sylvan3

I understand your point, but the concept of what is "correct" is relative to each person. The same scripture verse can mean two different things to two different people. I see this as an unsolvable problem, because the actual truth could never be known until Judgment Day. Speaking of Judgment Day, what happens to people who incorrectly interpret the Bible?

My apologies. I was addressing the first of the two questions, not the second. As to your question: Among other places in the Bible, the answer is here: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. In fact, I would encourage you to read the entire Book of Romans for a clearer, more defined answer, but there it is. And I don't mean a simple glance at the Book, I mean that you should sit down, relax, and spend some time actually digesting what it says. Once you do, spend some more time thinking on the matter. Don't just give it a glance and simply use it to pick apart what I am saying. Actually spend some time reading it, and thinking on the matter at hand. You may be pleasantly surprised at what you come up with. Peace, t. I appreciate your response, but my question at this point is: Is there only one interpretation of the Bible? If yes, then who determines what that interpretation is? For example, there are many who are not intellectually capable of understanding the Bible. Since people have varying IQs, there would have to be a cutoff point at which it would be impossible for "correct" interpretation. (It is worth mentioning that people are for the most part born with their IQs. These IQs may or may not be because of parental neglect or other observable reasons.) If the answer to the above is that people just need to accept Jesus, I would say that the Westboro Baptist Church people believe they have accepted Jesus.

Great point, and even better questions! Why do so many interpret the Bible differently? Well, my stripped down answer would be this: Basically, mankind as a whole, is pretty stupid. We create wars, we fight, we sin, we are selfish, we steal, we murder, we set up governments and abuse the power that we hold. When any form of opposition strikes, we twist truth to make it appear as an illusion to conform it to what our desires may be. We lie, we cheat, we hardly ever want to admit when we are wrong, we don't like to own up to our mistakes, we don't like to admit when we do something wrong, especially when we are caught doing wrong on purpose. We take and rarely give back in kind, and we desire to hold others as slaves to achieve our goals. We climb over the blood of our fellow humans and somehow find righteousness in our actions. We keep the poor, poor. We take little real action to change our ways, and we invent excuses to cover our tracks when we are running from any form of judgment. Is it any wonder that something like mankind would twist something so simple as the Gospel and make it appear to agree with what our desires are? The Bible has shown us time and again, over and over, how mankind will rebel against God's simple instructions, and yet, God found it within Himself to still provide a way for the atonement of our sins. Even as we continue to twist His simple message to us, He still provides this way out through Jesus Christ. Even secular history books reveal to us that mankind has fought countless wars over usually nothing of much real significance. Even books which have nothing to do with religion spell out the idiocy of the history of mankind. It is this basic idiocy that drives people to continue the attempt of covering their own tracks so that even God's Word appears to match up their desire. But the love of God, this love which He so desires us to take part in, provided the path to Him. This love will be the one thing that He bases all eternity on, and it's within our grasp. Sadly, more often than not, we still think there's a way around it, and that's one big reason why some will attempt to justify their actions via the weak and futile attempt of marrying their sin to the Word of God. This is to their shame, because they cannot grasp this one simple fact: God cannot coexist with sin. It's simply not possible. Ultimately, they will fail. Those without the cover of the Blood of Christ will be exposed one day to stand trial, and there will be no appeal. The chance to make your case is now. State your case. I'm not sure that you answer the question of how one is to accurately interpret the Bible. You state that "mankind as a whole is pretty stupid". Who determines what beliefs are stupid? God? On Judgment Day? If that is the case, there will be some rather surprised people that day who have assumed they interpreted the Bible correctly. For example, the members of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) would think that someone who doesn't believe the way they do has stupid beliefs. They cite Biblical passages to support their postion. Therefore, it would only be on Judgment Day that they will find out if they are correct and the others are wrong. Conversely, if someone doesn't believe as those from WBC (i.e. people who think WBC beliefs are stupid, and who will cite Biblical passages to support their positions), it will only be on Judgment Day that they will find out whether they are right or not. Ergo, what is the absolute truth that we are to know prior to a Judgment Day?

