Was the Minister Inappropriate

[Namaste Jesus]

No offense intended at all, but, the Christians you associate with are not like most Christians in this regard. Jesus is the way and the life, and no one can see the Father (i.e. get to heaven) but through Christ. That's what the bible says, so it follows that most Christians, being bible-believers, do not subscribe to paths (plural) leading to heaven. One path. One way. Jesus Christ. That's the majority Christian view.

Hello Frrostedman, welcome to the forum. You are correct, the majority of Christian in the US probably do interpret the scripture that way. I should have said, "most of the Christians I know or most of the Christians I'm familiar with." Type faster than I think sometimes.

 

[Frrostedman]

I never accept this when an American say generalising statements about Christianity. For instance, this is not my experience with Christianity.

Ok so Jesus Christ being the way to the Father is not your experience with Christianity. Are you a Christian? And can you point me toward any legitimate works that argue the multiple paths to Heaven as a Christian precept?

Gracias!

 

[Frrostedman]

Hello Frrostedman, welcome to the forum. You are correct, the majority of Christian in the US probably do interpret the scripture that way. I should have said, "most of the Christians I know or most of the Christians I'm familiar with." Type faster than I think sometimes.

Indeed. In fact I was going to say almost exactly that! That I should have thought to phrase it that way. Thank you!

 

[Frrostedman]

More accurate to say that's the majority American Christian view.

Oh I can definitely see I came to the right place. Thank you for the correction.

In my opinion, and on second thought, I should have said that it's the biblical view. Because it is.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Ok so Jesus Christ being the way to the Father is not your experience with Christianity. Are you a Christian? And can you point me toward any legitimate works that argue the multiple paths to Heaven as a Christian precept?

Gracias!

Sloppy quoting on my part, basically what G-Knot said. I mostly see more humility in the face of their own limited understanding of the Truth. Other churches around the world can be more accepting of unofficial interpretations.
I don't know the statistics on how many Christians believe this or that, but I don't believe anyone do. And that's an important fact for me. Further, I feel sorry for all the people who get lumped in together with a group of people they don't feel any connection with. I wouldn't like that.

But based on your other posts on here I don't feel I need to point out that there are many kinds of Christians, me not being one of them.

 

[LincolnSpector]

Frosty, you asked,

"What is considered good, and who defines it in the end."

--> Behavior is good if it accelerates our progress towards (heaven). Bad behavior is behavior which moves us further back on the path to (heaven).

That attitude strikes me as extremely self-centered. "What's important is that I get mine."

To my mind, you have to go back to the golden rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated. (And no, that is not specifically Christian; you'll find it in other traditions.) That covers everything from basic politeness to not stealing to not invading another country. It even covers protecting the environment, because ruining our planet hurts those not yet born.

It's not a matter of "This is what someone told me G*d wants, and therefore it's good." It's "This is clearly the right thing to do, and therefore it's what G*d wants."

 

[LincolnSpector]

Ok so Jesus Christ being the way to the Father is not your experience with Christianity. Are you a Christian? And can you point me toward any legitimate works that argue the multiple paths to Heaven as a Christian precept?

Gracias!

Didn't the Pope recently say that atheists who do good work go to heaven?

 

[LincolnSpector]

Oh I can definitely see I came to the right place. Thank you for the correction.

In my opinion, and on second thought, I should have said that it's the biblical view. Because it is.

As Shakespeare said, "The devil can quote scripture to his purpose."

You can find an argument for and against anything in the Bible. There is much in the Bible that is beautiful, spiritual, and provides an excellent framework for a way of life.

But there is also much that contradicts known science, known history, common sense morality, and other parts of the Bible. It's a holy book, but like everything else created by human beings, it's not pefect.

 

[LincolnSpector]

I don't know the statistics on how many Christians believe this or that, but I don't believe anyone do. And that's an important fact for me. Further, I feel sorry for all the people who get lumped in together with a group of people they don't feel any connection with. I wouldn't like that.

But based on your other posts on here I don't feel I need to point out that there are many kinds of Christians, me not being one of them.

A couple of years ago, I saw professional atheist Sam Harris interviewed on TV. He made the grand statement that "All Christians are atheists about the Muslim God." Since one of the tenants of New Atheism is that you should only believe what is clearly proved, I wanted to jump through the TV and ask him if he had actually surveyed every self-described Christian in the world.

 

[voiceofwood]

If they freely choose a Christian funeral service then they should accept Christian teaching.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

As Shakespeare said, "The devil can quote scripture to his purpose."

You can find an argument for and against anything in the Bible. There is much in the Bible that is beautiful, spiritual, and provides an excellent framework for a way of life.

But there is also much that contradicts known science, known history, common sense morality, and other parts of the Bible. It's a holy book, but like everything else created by human beings, it's not pefect.

In my, admittedly odd way of thinking, the fact that 5 people can read the same Biblical passage and all 5 get a different meaning from it is what gives the scripture it's divine province. I don't think that necessarily makes it contradictory though, just subject to interpretation.

 

[voiceofwood]

In my, admittedly odd way of thinking, the fact that 5 people can read the same Biblical passage and all 5 get a different meaning from it is what gives the scripture it's divine province.

Wise words thinks I

 

[LincolnSpector]

In my, admittedly odd way of thinking, the fact that 5 people can read the same Biblical passage and all 5 get a different meaning from it is what gives the scripture it's divine province. I don't think that necessarily makes it contradictory though, just subject to interpretation.

I agree completely with your first sentence.

But there are parts of the Bible that literally contradict each other. It begins with two contradictory creation stories.

I should add that I don't consider it a problem. To me, this is proof that the people who compiled Genesis out of other, older stories didn't intend it to be taken literally.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

A couple of years ago, I saw professional atheist Sam Harris interviewed on TV. He made the grand statement that "All Christians are atheists about the Muslim God." Since one of the tenants of New Atheism is that you should only believe what is clearly proved, I wanted to jump through the TV and ask him if he had actually surveyed every self-described Christian in the world.

I can never listen to him nor Dawkins for very long, they are of course smart men, but all there sound reasoning seem, to me, built on a foundation of fear. And those never hold.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

...I should add that I don't consider it a problem. To me, this is proof that the people who compiled Genesis out of other, older stories didn't intend it to be taken literally.

I'll give you that. Human influence has definitely made some Biblical details suspect. That's one of the reasons I seldom quote it chapter and verse.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Why suspect in this instance? Do you believe the authors intended their material to be read in a modern, fact-oriented, way?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Why suspect in this instance? Do you believe the authors intended their material to be read in a modern, fact-oriented, way?

Not at all. I was just speaking in general terms. Since much of the Bible is intended to teach a lesson rather than an actual account of something that has happened, many of the details are suspect. Another words, they can't always be taken literally.

 

[Frrostedman]

Not at all. I was just speaking in general terms. Since much of the Bible is intended to teach a lesson rather than an actual account of something that has happened, many of the details are suspect. Another words, they can't always be taken literally.

This is why proper Bible Exegesis is so important. It makes sense to me what you are saying - that a lot of the bible is written in poetic form, allegorical form, etc. But the experts in the field (whom I read commentaries from but am not one of) have very strict, logical processes they use in order to determine exactly how each account breaks down. Much of the bible is intended as a historical account.

As a lay person, with no one to help me, I would gain many false understandings of what the bible says. But please don't get me wrong. My man Martin Luther ignited the Protestant Reformation in his bucking of the Roman Catholic system; partly which required that the laypeople lean entirely on the Priests (experts) to tell them what the bible says. I'm not saying we as laypeople need to depend solely on others to interpret the bible. We definitely should read the bible ourselves. But when it comes to proper Exegesis... it is something that has to be studied and learned in order to master. You can't just wing it. Do we agree?

Once proper Exegesis is exercised, the vast majority of Scripture isn't "suspect" at all.

 

[voiceofwood]

This is why proper Bible Exegesis is so important. It makes sense to me what you are saying - that a lot of the bible is written in poetic form, allegorical form, etc. But the experts in the field (whom I read commentaries from but am not one of) have very strict, logical processes they use in order to determine exactly how each account breaks down. Much of the bible is intended as a historical account.

As a lay person, with no one to help me, I would gain many false understandings of what the bible says. But please don't get me wrong. My man Martin Luther ignited the Protestant Reformation in his bucking of the Roman Catholic system; partly which required that the laypeople lean entirely on the Priests (experts) to tell them what the bible says. I'm not saying we as laypeople need to depend solely on others to interpret the bible. We definitely should read the bible ourselves. But when it comes to proper Exegesis... it is something that has to be studied and learned in order to master. You can't just wing it. Do we agree?

Once proper Exegesis is exercised, the vast majority of Scripture isn't "suspect" at all.

I don't entirely agree; there is of course good and bad interpretations and part or the problem is understanding what parts should be taken literally, which are allegorical, etc. and even amongst those you regard as experts disagree. For instance some misunderstand Genesis; which contains deep truths about human nature not about human genealogy.

Only Jesus is free of sin and therefore only Jesus is in perfect communion with God; interpreting other scripture should therefore be done in the light of his teachings

 

[Namaste Jesus]

This is why proper Bible Exegesis is so important. It makes sense to me what you are saying - that a lot of the bible is written in poetic form, allegorical form, etc. But the experts in the field (whom I read commentaries from but am not one of) have very strict, logical processes they use in order to determine exactly how each account breaks down. Much of the bible is intended as a historical account.

As a lay person, with no one to help me, I would gain many false understandings of what the bible says. But please don't get me wrong. My man Martin Luther ignited the Protestant Reformation in his bucking of the Roman Catholic system; partly which required that the laypeople lean entirely on the Priests (experts) to tell them what the bible says. I'm not saying we as laypeople need to depend solely on others to interpret the bible. We definitely should read the bible ourselves. But when it comes to proper Exegesis... it is something that has to be studied and learned in order to master. You can't just wing it. Do we agree?

Once proper Exegesis is exercised, the vast majority of Scripture isn't "suspect" at all.

We went round and round on this topic on another thread a while back. I can't really say that I agree, but I don't disagree either. I mean, one does need to be taught the basics and have a good grasp of the language they're reading the scripture in, as well as all the nuances in vogue at the time it was written, but I don't think anyone needs to be taught how to interpret the Bible beyond that. I truly believe that it is meant to mean something different to each individual.

I approach faith from a different perspective than most I suppose, but while I believe the overall story of the Bible, I don't believe it to be the last word. Partially due to negative human input, mistranslations and so fourth and partially because I believe all faiths to be intertwined.