Christianity is Confusing

January 3, 2008 at 9:42 am 53 comments

It’s really important to have a “we believe” statement for every church. Not only do many churches have a declaration of faith, they usually use the same book, the Holy Bible, to back their claims. What is interesting to me is that this Bible is interpreted in many different ways. So, how do you know which “we believe” statement is in the “truth” and which is a “lie?” How does one approach this?

I think for some, they would simply compare a statement of faith against the Holy Bible. I mean, that would make perfect sense to me. But, which verses in the Bible do you ignore, and which ones do you accept? How do you interpret the Bible to make it so it goes along with a declaration of faith?

It seems to me that most Christians are first in alignment with a school of theology prior to understanding the Bible, and so then they are forced to cherry-pick the Bible to justify their personal beliefs. Can you read the Bible first, then find your own theology in it? Or do you have to subscribe to a leadership that claims monopoly on theology and truth? What came first in your religious beliefs? How to read the Bible or the Bible itself?

I have never been satisfied with answers to those questions, all have been quite token such as “The Holy Spirit lets you know” or “They just have to say Jesus is Lord” or “Jesus raised from the dead” or “They gotta say God is number one and his word is number one and ya gotta put them first or yer not saved” (yet no one can agree on what putting him first even looks like) hmm what else?

I think, that, in the end, people choose doctrines that they feel most comfortable with. Some are much more comfortable with lots and lots of rules. Some are more comfortable with the lax, seeker friendly rules, and some are like me just wanting the answers….

- confusedchristian

Entry filed under: confusedchristian. Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Christian Education or Indoctrination? SuperChristians: More Pious than Jesus

53 Comments Add your own

  • 1. TheDeeZone  |  January 3, 2008 at 10:25 am

    CC,

    You make several good points. I certianlly agree with your conclusion. People do choose the doctrines they are most comfortable with and I think sometimes are afraid to admit they don’t understand or disagree with something.

    DH

  • 2. LeoPardus  |  January 3, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Want a laugh and half on this topic? Go to:

    http://www.bible.ca/indexchurches.htm

    The link will get you to many statements of faith. Some are presented straightforwardly, while others are cobbled together by the site authors. The latter type are rather poor.

    Still it shows pretty well how irreconcilable many denominations are.

    In case you wonder just who put up the web site, it’s the Church of Christ. And a more ludicrous bunch of nut jobs you could not ask for.

  • 3. timglass  |  January 3, 2008 at 11:51 am

    I went back into history…from the beginning of Christianity. Through the writings of the New Testament to the first Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. I found that Church still exists today, for Jesus Himself said, “….and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    Yes it is very confusing. Satan has tried to dis-unify what God wants unified – His Church.

    I pray you find what you are looking for, if indeed it is truth. “Ask and it shall be given unto you….”

  • 4. confusedchristian  |  January 3, 2008 at 11:57 am

    Satan is such an easy scape goat. It is clear in scripture that the Christian God wants his people united, but so does the Allah and so does Yahweh. I mean to say, every denomination, and every religion wants them united. Indeed, I have asked and what has given to me was apostasy.

  • 5. Terry K. Moore  |  January 3, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Very good post and very true!

  • 6. Jeremy Myers  |  January 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    I just found your blog yesterday and am enthralled. I am a pastor’s kid that went to a Christian grade school, a Bible College, pastored a church for five years, and am now finishing up a Seminary degree.

    Recently, I have found myself not wanting to be associated with what has come to be known as “Christianity.” I don’t think Christ is pleased with us and what we have become. I find myself in agreement with much of what is written on this blog. And the things I disagree with, I understand (I think) where you are coming from.

    This post really hit home with me. I am getting tired of doctrinal statements. Recently, I made it known to some Christian friends that I am questioning seven key doctrines that I have believed my entire life. WOW, did I ever get blasted! Apparently, I am now a heretic under the influence of Satan for even questioning the truth of these seven doctrines. I haven’t rejected them yet, I’m just questioning them. I wonder what would happen if I actually rejected a few?

  • 7. JustCan't  |  January 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    TimGlass:

    I won’t pray for you as you offer to do for the writer here, but I will keep a good thought for you and hope that you may find truth as well, if that is what YOU are looking for.