If what you are saying is true, why do so many interpret the Bible so differently? How does one know what the "true" interpretation is? The people from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas believe they have the correct interpretation. Their interpretaion allows them to protest at funerals of American servicemen. They claim that America is being punished for tolerating homosexuality (those who doubt the validity of what I am saying can Google and go to their website). Yet, they have "accepted the gift" to which you refer, as evidenced by their citations of Biblical verses in order to justify their actions.

Imagine yourself at a social event. You start talking to a person about religion. That person says, "I am a Christian. I believe in the infallibility of the Bible." You then talk with another person who states, "I am an atheist. I do not believe in any God, and I certainly don't believe in the Bible." In which of the two above scenarios is the person most likely telling the truth? It would have to be the professed atheist. It is extraordinarily unlikely that a person who truly believes in the Bible would lie about being an atheist. Thus, the professed atheist is more honest, at least on issues regarding his or her religious beliefs. However, some professed "believers" might be lying about this for lots of reasons. Possibly, they are ministers, politicians, or business people who would have a very good reason to claim to believe. Thus, many so-called believers do not have a commitment to truth on this issue. Obviously, not all believers are deceitful about their beliefs. However, if someone claims to be an atheist, you can be most-likely assured that they are telling the truth. This is not so with many professed believers.

I don't see the Ted Haggard thread anymore. It was titled, "Haggard". Wouldn't this be legitimate discussion material? He has admitted to indiscretions and lying while being in an extraordinarily prominent evangelical position.

I like this--thanks, secondeve.

Billy Graham was recently quoted in a Newsweek article saying the following: When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham's view, only God knows who is going to be saved: "As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible's Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven," says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. "However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart." Do you agree with this? I would think that many here on Worthyboards would disagree with the part about who will be in heaven. I have seen many posts in which people are quite confident in saying who will be in heaven or hell.

I agree with you, Secondeve.

I've yet to find actual evidence that does contradict the Bible. The Bible, in the Genesis story, does not have to read in a literal fashion. In fact, if you read it, it reads in a more poetic fashion than it does in a literal one, therefore it makes no sense to make it literal. Once we do not do that, there are no contradictions between real scientific evidence and the Bible. This seems to me to be having it both ways. You get to throw out anything in the Bible that conflicts with science and claim that part isn't to be taken literally. Anything else that you don't think conflicts with science is then to be taken literally. Then you get to say that the Bible is the word of God and has no contradictions with science.

Whoa nelly! Did you actually read what I wrote? I said nothing about free will. What I said was; man cannot heal anybody any more than a farmer can make a seed grow. If you are sick, see a doctor, take your treatments--whatever they may be--and pray for the Lord's will. The doctor doesn't heal you, the Lord does that through the doctor or the medication or whatever. We are human beings, we live in fallen world and are liable to sickness, disease, the breakdown of the body, etc. I do believe, while G-d may not actually send a plague or whatever, He does allow these things to come into our lives for a purpose. For the record: I never said that you mentioned free will. I only asked about free will as it related to what you were saying. As for whether or not God sends plagues, consider the following: Exodus 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. You may say that the plague being sent is for a purpose. I am asking if combating plagues--an natural human response to disease--might not be combating God's purpose (if one subscribes to Biblical beliefs) as mentioned in Exodus 9:14. This is a relevant question because the person who developed the smallpox vaccine faced resistance, at the time, from certain elements of Christianity. Also, if a doctor doesn't heal you, as you believe, does his or her decision-making have an effect on how much healing, if any, takes place?

What happens if science shows that the Bible does not accurately portray the world in some scientific way? Does a Christian then operate under the principle that the Bible cannot be wrong? Would this then result in evidence being shaped to fit the philosophy as opposed to the philosophy being shaped to fit the evidence?

