When I say I'm open-minded, what I mean is that I take other's opinions, beliefs, and values into consideration.  I don't judge a person who has different beliefs, opinions, or values than I do.  Like G-gal, I learn why someone thinks or believes the way they do, and if there's something in what they say that I can incorporate into my own beliefs, I take it inside of myself and incorporate it into my beliefs. 

I've said before that I believe in God, I believe in an afterlife, but I also believe in reincarnation which goes against everything a Christian is taught through church and the bible.   According to the church and the bible, we live our life, die, and we'll either go to heaven or hell.  While I still believe in this, I also think that at the very beginning of our life we were given a master plan that included many lessons we are to learn.  If we haven't learned all of those lessons, I believe we keep coming back until we have learned them.  Once we have, then our soul is free to move on to live with God.  I don't believe one lifetime is enough time to learn all of the lessons that are in the master plan. 

This really isn't the way I would prefer to go into great detail what I mean about a master plan.  It's too hard on the forum to fully explain.  What I believe incorporates both Christian and Buddhist teachings.  I'm not a practicing Buddhist, but many of their teachings appeal to my sense of spirituality.  In many ways I'd consider myself a Buddhist Christian, if such a thing could exist.  The Christian churches I've been in tell me it can't exist, that I must be one or the other.  I don't know what a practicing Buddhist would tell me, but I'd like to talk with one to find out. 

Don't worry Web, I know you weren't aiming your comments directly at me.   As I said, it's hard for me to sit down and put here on the forum exactly what I mean, and yeah, I can see how it would sound like I'm "cherry picking" parts of the bible, which wasn't my intention nor what I meant.  I'd love to have a sit down chat with you sometime about this very subject; non-confrontational, just sharing thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.    Oh, JR can join us too.

  Wow, with all these different things to discuss, we'll be gathered for a month at least!   But I'm up for it anytime.

-- Edited by ghostdancer at 21:35, 2009-01-08

You are absolutely right, Christians don't always agree.

I would disagree with your statement that "Denominations of Christianity are very different". In MOST cases, there are differences over certain details of "rules" and "thou shalt not's" but MOST CHRISTIAN denominations are on the same page when it comes to the big one which is personal salvation.

Yes, there are differences regarding thinks like skirts and hair, but I see those as details in how best to live your life on earth, but not deal breakers when it comes to one's eternity with God. I don't see those issues as being related to the big picture of God's plan. I see those things as details that for some, its all we have left to argue about.

I believe the Bible is literal, but yet it needs to be taken in context. I've seen many people pull verses out that fit what they want it to fit. Yes that is cherry-picking. Yes, even Christians do it. But, if you take that verse and apply it to the entire context of the passage in question, the verse can take on a different meaning.

For example, I know a guy who believes in the alien theory. He argued with me once that even the Bible talks about aliens. He pointed out that the word alien is in the Bible. Yes, the word "alien" is in the Bible, but when the word is taken in context it clearly refers to a person from another country, not outer space. Its context.

Yes, the pork thing comes from the old testament.

In old testament times, following God was about rules, sacrifices, offerings, and laws. Also during this time, prophets were telling of the coming Christ who would change how we relate to God. Yes, pork is one of those old testament laws.

When Christ came to earth, HE became the path by which we get to God. It was God's plan that Jesus would become the final sacrifice. He was sacrificed as a once and for all sin sacrifice. God allowed that to happen. Three days later Christ was raised from the dead. At that point, the path to God changed from rules and laws to faith that Christ was a big enough sacrifice to also cover my sins. Jesus then taught us that the Christian faith is about love, not rules and laws. When it seems that us Christians are all concerned about "toeing the line" its not about "rules" but out of respect for, and part of the following of the Christ we believe in.

Now, I'm no expert on the Jewish faith, but I think if you ask a Jew who Jesus was, you will get a different picture. My understanding of the Jewish faith is that it really is based a lot on the old testament laws and less on the saving faith in Christ. Why its that way, I don't know when the new testament is very clear about faith in Christ.

I don't know about the Jehovah Witness look transfusion thing. I've never heard that before so I don't know where that comes from. I would need to find out where they get that from and go read that passage for myself.

I don't think interpretation is cherry picking if you really and honestly interpret what you read that way. I think interpretation is more a matter of understanding or missing the point than it is purposely picking and choosing what sounds good.

For example . . . I have another friend who is Pentecostal. They believe heavily in the "signs". One of those signs is speaking in tongues. We have different beliefs regarding that.

The Bible says (I don't have it memorized but I'll use quotes just for the meaning) "the world will know you are a Christian by your signs: speaking in tongues, etc, etc". They think that means that we Christians are to speak in tongues as a sign of our Christianity. If you back up a few verses, you will see that Jesus was sending out the disciples to go preach and teach. He was talking to the disciples an addressing them directly. So, was Jesus just telling the disciples that they would have these signs so the people THEY were teaching would see their miracles and know they were legit, or does that passage mean that every Christian will speak in tongues?