    If it is truth you seek, I hope you will begin reading and learning about things you’ve been neglecting. I hope that you read about Science and History and even other theologies, without feeling that looking at other information is somehow cheating on Jesus. You did mention truth, and I think this would be a good way to ensure that you are seeking it too. After all, how can you comment to someone who has learned about these things (plus knows the Bible) when you only know the Bible. You shouldn’t turn away from evidence or higher learning if you are indeed interested in truth.

    Just so you know, once you make the decision to start looking at this information, it is widely available to you online, in bookstores, libraries and even on DVD. Sort of an “Ask and you shall receive” kind of thing — only for real! :-)

  • 8. LeoPardus  |  January 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    timglass:

    I went back into history…from the beginning of Christianity. Through the writings of the New Testament to the first Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. I found that Church still exists today

    Which church is it? … The RC…. The EOC? ….. The CoC? … The “invisible church”? …. The church on the corner of 2nd and Main?

    I know that sounds like a sarcastic query, but I’m actually curious as to what answer you think you found.

    Yes it is very confusing. Satan has tried to dis-unify what God wants unified – His Church.

    Go look at the link I posted earlier. If you want a disunified church, you couldn’t ask for more than what we have today.

  • 9. coventryrm  |  January 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    I was raised in a LDS (Mormon) home, in my 30’s I started questioning, I have gone from Mormon to New Age Christian, Agnostic, now Atheist. The more I studied and learned about the world around me and origins of man and religion and myself, I have found a much more positive world that now actually makes sense to me. I like the comment “de-conversion wager” As I believe this to be very true, all that we know is that some day this life will end. Why not be the best you can be in it, if there is an afterlife what you and who you are should continue on as well.

  • 10. MJ "revoltingpawn"  |  January 3, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    The problem with the Bible is it was written in a language, a time, and culture we don’t understand and can’t relate to so what do we do? Rely on someone else to tell us what it means… This is God’s plan?

    I swear the God in the New Testament is a different God then the Old testament.

    What a mess…

    For those interested check out this series – Does God Have a Future?

    http://www.shadowdemocracy.org/2007/12/30/does-god-have-a-future-part-5%E2%80%A6fundamentalist-atheism-on-the-march/

  • 11. sauerkraut  |  January 3, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    JustCant – why would you not pray for Timglass?

    I often get disappointed by christianity. Just today, I reviewed a story about a priest who was indicted for perjury. Some people simply do not hold their moral obligations as serious. Not even when putting their hand on that Bible while swearing an oath to tell the truth.

  • 12. karen  |  January 3, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    That’s a great link – thanks Leo!

  • 13. asymptosis  |  January 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    how do you know which “we believe” statement is in the “truth” and which is a “lie?”

    I think it is a bad idea to assume that in a manner as personal as religion, there will be a single “truth” that holds for all people, in all contexts.

    If God is the author of all, then to learn about everything is to learn about God. If Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life”, then to follow Jesus’ example, to respect, cultivate and pursue truth, and to live a full life, are what is required to “enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (However you interpret that.)

  • 14. Fred  |  January 3, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Having been raised in a Christian culture, I have certain moral principles that I try to live by that come from the expressed Christian values of my time and place. However, I agree with Ghandi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” There is too much fighting, too much intolerance, too much aggression among the organized religions, Christianity included.

  • 15. JustCan't  |  January 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    sauerkraut said: “JustCant – why would you not pray for Timglass?”

    I wouldn’t pray for him because I would have no one to pray to. To me, it is an empty and hollow promise of help. Better to actually DO something than to just pray for someone. Better to think of how one can help than just to pray for someone.

    I’m through praying for others and myself. I prefer to do something other than retreat to a quiet spot and ask an imaginary friend what he thinks, only to hear crickets in response — like always (or driving myself crazy asking why I can’t hear Him, or trying to explain away my own thoughts as some form of supernatural intervention).

  • 16. soledad  |  January 3, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    Picking and choosing one part of the bible to follow and another to be ignored makes absolutely no sense to me. In this aspect, I understand the fundamentalist xians more than the ‘moderate’ – at least the crazies who follow their book to the letter are doing what the god they believe in told them to do. I don’t understand selectively ignoring the parts of the bible that don’t work for you (which, given how much time has passed and how different society is today from the time of its writing, are huge sections). Maybe that’s me, but it seems if you’re going to believe in the ‘sacred word of god’, you have to believe in all of it, not just what suits your fancy.

