Can a xtian god be free?

[fr0d0]

I didn't demand satisfaction, frodo. I asked for understanding ... over and over. There's a difference between demanding and asking.

So you never understood why you were saved? Then you never were saved. Your selfishness won out over your desire for understanding.

[everythingafter]

So you never understood why you were saved? Then you never were saved. Your selfishness won out over your desire for understanding.

I see you again point to some apparent deficiency within my self. Such is the way with Christianity. It's always something innately wrong with us humans isn't it? It can't be that god is the flawed one, can it? I also see you avoided the questions I raised like the plague. I have asked pastors some of these, and the best they can do is say stuff like, "Of course, there are things that are beyond our understanding."

Yes, at the time I understood perfectly well why I was saved. The questions I listed came years after I became saved but before my deconversion during the period in which things began making less and less sense. You know, when I decided to put my thinking cap on. In the period in which I fervently believed (15 years old through early- to mid-20s), I simply didn't think about my beliefs critically.

[fr0d0]

Hey EA. Well.. self is what we deal with isn't it. Yep that's an Xtian premise - we're all fallible. Nothing new there. If you weren't saved then that's the fact. No getting around it. I didn't avoid your questions.. I ignored them. I see no point dragging them out when they're not the point of this conversation. I don't pretend to know everything, but I have no real problems with those questions.

If you didn't think about your convictions, then you were never convicted in any sustainable way... ie your belief was without foundation. To me that's not belief, but merely lip service. Sorry to be harsh on that... but I'm just trying to be straight with you. I'm certainly not decrying doubt or good motive to disbelieve. I fully accept that you are justified in your own thoughts for your position.

[everythingafter]

If you didn't think about your convictions, then you were never convicted in any sustainable way... ie your belief was without foundation. To me that's not belief, but merely lip service. Sorry to be harsh on that... but I'm just trying to be straight with you. I'm certainly not decrying doubt or good motive to disbelieve. I fully accept that you are justified in your own thoughts for your position.

So, in your view, many - or most - believers are not saved then? Because my whole family claims they are saved but believe in Jesus without questioning their faith and seem to have a hefty aversion for doing so. They read the Bible. Pray. Claim to have had a conversion experience. They are sheep of the shepherd, basically, and don't think about why they believe what they believe. They take the Bible as brute fact. This is exactly the same as I would describe myself during the period I mentioned.

[fr0d0]

Sure a lot of people have questions that they can't answer; and some are fobbed off by people telling them they don't have to think about it.... but that's not biblical Xtianity: We're implored to question and test... not ignore questions and take it as red.

Children can get it, it's not hard to understand. But it does have depth that requires understanding if you get into it further.

What I'm trying to say is that a person can be saved without a depth of understanding. They understand how and why they are saved.

What you're saying, I think, is that you questioned that and came to a point where you disagreed. Thinking about the extra information you were unconvinced of the validity of it.

Take the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story: I have never ever thought that this was a literal account of the beginnings of the cosmos, yet some are adamant about it, despite what I see as clearly overwhelming evidence in the bible to the contrary. Are those people interpreting it incorrectly unsaved: No. They're just interpreting it incorrectly.
If I thought I had to compromise either my beliefs or my understanding of reality as described by science then I'd be very torn. Something would have to give, and I fully understand the rejection of literalism... as that's exactly my position.

[Zenith]

My sincere apologies Zenith... for the lateness of reply.

To be honest with you I sat and read the KJV Old testement as a novel some time back and was astounded that most of it is just porn, rape & mysoginism. I have not touched the book since. All I can do is direct you to the Old Testement or Torah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
http://www.devotions.net/bible/00old.htm

I hope these may provide some insight for you.

Don't worry. I am also usually busy and can't answer too quickly (perhaps the next day I would reply will be the next week). As long as you reply and I get notified by email, I would answer you back.

To be honest with you, I sat and read the Old Testament too (in my language, I can't understand many words in KJV even now, but I think some words have changed their meaning in time, and I don't believe in a perfect translation) and I did find sadism, rape (If I remember well, there was a son of David that raped his sister - it appears that she was not a daughter of his father or of his mother), unfair things, polygamy (though it's funny that the Western world forced monogamy as it christianized). The fact is that, if in the Bible all people were presented as "good", as doing only "good" and "holy" things, or people that do "only good" versus people that do "only bad", and how "good" wins, I would have called it a fairytale from the start. But the very fact that people are presented doing bad things, makes their story sound plausible.

My idea was a commandment in the Bible to teach beating the wife or child molestation, because I'm 100% certain that there is no commandment like that. If you are really interested in continuing this discussion, google about it, perhaps you find something that 'escaped' me. As about misogyny, I know that bad treatment of women happens in the christian world (preachers always talking about the obligations of women and how they should be like, but never talking about how husbands should be, etc.), but we're not talking about people, we're talking about commandments (and alike), in the bible.

[KichigaiNeko]

Don't worry. I am also usually busy and can't answer too quickly (perhaps the next day I would reply will be the next week). As long as you reply and I get notified by email, I would answer you back.

To be honest with you, I sat and read the Old Testament too (in my language, I can't understand many words in KJV even now, but I think some words have changed their meaning in time, and I don't believe in a perfect translation) and I did find sadism, rape (If I remember well, there was a son of David that raped his sister - it appears that she was not a daughter of his father or of his mother), unfair things, polygamy (though it's funny that the Western world forced monogamy as it christianized). The fact is that, if in the Bible all people were presented as "good", as doing only "good" and "holy" things, or people that do "only good" versus people that do "only bad", and how "good" wins, I would have called it a fairytale from the start. But the very fact that people are presented doing bad things, makes their story sound plausible.

My idea was a commandment in the Bible to teach beating the wife or child molestation, because I'm 100% certain that there is no commandment like that. If you are really interested in continuing this discussion, google about it, perhaps you find something that 'escaped' me. As about misogyny, I know that bad treatment of women happens in the christian world (preachers always talking about the obligations of women and how they should be like, but never talking about how husbands should be, etc.), but we're not talking about people, we're talking about commandments (and alike), in the bible.

I am unaware of which language you speak Zenith so please accept my apologies for asuming you speak and read english. The linky below is for the Ten Commandments (wiki has a translator) and compares them between the three major abrahamic religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

As for the other referrences ...they are scattered throughout the whole of the bibile/ torah/qu'ran and these will take much more of my time to track down...time I really don't have. Perhaps you may find the link below helpful as it goes into great depth regarding the abrahamic religions
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html

This one in particular
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/execution-1.html

[everythingafter]

I thought for sure I replied to this. Hmm. Well I worked like a dog today and am about to crash. I'll reply tomorrow.

[everythingafter]

What you're saying, I think, is that you questioned that and came to a point where you disagreed. Thinking about the extra information you were unconvinced of the validity of it.

I don't know if I questioned how I was saved, just why, in light of some of the questions I raised earlier in this thread.

Take the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story: I have never ever thought that this was a literal account of the beginnings of the cosmos, yet some are adamant about it, despite what I see as clearly overwhelming evidence in the bible to the contrary.

What is the evidence that's it's supposed to be taken figuratively? If some passages are supposed to be literal and some figurative, how are you to know the difference? I was taught that the Holy Spirit gave believers discernment, but that seems like such a wishy-washy, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too view of biblical interpretation. If the Bible is such a great book, why isn't it clearer? And if you it is clear with the proper amount of studying, what is the proper amount? I thought Christianity, if it was anything, was a religion for simple, lay folk. Why the need for all this studying to be able to "get it?" I did a bunch of studying and I, in fact, didn't get it.

If I thought I had to compromise either my beliefs or my understanding of reality as described by science then I'd be very torn.

So why aren't you? Genesis says God made the heavens, Earth and stars, etc., presumably in their complete form as we know them today, or else, man would not have been able to habitat the Earth. This didn't happen. Suppose God was the fuel behind the big bang. While, I suppose that's slightly more likely, why would the Bible not have just said that? Sure, millions of people would be a little confused for a few thousands years, but eventually, we would come to find, that, the Bible got some things right about science after all and could be more trustworthy. Instead, it happened in the reverse way. Millions of people thought Genesis made perfect sense for centuries until science began closing in the gaps. Now, it's modern man who is confused by the Bible. So I'm not sure why you aren't torn. The Bible reads exactly as we would expect it to if it were written in ancient Palestine by fearful and superstitious people. Unfortunately, creation stories are as old as the mind of man.

[fr0d0]

Hi everythingafter

The evidence of the exact meaning of the text is derived from the text itself, taken with the best understanding of the people saying it and what they would have meant by it (by studying them from other ancient text). Studying it in depth I would challenge you to find much validity in interpreting it more than one way.

You say it says "God made the heavens, Earth and stars, etc." ...yet it does not. It actually uses the word "bara" for creation, which is never used to denote material creation from nothing, as we would force our own materialist/ scientific interpretation upon, but actually means "to organise". So God organised what was already there. <--- this is a literal and exact interpretation of the text as written... and not re-interpreted to try to shoe horn it in to our present thinking on the cosmos and it's beginnings. The bible doesn't actually ever address material creation. What Genesis is about, if you're interested, is setting out the stage with God at the centre (day 7). Every things function is described and how that fits in this theology.

I get that from good & thorough investigation of the text and a desire to interpret it as correctly as humanly possible. I believe all of the bible is equally as transparent.

I would also refer back to innocent understanding. A young child can get the whole thing without knowing the detail. Something that feels so right is what I believe an innocent understanding entails. That is as profound a belief, if not a stronger belief than one that is educated in the finer points.