to the remainder.. I will state that I have indeed interacted with God.

BBB

mark

AMCrenshaw

12-10-2008, 08:14 AM

Yes, would you like to have this discussion (in another thread or through PM) ? About "how you know" it's God, rather than your notion of God, what you imagine is God, or what you hope to be God? Answer in PM, please.

AMC

Pat~

01-07-2009, 12:34 PM

A sad post-script which again seems to speak to Walsh's credibility:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/conversations-with-god-author-accused-of-plagiarism/

brad_b

01-07-2009, 04:04 PM

This has been a long discussion on God, His attributes, and the ability of some to believe only 'part' of who God is. God told Moses He is the 'great I Am'. To believers that's all that's necessary. The reason I came to truly believe in God was not through religion by any means. Religion is man-made and not from God, the Pharisees of Jesus's time is a good example of man corrupting God's Word for self-interest, a common thread throughout history. I came to believe because God changed my nature, something I couldn't do myself, once I sincerely asked Him into my heart. Jesus bridged the gulf between God and man. Because of man's sin He created a way for us to 'come boldly to the Throne of Grace', something we couldn't do before Jesus's sacrifice.

Throughout history people have intellectualized on whether God exists, and if He does, His role in the universe. Those who approach God in this way will never experience the truth offered only through the heart. God's ways aren't our ways and we can never conceptualize God through our own reasoning. It's the Holy Spirit that speaks to us and helps us understand God through prayer and the Bible, God's Holy Word.

Scholars who debate God's existence rely only on what knowledge comes through their senses and intellect. One can never experience the deeper things God offers without a personal relationship because God is so much more than what we can ever understand by observation of our world and through our intellect. We can understand the mind of God, but only through His Word and the leading of the Holy Spirit. God is purity, holy, ever-present - the list of His attributes is endless. But only by having Him inside and working in our lives can we understand His nature. Intellectual discussion only clouds the issue - it's a matter of the heart, not the intellect.

Pat~

01-07-2009, 06:33 PM

Brad, great post. And I'd agree that relying solely on our knowledge/intellect will not be adequate to experiencing the reality of God in our lives. That was the pride of the Pharisees that blinded them to the Truth before them. That said, I think the intellect does play some part in believing/seeing the great I AM for who He Is...for example, adequately weighing and understanding what His attributes actually are helps us to acknowledge His working in our lives, and can feed the heart relationship of faith and trust in His Person--feed it with meat rather than milk, over time. Also, the fact that God has repeatedly communicated Himself over time through Revelation (creation, the prophets and scripture, and through the claims and life of Christ) requires some use of the intellect to ponder and reason, though of course with the aid of the Holy Spirit opening our eyes to that revelation ("...Come, let us reason together..."). But, it's true, too, that "without faith it is impossible to please God" and that heart-faith and personal experience of the Spirit within is ultimately the seal, for us, of that faith.

I guess, to simply, it's not that we diss the intellect (itself a gift from God), but rather that we give it its intended place.

brad_b

01-07-2009, 07:02 PM

Good point, Pat. God has given us intellect to reason and wonder at His creation. The wonderful thing about God's plan is He didn't create us to blindly follow, which He could have if that were His nature. But it isn't. He gave us the power of choice, to consider and discover for ourselves our part in His plan. Sadly, not all choose to participate in what He wants for our lives, and that is to praise Him, tell others of His goodness, and grow in our knowledge and relationship with Him. If we listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit then we can realize the full and abundant life achieved through walking with God. It is a walk, one step at at time on a journey that ends only when He welcomes us home. So, yes, intellect plays its role, but as you said it is only a part of our relationship with God. Trusting Him, believing in His goodness, and as you pointed out - faith - are the major points of truly knowing the Father.

I'm thankful for this forum in AW. It's a good place to reflect and discuss the most important aspect of life. Thanks, Pat.

Pat~

01-07-2009, 07:15 PM

I'm thankful, too, Brad, for all the thoughtful posts here, and just the chance to mull over things with peeps here.

Norman D Gutter

01-07-2009, 07:25 PM

Interesting article, Pat. Just as interesting are some of the comments posted at that link. Many of them seem to be defending Walsch, or at least believing his story of his “internalizing” Chand’s work to be his own after he repeated it as such so often. Such comments seem to forget Walsch’s admitting the original theft. A lot of the posts say Chand should just be forgiving (“turn the other cheek”) and take Walsch’s words at face value, rather than speak harshly and not believe his excuse. Some comments berate Walsch for his plagiarism, which is a criminal act.