    That’s why I first rejected the idea of the xian god. Original sin, immaculate conception, death and resurrection…once I couldn’t accept one part of it, I had to begin questioning it all. I didn’t understand how religious leaders in my life were glossing over the more terrifying parts of the bible, preaching love and acceptance when that is not always scripturally the case. Does the obedience of some passages over others carry different weight? And if so, what person on earth could possibly claim to be sure of the right answer? After that first question, the rest poured in. I think that’s why doubt is so scary to Believers, because once you’re stopped with a genuine “huh?” moment, the entire structure of ‘taking it on faith’ begins to collapse.

  • 17. jmmauthe  |  January 3, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    I would have to agree with some of your thought patterns regarding the interpretation of the Bible. We have all been taught too much by others that we take the actual Bible for granted. So many scriptures are misquoted or paraphrased incorrectly b/c “mom or dad always said it that way” or “that part fits what I am going through”. When we use/quote the scripture like we are in line at the “Picadilly” we fail to see that that Newton’s Law of Motion is still represented throughout the Bible. When God gave the inspiration through the Holy Ghost, for man to write the Word, I am sure that He made sure each word was intricately placed to help us with details all the way down to those 2 and 3 letter words. We have come so dependent and lazy that we feen for the next person to tell us what the Bible says instead of picking it up and reading it for ourselves. If one truely want to know what it means and says pray about it and don’t just take it at “face value” seek out the origination of the words used. The English language is one of the hardest languages and we have so many meanings for different words that when the word is taken back to its Greek or Hebrew origin the meaning of the scripture or the context being offered makes better since.

  • 18. TheNorEaster  |  January 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    CC:

    Those are some very good questions you’ve raised. As I have similarly mentioned in an earlier comment to another post, my faith has grown more independently of “leadership.” I try to find my own path in my faith, which means I accept that where I am in it is, well, where I am. I know that is not true for everyone, and I certainly wouldn’t expect it to be.

    But in the same way that I was different at 30 than I was 20, so my understanding of the teachings of Christ have changed over the years. Independent of “leadership”–especially fundamentalism–this has been a postive experience for me.

    It has also been my experience–and I can only accurately discuss my experience–that a fundamentalist Christian “faith”, brought up with legalism and hypocrisy, simply cannot survive the challenges one must face in the real world. Hence, the fundamentalist “bubble.” And that is why I think fundamentalists scream so loud and make such a spectacle of their religion. They have lost meaning so they shout in an effort to find it again, as if the meaning will somehow appear again once they drown out all other voices.

    Although I am a Christian, I don’t force my beliefs onto others; I try to live it. For an example, see “When Lightning Strikes” at thenoreaster.wordpress.com.

  • 19. LeoPardus  |  January 4, 2008 at 3:51 am

    jmmauthe:

    I am sure that He made sure each word was intricately placed to help us with details all the way down to those 2 and 3 letter words.

    when the word is taken back to its Greek or Hebrew origin the meaning of the scripture or the context being offered makes better since.

    Would that be the 2 and 3 letter words in English, Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic?
    And when going back to the original languages, which manuscript do you use? How do you know which variant has the right 2 and 3 letter words?
    And how is it that going back to the original languages is just the way that so many variant and irreconcilable theologies are developed, if God made it so clear?

  • 20. HeIsSailing  |  January 4, 2008 at 9:36 am

    jmmauthe,
    I wish it were as simple as what you describe, even if we resolved the problems LeoPardus brought up in comment #19. If you think the New Testament in English is confusing, and you can get back to the simple meaning by looking at the original language, think again. New Testament was written in Koine Greek, an Alexandrian era dialect that I believe is now extinct as a language. Modern day Greek won’t cut it. So the only way to tell what many words mean is by cross-referencing them against other Koine Greek texts of the era.

    Take for example the Greek word ‘arsenokotai’, which has been translated as ‘homosexual’ in some translations of 1Cor6:10. That translation is a best guess, and hotly disputed. The bottom line is, nobody really knows exactly what ‘arsenokotai’ means because it is from an ancient dialect, and so few examples of the word exist in contemporaneous writings. jmmauthe, I think looking up the original languages of Scripture is often helpful, certainly necessary for translation, but often raises more questions and ambiguities than you may think. It will also not make Scripture as crystal clear as you think.

  • 21. confusedchristian  |  January 4, 2008 at 10:38 am

    NorEaster: I’m just curious if you feel safe with your anti-legalism religion? Do0 you think you might not be saved ever? In a way fundies are huge hypocrites and don’t make sense but they claim they are doing their best for Jesus, can you say the same?