The question here--how one's works reflect if he or she is filled with the spirit-- is a very good one. Christianity's view as to what constitutes a sin is key. According to the Bible, all sins are of equal value. This would then mean that even the most seemingly minor sin would reflect not being filled with the spirit. For example, most people would associate BTK with not being spirit-filled--despite his many "good works" with his church. However, what about that person who "lusts" once every couple of years? What about the person who calls in sick to work without being sick? What about the person who fails to report something on income tax? If all sins are equal, then that person is not much better off than BTK according to Christian criteria. So, who is spirit-filled? I don't see how it can be accurately answered since, minimally, "minor" sins (which are actually major according to Christian criteria) are being committed.

I don't think that comparing sexual orientation to drug addiction is valid. Drug addiction has effects that are most definitely physically and sociologically detrimental. The argument that says this is the case regarding sexual orientation is shaky at best. For example, one might argue that homosexual men run the risk of AIDS, but that won't hold true about gay women. Also, there would definitely be examples where homosexual couples have comported themselves in acceptable ways (i.e. have remained with one partner, contributed to society in a positive way). i wasn't comparing homosexuality to anything. you missed my entire point, which is that homosexuals are in bondage to their sinful nature. that being said, homosexuality can indeed be detrimental in all those ways, and aids is not the only physical risk. ALL sexual behaviour outside of God's plan is leaving the person wide open for all sorts of emotional, physical, and more imoprtantly eternal misery. I did not miss your point. However, you mentioned addiction, saying that it "takes over their life" and, "they are in bondage". You then state that homosexuals are "in bondage." If that is not a comparison to addiction, why even mention it? As for your point, I don't believe that homosexuals are more in bondage to their sexual desires, which you claim are sinful because they are outside God's "plan", than heterosexuals are to their sexual desires, which might be within God's "plan". It seems to me that many who have followed what they thought was God's plan regarding sexual behavior ended up in divorce, or worse in some cases.

With all due respect to those from your church, the studies I have seen show a significant lack in ability to change sexual preference. Being able to change the orientation is a big loser from what I have seen. If anyone finds something to the contrary, I will be happy to look at it.

I don't think that comparing sexual orientation to drug addiction is valid. Drug addiction has effects that are most definitely physically and sociologically detrimental. The argument that says this is the case regarding sexual orientation is shaky at best. For example, one might argue that homosexual men run the risk of AIDS, but that won't hold true about gay women. Also, there would definitely be examples where homosexual couples have comported themselves in acceptable ways (i.e. have remained with one partner, contributed to society in a positive way).

I know of no person alive that chose his or her sexual preference. If anyone differs with that, I would like to know at what point their orientation decision was made. I think it is myopic to believe that someone who is gay might not desire to "know God, serve God", and live eternally with God". Let's make sure we're all on the same page. What's the difference between "preference" and "orientation"? Are the terms interchangeable, or are they different? What about "being gay"? Are we talking "preference here, or active participation in the lifestyle? I think orientation and preference are very similar, but it also depends on how you define "active participation". Active participation to me wouldn't necessarily mean that someone has a partner and is cavorting about in public or in private. They may be single--as are many straight people--who are "active" in a solitary way, if you get my drift. Whereas this might not be a problem in a sociological way (private thoughts and behaviors), it would seem to be problematic in a theological way (private thoughts have been condemned theologically--see Jesus's statement about lusting in the heart).

I know of no person alive that chose his or her sexual preference. If anyone differs with that, I would like to know at what point their orientation decision was made. I think it is myopic to believe that someone who is gay might not desire to "know God, serve God", and live eternally with God".

homosexuality is a sin, one that God abhors, and one that He says will cause eternal separation from His kingdom. Which commandment does homosexuality break? Why would it matter anyway? Supposedly, if someone believes in Christ, they are saved. I have heard from Charles Stanley that all sins, past, present, and future are forgiven once someone accepts Christ. Is Charles Stanley wrong? The point is that homosexuality, if one believes it is a sin, is no different than any other sin that man commits. Therefore, if one is a believer and also a homosexual it shouldn't be a problem according to that philosophy.

I can't imagine that question being relevant. I can assure you that one need not be gay to defend the concept that sexual orientation is an inborn thing.

So, in other words, God controls all healing? What happened to free will as it might relate to healing? If one buys this philosophy, why couldn't going to a doctor, using free will, possibly be thwarting God's will? (A doctor would also be using free will in treating the patient). Maybe he wants us to have epidemics. The Bible talks about him sending epidemics. Just because we have cures for things wouldn't necessarily mean that God wants us to have cures if gaining those cures were a result of free will (of course, the line is that God wants us to have free will--that's why he allows people to choose other religions).

How about not putting someone into existence that he knew would cause him the type of angst that would result in such draconian action being necessary? Of my many questions, the one that I don't feel has been answered well at all is the one about how an omniscient God could get angry at his creations if he knew ahead of time that they were going to get him "mad". (Besides, why would innocent "sucklings" and "men of gray hair" make him mad?). Feel free to give it a shot. Clearly, your concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God differs from mine. He KNEW they were going to sin...If that concept works for you, great. It doesn't work for me. I think your view shows anthropomorphism of God--he is like one of us. We have to resort to punishment in order to control other human beings, and, apparently, so does he.

You previously stated, "You'll be hard pressed to find many people even on this board who honestly "believe" God can heal someone. God doesn't respond to lack of faith". (see post #100 for this interaction) I am interpreting this to mean that you believe that God alone (i.e. not through a physician) can heal someone if the person has enough faith. However, most people, according to you, don't have this faith--and, you say, "God doesn't respond to a lack of faith." Therefore, it is reasonable for me to interpret your statement as meaning that someone who seeks medical treatment (i.e. thus not relying on God alone) through a physician (who can, in fact, promote healing through treatments based on research) is not showing "faith". That is clearly a complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. You are jumping to conclusion I clearly did not say. All I was saying is God heals based on faith. I was not implying that the medical profession doesn't treat and even cure some illnesses, as would be obvious to anyone with a brain. Nor did I say going to a doctor was evidence of lack of faith. All I said was that most christians don't have the faith they think they have, as I even gave an example of what I was talking about with Peter... Bye bye strawman #1. Sorry, but there is no strawman here. I was interpreting based on what you said previously. If that wasn't your intended meaning, fine. However, I was only going on what I was reading. Your statement, "You'll be hard pressed to find many people even on this board who honestly "believe" God can heal someone. God doesn't respond to lack of faith", could easily be construed as I construed it. There was no willful attempt on my part to distort things. Actually, it is good that you cleared this up, because there might be a number of people on the boards here that would disagree with your original statement.

Not at all. Where did you get that idea? The woman Jesus healed with the issue of blood had "spent all her living on physicians". And Luke was a physician. You previously stated, "You'll be hard pressed to find many people even on this board who honestly "believe" God can heal someone. God doesn't respond to lack of faith". (see post #100 for this interaction) I am interpreting this to mean that you believe that God alone (i.e. not through a physician) can heal someone if the person has enough faith. However, most people, according to you, don't have this faith--and, you say, "God doesn't respond to a lack of faith." Therefore, it is reasonable for me to interpret your statement as meaning that someone who seeks medical treatment (i.e. thus not relying on God alone) through a physician (who can, in fact, promote healing through treatments based on research) is not showing "faith". OK, but you are telling me that someone had their leg lengthened by God. Wouldn't this person also have been "evil" according to the above definition? Therefore, why would people who had their legs amputated, for reasons other than their own incompetence, not be eligible for a limb restoration through prayer? Are you saying that people have had limbs restored through prayer? Where is your evidence for this? How could I be spouting "nonsense" when all I am asking is for evidence of certain claims? If you are not saying that people have had limbs restored, I am asking why, then, would God choose to lengthen a leg--as you say you have seen--but not restore limbs? I don't know about what you are saying here. Those two words are very similar. In fact, in Merriam-Webster, the term "raffle ticket" is actually used in one of the definitions of chance, and the definition of "coincidence" is "the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection". I can't see the big distinction that you are making. When does/did God say this?