What I think should happen is that Walsch should be made to compensate her for his ripping-off of her work. For the times he made a speech and used that story as if it were his own, he should have to pay her 10 percent of his speaker’s royalty. For any time it showed up in print as his own, he should have to pay her ALL his royalties, plus (at least) 10 percent as actual damages, not as punitive damages. I don’t know if additional punitive damages should also be paid.

All of which can now be applied to the original post in this thread, which asked: “Why isn't this book [Walsch’s books, Conversations With God] considered a Holy text, or part of the Holy Canon, or even the Bible.” The reason is they have no authority. They never had authority, and now they sure don’t. In this whole debate about what is scripture and what isn’t, we should note that the authority of the books that went into the Bible carried their authority before they became part of the Bible, not after. As F. F. Bruce says, “Authority preceded canonicity.” No one sat around in a room at a council of church elders and decided out of the blue what should be in the Bible. They saw a need to have a set of authoritative written guidelines for the church; they established criteria as to what made something authoritative; then they made their decision based on that criteria. Before this evidence of Walsch’s crime of plagiarism and copyright infringement, his books would not be scripture because they didn’t meet those tests. Indeed, nothing written since about 100 AD could possibly meet those tests.

However, we have a body of Christian writings that are not part of the Bible but which are important for us to read. These are not part of the canon, and thus are not to be used for doctrine, but they are certainly good for edification, enlightenment, personal growth, interpersonal relations, drawing closer to God, etc. I started a thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99096)for this very purpose. With this act of plagiarism (an ethical lapse) and copyright infringement (a criminal act), Walsch seems to have forfeited having his books considered essential Christian literature.

Pat~

01-08-2009, 08:11 AM

In this whole debate about what is scripture and what isn’t, we should note that the authority of the books that went into the Bible carried authority before they became part of the Bible, not after. As F. F. Bruce says, “Authority preceded canonicity.”

Excellent point, NDG. The authority of those books was recognized well before their formal canonization, and led to their canonization--it was not the other way around. The canonization did not confer authority.

It's interesting...there are books of varying degrees of influence in Christian literature. Some well-written, some less so. But if a writer develops a habit of relying on deception to create a following, it tends to snowball, and sooner or later it will find him out--leaving him with no credibility in the end.

ETA: I'm so glad you mentioned that 'essential books' thread--I'd never seen it before!

AMCrenshaw

01-20-2009, 07:43 PM

"There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins. "

AMC

Deb Kinnard

01-21-2009, 03:18 AM

I agree with Norman. Restitution is not only possible, not only advisable, not only scripturally sound, but if Walsch wants to regain any credibility amongst his readership, mandatory.

Pat~

01-21-2009, 04:54 AM

"There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins. "

AMC

True, and that would include Christians. However, the significance of this news concerning Walsch is not the fact that he sinned--but (to me at least) lies in the discovery of that and the response Walsch had to it.

We're told not to judge others for their sin--to wag the finger as though we ourselves could not also do evil. But as Christians we're also told (1 John 4:1) to 'test the spirits' of those who purport to be the mouthpiece of God. Some self-proclaimed prophets will be wolves in sheep's clothing, so we do need to observe and discern accordingly. If a prophet has the Spirit of God actually living within and prompting his words and actions, we would expect to see the following:

1) an abiding love for Truth and joyful responsiveness to its being brought to light.

2) that person being brought to personal conviction of sin by our personal Counselor, leading to genuine remorse at grieving the Spirit within, leading to humble confession rather than denial or excuse-making, and repentance (a turning away from the behavior), which would be followed by forgiveness and restoration. Jesus told His followers this, knowing full well their future struggle with sin:

"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment...13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:7-13)

Now, it's true that sometimes believers sin and are calloused to a particular sin, in part due to the repetitive pattern of it. And sometimes that conviction of the Spirit only comes (painfully) after someone else points out that sin to us. But the response of someone truly in abiding relationship with the One who is Love and Truth, is not denial and cover-up of sin, but upset and remorse. Consider these examples from scripture about friends of God/children of God who have been brought under conviction of sin:

PETER: "Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: 'Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.' And he broke down and wept" (Mark 14:72).

THE PRODIGAL SON: "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'" (Luke 15:21)

DAVID: "My guilt has overwhelmed me, like a burden too heavy to bear" (Psalm 38:4).
"For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me" (Psalm 51:3).

Is this the same picture you get from Walsch's response to his plagiarism?

The Bible warns those who would be spiritual teachers that because of their position they risk more severe judgment. John the Baptist had strong words for the Pharisees of his day, and they are just as applicable today (for all of us who would claim to know God):

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. (Matthew 3:7-8)

And Jesus said this to them as well:

33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

A life rooted in Truth will be recognized by fruit in keeping with what feeds it.