  • 22. coventryrm  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Christianity is not confusing at all once you realize it was made up by men. Then it all makes sense.

  • 23. confusedchristian  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    coven, you’re saying men can’t make things that are confusing?

  • 24. coventryrm  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Not at all, I am saying the confusion makes sense, once you realize it is made up fiction you don’t have to try and reconcile it anymore with facts and evidence that run contrary to what it claims or teaches. Like trying to come up with some big rationalization for why God doesn’t heal amputees.

  • 25. confusedchristian  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Agreed.

  • 26. locomotivebreath1901  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    “Not only do many churches have a declaration of faith, they usually use the same book, the Holy Bible, to back their claims.”

    What? You’re kidding!!

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, except that just like non-believers, believers come in different flavors and are not some monolithic population behaving like automatons.

    I believe that explains the numerous denominations which is a distinctly different discussion (or should be) than liars vs. truthers.

  • 27. confusedchristian  |  January 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    locomotivebreath, I’m saying that each denomiantion uses the Bible to back their claims even though they are different. That’s far from saying people are supposed to be behaving like automatons. It’s actually saying that each denomination uses the Bible to promote their creed yet each creed is different.

    As far as liars vs. truthers, I take it you’ve never met a Christian who calls another denomination deceitful?

  • 28. HeIsSailing  |  January 4, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    confusedchristian says:

    locomotivebreath, I’m saying that each denomiantion uses the Bible to back their claims even though they are different.

    locomotivebreath might be trying to tell you that not all Christian denominations have as high a view of Scripture as Fundamentalists do. That is certainly correct. Not all are sola scriptura, or even have a strict conception of inspiration or inerrancy..

  • 29. confusedchristian  |  January 4, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Yes that’s true, but they still use the Bible.

  • 30. coventryrm  |  January 4, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    “As far as liars vs. truthers, I take it you’ve never met a Christian who calls another denomination deceitful?”

    Just go to any LDS blog that doesn’t block comments and allows open debate and you will see this in action, as the Christians are constantly telling the Mormons that they are not Christian.

  • 31. TheNorEaster  |  January 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    NorEaster: I’m just curious if you feel safe with your anti-legalism religion? Do0 you think you might not be saved ever? In a way fundies are huge hypocrites and don’t make sense but they claim they are doing their best for Jesus, can you say the same?

    CC:

    I never considered my particular faith to be anti-legalistic. As I recall, I simply stated that my faith has grown more once I got away from the “leadership” of legalistic fundamentalism.

    There are times I’ve certainly had my doubts about my faith, sure. But, as ironic as it seems, “faith needs a doubt” (Bono of U2 in “Hawkmoon 269″). If my faith were perfect, I wouldn’t need it. I would KNOW. Like I know my fingers are moving over this keyboard.

    And I think we both know it certainly wouldn’t mean much if all I did was SAY I’m “doing my best for Jesus.” But you’re certainly welcome to decide for yourself…

    thenoreaster.wordpress.com

  • 32. Lou Martuneac  |  January 4, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    To Jeremy Myers:

    Just curious: Which part of this blog are you “enthralled” with?

    Would you also document where any one wrote/stated that you are “under the influence of Satan?” You made this claim. Please cite the source?

    I read your article about how you are questioning certain doctrinal positions. The “heretic” label is part of the title of your article where you publicly disclosed the possibility of changing your views of certain theological positions.

    You titled your article, The Heretic in Me

    http://www.tillhecomes.org/blog/2007/12/19/the-heretic-in-me

    I reviewed your article, The Heretic in Me: Myers’ Plea or Pronouncement?

    http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/12/heretic-in-me-jeremy-myers-plea-or.html

    It is disengenuous to claim you are being labeled a “heretic” when you chose the “heretic” label for the theological direction you may be heading toward.

    LM

  • 33. idiopathogen  |  January 5, 2008 at 1:30 am

    The Agnostic — beyond the reach of God.