In that passage, its clear to me that speaking in tongues was a miracle given to the disciples so they could go to places where many different languages were spoken and address all the people at once. The Bible says that the disciples spoke, and each person heard the message in their own native language. This is very different from what my Pentecostal friend does.

To me, that is interpretation. Which of us are "right"? We have to do our best to figure that out and decide for ourselves. The main point for me though is that my friend and I BOTH agree that the path to God is through saving faith in Christ . . . NOT speaking in tongues which means that is just a detail in the middle, but not something that makes a difference in the big picture of God's plan. That doesn't mean the Bible contradicts itself between our different denominations, it means that two of us understand what that part means differently.

That is what differences of interpretation mean to me.

I just had another thought on the dress issue that might help.

I don't believe (Edit: I mean that I know of) there is a verse in the Bible that says "thou women must wear a dress". But, I know the Bible does say that men are supposed to dress like men and women are supposed to dress like women.

So, given that, does interpret to mean that a woman should only wear a dress? It could, but I think it means just what it says. I think its perfectly ok for a woman to wear a pair of women's jeans or slacks in today's style. I think it means that we are not to purposely try to confuse the line between genders.

Not cherry picking, but interpretation of meaning.





-- Edited by WebGuy at 10:58, 2009-01-09

Thanks for the watchtower link. I will look at that.

MzHartz wrote:

---

Keep in mind when I'm asking these questions that the majority of what I know about Christianity is from my Mennonite background.  Although it was never directly addressed, in a way the differences were highlighted to me, and I never quite understood how something little could be so, well, damning. 

---

I don't know many specifics about Mennonite either so I don't know any details to which you are referring.

Maybe I'm different than most, but I don't see the little things like we've talked about as damning. I also don't see where the Bible teaches that.

I see non Christians getting hung up in the "rules" and the "performance" of being a Christian as an issue to Salvation. They are not. According to the Christian Bible, salvation (or lack of, ie damnation) is NOT based on being perfect, following the rules or making a mistake. It IS about faith in Christ that HE is the way to God. He became the "once and for all sacrifice" to cover our sins. You either have faith that is true, or not. If salvation is based on our performance or being a good person, we will all fail. We will never be able to live up to God's perfect standards. If we could somehow perform our way into heaven, then we wouldn't even need Christ. If we don't need Christ, then that is not the CHRISTian faith.

So, I don't think something so little is damning. I've never seen where the Bible tells us it is.

 

MzHartz wrote:

---

As a modern Christian, how much does the old testament mean to you?  Is it like a history lesson?

---

The old testament still has a lot of good stuff in it. For one, the old testament prophets predicted the coming of Christ hundreds of years before it happened. I look at that fulfilled prophecy as "proof" that it is real.

I guess for me, you could say yes, a history lesson, but deeper than that, I look at the incredible faith of some of the people from the old testament and can only hope to one day have a faith even close to what some of those people had.

Proverbs is FULL of great advice of how to live.

The Psalms are beautifully written poems and songs. I lot of today's Christian music is built around a phrase in one of the Psalms. The old testament is still very important.

The song of Soloman is a good example of the love between a husband and wife. Yes, even sexual love. Its ok for married Christians to enjoy each other sexually. Its in the Bible.

 

MzHartz wrote:

---

What's the difference between life guidance and sins?  As long as you follow the 10 commandments, you're okay?

---

The God of the Bible is perfect. Sin is something that goes against that perfect nature of that God. Sin is the ACT of doing "wrong". I assume by "life guidance" we're talking about guidance from God which we believe we get through the "Holy Spirit". Life guidance is the help we need to learn what sin is, how to avoid it, and what to do about it when it happens.

I need God's guidance to help me be ready to avoid sin or the temptation that leads to sin. It also gives me conviction when I fail, and do sin. It makes me aware of it (conviction), and it reminds me that I need to repent and thank God for the forgiveness He does offer me when I sin.

Following the 10 commandments is a good thing to do and it will help you avoid sin, but it will not protect you from damnation or provide you salvation. Salvation (after Christ) comes from Christ and a relationship with him as Lord.

Jesus said that if we are ashamed of, and don't know Him while we are here on earth, then He will be ashamed of, and not know us at the time we need salvation.

After Jesus' crucifixion, Salvation became not about "doing good", but about "knowing God" through Christ.

Doing good as a Christian is about rewards, and wanting to please God, not salvation. The Bible tells us that we will be rewarded in heaven according to what good we did here on earth. What exactly those rewards are, it doesn't say. Living a "good Christian life" is not about salvation, its about trying to please my God and trying to not disappoint him with more sin.

I have a free will to sin, and I know I'm already forgiven for when I do, but I also know it hurts God when I make bad, un-Christlike decisions so if I really care about my God, I will try to please him, not hurt him.

I should be trying to avoid sin because I'm saved, not as a path to salvation.

 

MzHartz wrote:

---

So, as long as you accept Jesus, really accept Jesus, you've got a Get Out Of Hell Free card? And sinning is kind of like karma in that, if you sin, God will make life harder for you, and if you're good, He'll make it easier?

Tell me if I'm track with this analogy: Dad says no smoking. If you smoke, he'll kick you out of the house. You know he really won't kick you out of the house, but you still don't smoke, because you're afraid he really will kick you out?

---

We used to have a Mennonite church here in town, but they didn't have enough people to keep it going (It was mainly two big families). They may still have church somewhere, I don't know, but they sold the building they were in. I know a couple people from there that started coming to our church after that and they didn't seem to have much problem with our statements of faith. They moved to another town shortly after so I never really got to know them. I do have the perception that the Mennonite church is quite strict in its do's and dont's but that's about it for me.

I guess, yes, you can say that real faith in Christ is your get out of hell card. Actually, the Bible says its the only get out of hell free card. When it comes to my faith, I prefer to think more of it as eternity with God (the positive side). Its not just a fear of hell that I want to avoid, its also the awesomeness of God that I want to experience.

No, sinning is not like Karma in that manner. God does not promise a life of ease and luxury if we don't sin. We are still subject to the world around us and ours and others free will while we are here. He does not promise to escape us from that. The Bible says that the rewards for our good works will be in heaven, not here on earth.

I'm not sure I'm following your analogy. I still get the feeling that you are equating sin, or lack of sin with salvation and that just isn't what God's Word tells us.

Yes, we know that we are secure in our salvation as long as we maintain that faith in Christ. The Bible tells me that the only thing I can do to lose my salvation is to denounce Christ. It also tells me that no one can take my salvation from me. That is why I am so confident and secure of my future.

So yes, I can make a choice to sin knowing that I'm still secure (not going to get kicked out). But I also know that I'm letting God down in my promise to follow his ways.

I would use this analogy for how its supposed to work:

Lets say that you love your father. I mean really deeply love your dad. You also know that your dad loves you more than anything else and he wants nothing but the best for you. In that, he tells you that he don't want you to smoke. You know deep down that if you smoke, your dad is not going to kick you out of the house and he's not going to disown you. Your friends say smoking is cool, and it looks cool, and you maybe want to give it a try, but yet, you chose to not do it because of that love and respect for your father and you know how much he will be hurt if you make that choice to directly go against what he stands for.

Also, along with that . . . even though smoking it looks cool, feels cool, seems fun and "right" your dad knew what is best for you all along.  Because he loves you, he wants you to avoid having to fight the addiction later and possibly killing yourself with cancer. He really did know more about what is best for you, than you did even if you are too proud to admit it.

Maybe dad has "rules" for a good reason. Might even be reasons we don't understand right now, but one day it will be clear.

 

The motive for me is eternity with God.

I do understand that for anyone who doesn't believe in God at the top level, all the rest of this is moot. I do get that, and I don't expect an atheist to take the Bible for any more than words on paper.

The thing I don't understand, is how someone can claim they believe in the God of the Bible, claim belief in the heaven and hell of the Bible, claim belief that the Bible is God's word, but yet still think they can somehow blaze a trail into heaven on their own terms. Again, I'm not pointing this an anyone in particular, I'm just saying that in my "black and white" mind and with my knowledge of the Bible, I don't see any indication that is possible.

MzHartz wrote:

---

I was going to copy and paste the relevant verses about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, but they cite a few different ones, and it would be more fair to include their explanation, so I thought it would be better if I linked to it.  http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm 

---

The main verse they cite is the one in Acts where it says to not eat the blood of strangled animals. As I searched a little, I found that satanists would commonly strangle animals during rituals in order to keep that blood in the animal to save it for drinking during rituals. The reference I found states that the reason for the denying of eating blood in Acts has more to do with the avoidance of the association with the other rituals.

Given that, I don't think that killing an animal and drinking its blood back then is an equal to today's medical transfusion to save a life.

I also found where the JW's have changed this stance a few times. That alone says to me that even they can't decide where they really stand on the issue themselves. God doesn't change. Now, (since 2004) they are allowing things like platelets and plasma transfusions, but not whole blood. They wouldn't even allow platelets and plasma before.

Also, looking at other statements of faith of the JW's they make claims about Jesus that are clearly false in regards to what the Bible says about Him. They even added some words to their Bible to make it say what they want it to say about Jesus. That alone is reason enough for me to not consider their beliefs or intrepretations of scripture.