India and Christianity

Blacksword:

You say that "These evangelical lunatics are ensuring the pre-conditions for Christ's return to Earth."  That's an interesting statement.  Assuming for a moment that everything written in the Scriptures - from Genesis to Revelation (no, not the album...) - is true, this makes it God's "screenplay" from beginning to end.  Do you mean to suggest that "these evangelical lunatics" have the power to alter that screenplay?  What I am getting at is, the "screenplay" will unfold on God's schedule, not on a human one.  Thus, these "evangelical lunatics" can do anything they want or believe will "hasten" the "end times."  However, if it is not time for the "end times" (and, despite all the prognostication, no one knows when that will be: it could be tomorrow, it could be a hundred years from now), don't you think God would "step in" and "slow things down" in His own way?  Or, alternatively, if a particular group (of Christians or others) was trying to "slow down" the "end times," don't you think God would step in and "speed it up" of His own accord if He saw fit?  What makes you think that humans have the power to alter God's plan, or change God's schedule?  If the Scriptures are true, and there is to be a Rapture and/or an "end times," it will come when God wills it, not as a result of human efforts.  This does not mean that humans are not "used" in God's Will for the world.  But it is the height of arrogance for any Christian to assume that they know God's Will re the "end times."

Gdub, Reed Lover et al:

Ironically (though, to a Christian, it would be "providentially"...), the following article appeared in today's (1/10) New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10safire.html?hp

Peace to all.

maani wrote: Ironically (though, to a Christian, it would be "providentially"...), the following article appeared in today's (1/10) New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10safire.html?hp Peace to all.

I am absolutely stunned that you choose not to address any of my points re "scripture."

Also, I put it to you again-do you believe in Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark etc?

Oh, and the link doesnt work if you are a non member-pretty apt really!

Reed Lover:

I do not question the historical accuracy of the political machinations involved in the compilation of the New Testament.  What I question is whether that, in and of itself, means as much as you believe it does re the substance of the New Testament, and its portrayal of Jesus, His ministry, and the 40-60 years following.

I believe that all Scripture is "God-breathed"; i.e., that men (and women) were "inspired" (from "in-spirited") in its writing.  As to Paul, it does not matter that he did not see Jesus during His earthly life; I believe that he heard and saw Jesus after His resurrection (i.e., both on the road to Damascus and later).  In addition, Paul certainly knew the original apostles, and thus knew all of who Jesus was and what He did from first-hand accounts.

Your historically accurate position re the compilation of the New Testament is misguided for another reason: you seem all too willing to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."  That is, even given the "political maneuvering" involved, this does not in any way lessen, much less negate, the underlying texts, principles, etc.  The Gospels are accounts of Jesus' life and ministry: there is nothing to suggest that anyone at the time - on any "side" of the issue - questioned this.  Paul's writings with Timothy (i.e., the majority of the New Testament) are equally valid per se, independent of later "political" maneuvering.  The remainder (particularly including Titus, and Jesus' brother, James), again, are equally valid per se.  In sum, even if we accept that some "books" may have been "left out," there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the Nicean Council - or anyone else - "doctored" the books that actually comprise the New Testament.  Indeed, all of the historical evidence found in recent years supports the fact that the books themselves are "accurate" per se.

Re "knowledge" and "wisdom," because I believe in the Scriptures "as is," I will let them "do the talking" for me here:

"Do not be wise in your own opinion."  (Rom. 12:16)

"Let no one deceive himself.  If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.  For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness.'  And again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."  (1 Cor. 3:18-20)

"And if anyone thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."  (1 Cor. 8:2)

"For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'  Where is the wise?  Where is the scribe?  Where is the disputer of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise..."  (1 Cor. 1:19-20, 25, 27)

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."  (2 Tim. 3:16)

"That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.  However, we speak with wisdom among those who are mature [in faith], yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which god ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew...These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man [i.e, non-believer] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  (1 Cor. 2:5-8, 13-14)

If we take as axiom that everything is part of God's "screenplay," this means that even the Nicean Council had its part to play.  If so, that part may well have been to place a "stumbling block" to true "knowledge" and "wisdom" - to prove that one's faith "should not be in the widsom of men, but in the power of God."

I do not have all the answers.  And the historical facts of the compilation of the New Testament may seem irreconcilable with the concept of the "inerrancy" of Scripture.  However, I believe more strongly in the power of God than the wisdom of men.  Thus, although I, as a mere human, may not be able to reconcile them, I believe that God is both amused and saddened by the impudence of those whose faith is in "the widsom of the world" rather than in the knowledge of and faith in Him.

Peace.

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN ANYTHING MORE THAN YOURSELF ???

Does it give you a feeling of security or what is the gratification you recieve from your faith ?

Still no answer

is there freewill in the afterlife?

just imagine, an eternity of decisions. Ewww!

maani wrote: Reed Lover: I do not question the historical accuracy of the political machinations involved in the compilation of the New Testament.  What I question is whether that, in and of itself, means as much as you believe it does re the substance of the New Testament, and its portrayal of Jesus, His ministry, and the 40-60 years following. I believe that all Scripture is "God-breathed"; i.e., that men (and women) were "inspired" (from "in-spirited") in its writing.   "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."  (2 Tim. 3:16)   I do not have all the answers.  And the historical facts of the compilation of the New Testament may seem irreconcilable with the concept of the "inerrancy" of Scripture.  However, I believe more strongly in the power of God than the wisdom of men.  Thus, although I, as a mere human, may not be able to reconcile them, I believe that God is both amused and saddened by the impudence of those whose faith is in "the widsom of the world" rather than in the knowledge of and faith in Him. Peace.

Hmm.....so do you believe in the Creationist Theory of the start of the world? Do you believe in Adam and Eve? This is Scripture-you need to answer this to validate your points re the "all Scripture is "God-breathed".I admit I ask this question mischievously but I feel you should answer this.

I am not suggesting that The Council Of Niceae altered the Gospels-where did I say that? What I am saying is that the evangelical nature of Christianity would necessitate "competing" with the established beliefs of the potential converts. Surely you can see that Christianity would have to be "sold"-my God is better than your god fashion? This would lend itself to a certain amount of tinkering with the facts-presumably you dont think that the Apostles  just turned up in the market-square, set up a soap-box and everyone said "wow, this is great, count me in"?To suggest that God's Word somehow magically infused itself into these people's consciousness precludes the need for evangelists in the first place.
Suggesting that everything is just part of God's plan is a cop out.The trouble with Religion and Christianity in particular, is that it ties itself in knots.To suggest you know what God's plan is, is blasphemous,to suggest God has a plan but we can not know it infers that we need not involve ourselves in spiritual matters, which then means that religion is redundant.