    The agnostic believes that there is a God, but God is not for him, and is unable to communicate with His creature in any way. They perhaps need to hear that “he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6). They say God is right, and God is good, but he is at such a great distance from us, and has no desire to clearly communicate with us what is true and good. When God attempts to communicate with an agnostic through another person, or the Word of God, it is up to the agnostic to decide if God is really speaking or not, and if God says something the agnostic does not like to hear, it probably is a miscommunication, or perhaps not really God speaking at all, but another person trying to give them bad information about God. Agnostics relish the fact that there are so many denominations of Christians and so much confusion in the Christian profession as this is decided proof that God is not competent to speak to his people with any degree of clarity. They also like to bring up the fact that many people will never hear the Bible, and therefore cannot be held responsible to God. Yet God still speaks to such people by the testimony of creation and their conscience (Revelation 14:6,7, Psalm 19), and so they are still responsible to God. The agnostic that has heard the Word of God is even more responsible than those who have not.

    A believer with agnostic blindfolds on likes to speak of the “many ways of interpreting scripture,” and is not bothered by the cancerous growth of modern translations that teach bad doctrine. The degree to which the Bible is interpreted “literally,” they say, is up to personal preference. The agnostic believer, like the post-modern believer, can move freely throughout denominations and Christian fellowships that are disparus from the truth, because, they feel, God has not been sufficiently clear with them to prevent them from doing otherwise. The agnostic Christian will not take responsibility for what they know if they can cite other Christians who have no such knowledge. It seems unfair that God has given them more knowledge and greater responsibility, and on that basis refuse to act the knowledge they have, and as a consequence miss out on the blessings God wants so much to reveal to them. “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Matthew 13:15)

    William Cowper, in 1779, although a schizophrenic, had greater clarity of mind and confidence in God’s ability to communicate to us than most of us Christians today! In the last verse of his hymn “God moves in a mysterious way,” he writes, “Blind unbelief is sure to err, And scan His work in vain; God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain.”

    The true barrier to our failure to recognize that God is speaking to us is our unwillingness to obey, not the confused and conflicting ideas of men. Jesus said, “If any one desire to practice his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or [that] I speak from myself” (John 7:17 JND trans).

  • 34. asymptosis  |  January 5, 2008 at 4:29 am

    The agnostic believes that there is a God, but God is not for him, and is unable to communicate with His creature in any way.

    (sarcasm) Wow. You must know a lot of agnostics.

  • 35. asymptosis  |  January 5, 2008 at 4:31 am

    (Sorry, that was supposed to come out looking like html code, but with “sarcasm” inside the brackets…)

  • 36. HeIsSailing  |  January 5, 2008 at 9:49 am

    ideopathogen,
    If those are your opinions about agnostics, I would love to know what you think about ex-Christian atheists.

  • 37. Lou Martuneac  |  January 5, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Jeremy:

    Another man, who used the word “heretic” made this observation about your article:

    I was using the word heretic because Jeremy used it, it would appear, as a badge of honor. Frankly, I think he is silly to do so and I shouldn’t go along with such things. I looked up the definition of heretic using the Meriam-Webster online dictionary which defines it as:

    1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
    2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

    Jeremy is currently a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and the positions he is questioning have been central to the classic dispensationalist teaching that DTS used to be famous for. So, Jeremy would be a heretic given the beliefs and doctrines advanced by C.I. Scofield (founder of DTS) and his successor Lewis Sperry Chafer. Jeremy knows this and was, I believe, being flippant.

    LM

  • 38. rebecca shannon  |  January 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Idiopathogen,

    How many agnostics do you know?

  • 39. How to discover counterfeit Christianity « de-conversion  |  January 5, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    [...] resist sharing it with you all. Apparently, a Jeremy Myers recently discovered our blog a made a comment which included the following statement: I just found your blog yesterday and am enthralled. I am a [...]

  • 40. ALSOSEARCHIN  |  June 22, 2008 at 9:28 am

    well so far i been forced to do some soul searchin due to havin a convert for a mother, she used to be catholic, and she converted upon marriage, after i hit my teens i kinda started to feel kinda strange about that whole believe in jesus and u should be saved, ( at first i wanted to do some research upon islam) so what happend is no matter what people say about islam i found it to be a really sensible religion, it has one basic belief that there is one creator, cause what ever created us is god, and the word allah means god, if there was a christian person that spoke arabic onlly, he would say allah to reffer to god. And history has shown the changed the new testament has undergone, take ur bible and compare it to those that are even 4 years ago not even in he hundreds, and ul see the changes. Dont take this as a criticism for those who are christians cause to us yall are like our home dawgs so are jews, only some misinformed souls find brainwashing cults such as the taliban and such but u guys are people of “the book” if i may quote the koran. Well in islam its all done upon by god, we believe we cannot say what he forgives and what he knows, we do our best to do good, try to offset our sins with good deeds. And the major difference is that we have people to memorize the quran, and u can see that if you take the quran from the museums, and compare with those in the homes today ul see it says the same things

    I have a seperate theory though to coincide with islam, i believe there is a way to be able to come out of hell after payin enough for ur sin like hitler will be like the last ,, cause believe me hell suks balls from wat i heard from all religions ^__^

  • 41. exitstrategy  |  May 23, 2009 at 10:16 am

    The lucky fundies are the ones who believe what they want to believe and then cherry pick verses to backup their preconceived notions. Where fundyism becomes really self-damaging is when you start taking the bible seriously (as the church and the book itself encourages you to). Trying to live like the bible suggests (everything’s your fault…women are meant to be subjects of the men in their lives…rejoice when people harm you) allows a book it to take over your life. Religion is the only “drug” that society insists you can’t have enough of.

  • 42. Hal  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    I used to be as confused about the whole faith nonsense as anybody else. Four unique experiences over 30 years has shown me the clarity I was looking for. Christians are wrong about everything and they have no concept of what Jesus really taught the saints. If you are still confused but seeking the truth, I would like nothing better than to share what I know with you. To start with, think about what it means for salvation to be a gift from GOD.

  • 43. BigHouse  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:56 am

    “To start with, think about what it means for salvation to be a gift from GOD.”

    Sure thing, Hal. If salvation was a gift, it wouldn’t come with strings attached and would be unconditionally given. Too bad this isn’t how salvation is given to us according to the Bible.

    Not a good start for you, Hal.

  • 44. Quester  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Only if you ignore the verses that support the idea of salvation as an unconditional gift, Big House. If you ignore the verses that show salvation has strings attached, you can be a universalist! It all depends on which bits of scripture you ignore.

  • 45. Joe  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Quester—

    Have you ever read anything by William Bridge? He wrote in the 1600’s and was a Puritan. Puritans always get a rap as being “witch burners”, but that was one colony that turned into a lunatic fringe. A lot of the Puritans were very kind decent people, and many very intelligent writers came out of them.

    I mention him because he states that “scripture answers scripture”–for example, one verse may say you belong to Christ “if ye continue….” Bridge points out this verse is “answered” by “who WILL confirm to you until the end…”

    In other words the one verse APPEARS to state that it is all up to us to “continue”—this verse is from man’s point of view—-but the “answer” is from God’s point of view “he WILL keep you until the end”. Once I saw that the Bible became a very different book to me. I just wanted to point that out since you were talking about ignoring certain scriptures etc.

    If you get a chance pick up one of his books some time.

  • 46. BigHouse  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Quester, reminds me of the line: “Other than the ending, Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the play?”

  • 47. Joe  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    I have a tendency to forget things that haven’t happened yet, so excuse the silence, it usually means I’m getting ahead of myself.

  • 48. Ubi Dubium  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Gee. One part of a primitive book of superstition is valid because of some other part of the same primitive book. Sorry, not buying it. Did you also know that the Harry Potter books are completely true, using the same reasoning?

  • 49. BigHouse  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Even as a kid I could never understand using the Bible to support the Bible’s authority. That’s when good ole “because I said so” from parents and pastors etc came in to keep me in line. Thankfully one eventually grows up.

  • 50. Quester  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    I haven’t, Joe, and I might.

    I don’t know which interpretation you have taken on salvation:

    1) exclusive: only those who x are saved.
    2) inclusive: all people, no matter if they x or not, are saved by y.
    3) pluralistic: all people are saved through z, though through our limited nature in this life, we might view z as one or more of a-y, demanding that we aa-zz.

    But I wonder, whichever point of view you’ve chosen, if you’ve investigated the biblical and theological “proofs” for the other two viewpoints?

  • 51. Joe  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Quester—

    I have investigated all viewpoints. I offered it fully realizing that most here do not believe, but hsd noticed you do quite a bit of reading not only of scientific literature, but biblical as well, so though it might interest you.

  • 52. DSimon  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    I have investigated all viewpoints.

    I know you don’t mean this as categorically as it sounds, but regardless I must say that that amount of investigation must’ve taken you quite a while. :-)

  • 53. Joe  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    DSimon—
    :) You’re right–I meant to say I’ve done a lot of reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,032,489 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers