How do you know what you believe?

[Teannika]

Wait....so you believe that people actually lived for hundreds of years?

 

(Eek, yes I do... )

 

The ages of lifespans are recorded in the Old Testament, and they gradually decrease in length. Adam lived for 930 years.

 

 

(And that just reminded me of yet another "coinkydink" in regards to my chapter numbering and significance. Since you will already think I'm coo-coo I may as well share it. The 930th chapter of the Bible is the first chapter of the New Testament. The 'last Adam' was made in the first chapter of the Old Testament. 'The last Adam', who Christians know as Jesus, is also revealed through his genealogy in Chapter 1 of the New Testament. So the 930 just happens to connect both "Adams.")

[HRAAB]

(Eek, yes I do... )

 

The ages of lifespans are recorded in the Old Testament, and they gradually decrease in length. Adam lived for 930 years.

 

 

(And that just reminded me of yet another "coinkydink" in regards to my chapter numbering and significance. Since you will already think I'm coo-coo I may as well share it. The 930th chapter of the Bible is the first chapter of the New Testament. The 'last Adam' was made in the first chapter of the Old Testament. 'The last Adam', who Christians know as Jesus, is also revealed through his genealogy in Chapter 1 of the New Testament. So the 930 just happens to connect both "Adams.")

 

This would have offended me when I was a believing Christian - intimating that God plays around with numbers like some magical spell to leave little clues of us humans.  It reminds me of my grandmother's friend who read tea leaves.  This is partly what I meant when I said trying to 'prove' faith cheapens it.  Faith should be reasonable, but in the end it is still faith.  Faith in the mystery.  Love the mystery, revel in the mystery, accept the mystery with the faith that all will be made clear at death.  Reducing something as treasured, dear, holy, infinite as God's word to matching up numbers is, I don't know.. belittling... 

 

That is how I would have felt when I was a Christian.  I'm not offended by your words now, but they would have bothered me at one time.  I know you're trying to explain 'how you know what you believe' which is the title of this thread.  I have a question.  What if the numbers didn't match up, no matter how you tried manipulating them, if there weren't coincidences.  Would you still believe?  Would your faith make up for the lack of coincidences?  

[AlmiraGulch]

Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of scripture and a belief in a young earth do.  The question is if Orthodox Jews have the same belief.  

 

 

(Eek, yes I do... )

 

The ages of lifespans are recorded in the Old Testament, and they gradually decrease in length. Adam lived for 930 years.

 

 

(And that just reminded me of yet another "coinkydink" in regards to my chapter numbering and significance. Since you will already think I'm coo-coo I may as well share it. The 930th chapter of the Bible is the first chapter of the New Testament. The 'last Adam' was made in the first chapter of the Old Testament. 'The last Adam', who Christians know as Jesus, is also revealed through his genealogy in Chapter 1 of the New Testament. So the 930 just happens to connect both "Adams.")

 

This is fascinating.  I honestly had no idea that people actually believed that. Huh. Who knew?

 

 

I swear I have learned ore on these boards than any other single source anywhere.

[fraidycat]

 

I swear I have learned ore on these boards than any other single source anywhere.

I agree. Except, I see these boards less as a single source and more as a library of living breathing vast storehouses of knowledge. The intellect of most participants on these boards never ceases to amaze me! And the odd anti-intellectual never ceases to amuse me. So I'm grateful for both! :)

[Teannika]

This would have offended me when I was a believing Christian - intimating that God plays around with numbers like some magical spell to leave little clues of us humans. It reminds me of my grandmother's friend who read tea leaves. This is partly what I meant when I said trying to 'prove' faith cheapens it. Faith should be reasonable, but in the end it is still faith. Faith in the mystery. Love the mystery, revel in the mystery, accept the mystery with the faith that all will be made clear at death. Reducing something as treasured, dear, holy, infinite as God's word to matching up numbers is, I don't know.. belittling...

 

That is how I would have felt when I was a Christian. I'm not offended by your words now, but they would have bothered me at one time. I know you're trying to explain 'how you know what you believe' which is the title of this thread. I have a question. What if the numbers didn't match up, no matter how you tried manipulating them, if there weren't coincidences. Would you still believe? Would your faith make up for the lack of coincidences?

Many Christians believe in Bible numerics, and there is common understanding on what specific numbers represent. Please also keep in mind that no one person is messing around with the numbers, these things have shown up over time. They are revealed by God in his timeframe.

It's not circular reasoning in that no one has sought to find out a pattern first, then found it out or put it in there. (Although there are those who try to manipulate such things. I'm not saying that there aren't people doing that. One must be very careful in their own study.)

 

My faith comes first above bible numerics, yes.

 

 

A scriptural example of God wanting us to understand the significance could be this verse here:

 

'Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.' (Revelation 13:18)

 

(Interesting aside, even the verse number here is 18, who's factor is 3 lots of 6 = 6 + 6 + 6. And 13 symbolises rebellion of man.)

[Susan C.]

Mommiemilkies said:  " It was more of a Reform "Hippie Peace Freak" Judaism now that I look back on it.   :lol:  There was no strict dogma-it was all questioning and study.  

 

I experimented with various religious beliefs to find "something" until I moved to NC and attempted to convert to Conservative Judaism.  It had taken me by surprise that I wasn't "really" Jewish despite being raised that way.  The conversion process didn't feel right, though.  It was too...strict for what I feel calls to me. ....  I still consider myself Jewish in some ways, even though many would argue with me because of my genetics or current non-practice, but I'm happy here."

 

 

***My response, sorry I don't know what I did to mess this up!!

 

Have you seen this? Is this closer to what you want?

 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-liberal-rabbiresponse

[Guest]

The number patterns only prove to me that we humans enjoy patterns. My fourth-born child was born on December 4th, 2004 at 4:44pm. Admittedly, I think it's a neat pattern. But, does it mean that the number 4 has some special significance for him? I don't think so. Four has meaning in some cultures. In feng shui, it is a negative number and means "death". Gosh, I hope that doesn't mean something about him that relates to death. Still, I could turn it around and say why wasn't he born in April, which would give him another four? Why not after four hours of labor, in a hospital 44 miles from my home, delivered by a doctor, whose name was "Dr. Quatorze"? Who was also the fourth son in his family? See what I mean? Look for patterns; find patterns.

 

My other kids have number patterns in their birth dates, too. My birthday is 4/8 and my dh's is 4/2. Our first child was born 4/16. Fascinating! 8 * 2 = 16! Also 4 * 4 = 16. Wow! So mathematically perfect! No wonder she's such a splendid child! ;)

 

These stories are true. I'm telling them to illustrate that interesting patterns are just...interesting patterns, in my view.

[albeto.]

Are you saying that Christians are responsible for killing Jews?

History records Christians killing, violently attacking, exiling, and attempting to force conversion of the Jews for centuries upon centuries, especially in Europe. Formal oppression of Jews, economically, politically, socially, educationally, and other ways I'm probably ignorant of, were protected through public policy and allowed in private behavior for centuries upon centuries. These very public policies understood to reflect God's will as evidenced by the fact that they were sanctioned by the church and the state (the "diving right of kings" and all that). This is something that is readily available in the historic record, if you're interested in learning more.

 

I'll have a look at the clips when I'm on the computer next.

 

To further explain about my Christian belief - it is that a Jew can be saved in this present time. When we are talking about Israel being put on hold, it is a national thing, not an individual salvation thing. We are waiting for them to have their Messiah sit on the throne and reign for a thousand years, so we share the Orthodox Jewish belief. (They will essentially be superior to all the nations in that sense, so you could actually jump on the Jewish belief as well as mine for that. Only mine is biased against my nationality, rather than towards.)

The claims made in the Jewish faith are based on no more fact than your own. There's no more evidence to support the idea that the blood draining from a live chicken can somehow redeem the sins of the Jews any more than the blood drained from a god-man hanging on a cross can do it. First of all, there's nothing in the property of blood that confirms this idea. Secondly, the concept of "sin" is poorly understood, not universally identified or defined. There's no way to confirm or falsify such a concept. So yes, I would have no problem challenging the claims of the Jewish beliefs, and I would if it were pertinent to this discussion, but there's no need to impose unrelated ideas into a discussion like this. 

 

 The difference here is in the interpretation of the Jewish texts. The interpretations you're supporting here are, arguably, illogical and theologically sloppy. There's a glaring lack of support from the very foundation from which supposedly have originated. They're haphazard attempts to fit a new religion onto an existing religion, and they don't persuade anyone outside that new religion. That's why I mentioned the Mormons; their theology usurps bits and pieces of conventional Christianity (to the Christian point of view), and weaves a novel idea that is otherwise unheard of in the ancient Christian texts (like the plural godhood, with some exceptions I can't recall offhand but I'm sure someone reading this is nodding her head and could answer if requested). That doesn't mean either of the religious claims themselves are correct, but it does mean that one argument is more reasonable than the other, using the tools of logic and rational thought, which is really what humans excel at.

 

As you already understand, I believe what I believe not because I have any hatred towards the Jews, but because I am being consistent in what I believe, which is every word of the Bible. I can't just pick or choose or I may as well just chuck the whole thing away.

 

I believe you, only you do pick and choose. Please understand, I'm not blaming you. Every Christian has to do this because the bible supports diametrically opposing theologies and you can't have it all. You just happen to be a minority voice in this community, a voice that picks and chooses different verses from most of the posters here (or the ones interested in speaking up). But as far as believing every word of the bible, I would submit many Christians who interpret the bible differently from you believe the same exact thing. The problem is, you believe the words mean different things. And therein lies one of the OP's epiphanies - there is no objective way of knowing what the bible means when it says what it says. So she asked. And the answer is predictably, You can't, you can only believe it anyway. 

 

I can also share the perspective that Paul has, which I obviously have also. And it is clearly not a hate for the Jewish people, but a love for them -

 

Romans 11. (Apologies that I can't highlight to place emphasis on the pro-Israel speech here)...

Yep. And he also accused them of killing your lord and their own prophets, and persecuting Christians, not allowing them to spread the gospel. He said they do not please God and are "contrary to all men." That seems to me like first century speak for "despicable," but I'm sure other words could be substituted (l Thessalonians 2.14-16). That's not to say I am right and you are wrong, or that you are right and I am wrong. That's to say anti semitism can be traced back to the Christian texts, including the bible, and the some of the earliest Christian leaders. It's part of the history of Christendom. 

Origen: “Their rejection of Jesus has resulted in their present calamity and exile. We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the saviour.â€

 

St. Gregory: “Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.â€

 

St. Jerome: “....serpents, haters of all men, their image is Judas ... their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys..â€

 

St. John Chrysostom: “I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time... This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots ... A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse. What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals ... not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal ... When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “ask for my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me’ (Luke 19.27).â€

 

St. Augustine: “Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.â€

 

St. Thomas Aquinas: “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.â€

 

These are just a few examples I quickly found when searching for things like anti semitism in the bible, early Christian leaders, history, etc. These guys got their support from the Christian canonized texts, the New Testament. They offered themselves as followers of the holy spirit, anointed leaders of the Christian faith.  You can find more examples if you're interested in the scope of this attitude, as well as the events these attitudes inspired and rationalized. Perhaps this can explain why you don't understand the how your argument can be seen as anti semitic, and others can't see it any other way - you're offering these same arguments, cleaned up for a 21st century audience (including you). But, the argument goes, a polished stone is still just a stone, or something like that. 

[Teannika]

History records Christians killing, violently attacking, exiling, and attempting to force conversion of the Jews for centuries upon centuries, especially in Europe. Formal oppression of Jews, economically, politically, socially, educationally, and other ways I'm probably ignorant of, were protected through public policy and allowed in private behavior for centuries upon centuries. These very public policies understood to reflect God's will as evidenced by the fact that they were sanctioned by the church and the state (the "diving right of kings" and all that). This is something that is readily available in the historic record, if you're interested in learning more.

 

(I will only be able to reply to each small part at a time as I can find time, and if I think I should reply.)

 

Can you please clarify on your own understanding you say "Christian" here do you mean Catholic and/or other organised Christian religions?

 

From my perspective, this is where I'm put into position of the "I'm in a damned if I do, damned if I don't". If I say that I am a born again Christian, not a part of any church denomination/organised religion, then I am accused of being hateful towards my fellow Christians. If I am convicted that the other parts of Christendom are not the parts that I belong to and believe in, then I am freed from being associated with this type of non-Christian behaviour.

 

The category that I fit into is of bible believing Christians who existed from the time of Christ and were persecuted also, and pressured to convert to a specific organised religion. The early NT times were very dark times, and politically motivated. Not every born again Christian came to be a Catholic (unless you disagree or can prove otherwise.)

[Teannika]

"I believe you, only you do pick and choose. Please understand, I'm not blaming you. Every Christian has to do this because the bible supports diametrically opposing theologies and you can't have it all. You just happen to be a minority voice in this community, a voice that picks and chooses different verses from most of the posters here (or the ones interested in speaking up). But as far as believing every word of the bible, I would submit many Christians who interpret the bible differently from you believe the same exact thing. The problem is, you believe the words mean different things. And therein lies one of the OP's epiphanies - there is no objective way of knowing what the bible means when it says what it says. So she asked. And the answer is predictably, You can't, you can only believe it anyway."

 

 

I am coming from a traditional dispensational understanding. We believe that there aren't contradictions in the bible, that each piece fits where it should. I'm happy to leave it at that. I understand the differences in biblical interpretation, and also recognise that this is the root of confusion in the church and the ever-increasing differences and splits. Many Christian spiritualise a lot of it away, whereas I take literally what I can take literally.

[albeto.]

(I will only be able to reply to each small part at a time as I can find time, and if I think I should reply.)

I understand.

 

Can you please clarify on your own understanding you say "Christian" here do you mean Catholic and/or other organised Christian religions?

Historical Christian. Looking at the timeline of events, the time and region will help identify which sect of Christians were involved.

 

From my perspective, this is where I'm put into position of the "I'm in a damned if I do, damned if I don't". If I say that I am a born again Christian, not a part of any church denomination/organised religion, then I am accused of being hateful towards my fellow Christians. If I am convicted that the other parts of Christendom are not the parts that I belong to and believe in, then I am freed from being associated with this type of non-Christian behaviour.

 

The category that I fit into is of bible believing Christians who existed from the time of Christ and were persecuted also, and pressured to convert to a specific organised religion. The early NT times were very dark times, and politically motivated. Not every born again Christian came to be a Catholic (unless you disagree or can prove otherwise.)

 

Well, to be clear, I don't think you're damned either way. ;-) For what it's worth, I don't interpret your words as revealing that you hate Jews, but that the theology to which you subscribe identifies Jews as being villains for religious reasons.

[albeto.]

I am coming from a traditional dispensational understanding. We believe that there aren't contradictions in the bible, that each piece fits where it should. I'm happy to leave it at that. I understand the differences in biblical interpretation, and also recognise that this is the root of confusion in the church and the ever-increasing differences and splits. Many Christian spiritualise a lot of it away, whereas I take literally what I can take literally.

 

I understand these are your beliefs. I think we all do. Nevertheless, these beliefs are irrelevant. When the question arises about Jewish texts, your beliefs don't affect the facts. 

[Teannika]

I understand.

 

 

Historical Christian. Looking at the timeline of events, the time and region will help identify which sect of Christians were involved.

 

 

Well, to be clear, I don't think you're damned either way. ;-) For what it's worth, I don't interpret your words as revealing that you hate Jews, but that the theology to which you subscribe identifies Jews as being villains for religious reasons.

Yeah, I don't take responsibility for killing the Jews. Just as an athiest today wouldn't take responsibility for any killing of Christians or Jews in past persecutions.

 

I think the way that you are putting it is the correct way, saying that it's the theology. However, from my perspective it is a twisted view of that theology. A "result" of twisted theology. I don't see any instruction in the bible to kill the Jewish race or to hate them as a people. I don't even see it as saying Christians have replaced the Jews or have taken any blessing from away from them.

 

But that's just me and what I think :-)

[Teannika]

Albeto, when you said this as your proof that Paul was blaming the Jews and the Jews persecuting Christians, do you believe that there was no such thing happening?

"Yep. And he also accused them of killing your lord and their own prophets, and persecuting Christians, not allowing them to spread the gospel. He said they do not please God and are "contrary to all men." That seems to me like first century speak for "despicable," but I'm sure other words could be substituted (l Thessalonians 2.14-16). That's not to say I am right and you are wrong, or that you are right and I am wrong. That's to say anti semitism can be traced back to the Christian texts, including the bible, and the some of the earliest Christian leaders. It's part of the history of Christendom."

I had read this link which talked of persecutions by Jews of Christians - the earliest mentioned, and the one I was interested in, was in 132. So maybe Paul was just speaking the truth about that.
 

[LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

Edited May 2, 2014 by Moderator
We prefer not to be linked to that site...

[albeto.]

Yeah, I don't take responsibility for killing the Jews. Just as an athiest today wouldn't take responsibility for any killing of Christians or Jews in past persecutions.

 

I think the way that you are putting it is the correct way, saying that it's the theology. However, from my perspective it is a twisted view of that theology. A "result" of twisted theology. I don't see any instruction in the bible to kill the Jewish race or to hate them as a people. I don't even see it as saying Christians have replaced the Jews or have taken any blessing from away from them.

 

But that's just me and what I think :-)

 

I don't think you quite understand. The theology that identifies the Jews as being "on pause," or however you put it earlier, or spiritually blind to the messianic nature of Jesus (willfully or not), is the same theology that identifies them as being punished for deicide. This theology has been two sides of the same theological coin for nearly two millenia. If you present one side of the coin ("on pause"), everyone else is going to recognize the other (spiritual villains), even if you don't. 

[albeto.]

Albeto, when you said this as your proof that Paul was blaming the Jews and the Jews persecuting Christians, do you believe that there was no such thing happening?

 

"Yep. And he also accused them of killing your lord and their own prophets, and persecuting Christians, not allowing them to spread the gospel. He said they do not please God and are "contrary to all men." That seems to me like first century speak for "despicable," but I'm sure other words could be substituted (l Thessalonians 2.14-16). That's not to say I am right and you are wrong, or that you are right and I am wrong. That's to say anti semitism can be traced back to the Christian texts, including the bible, and the some of the earliest Christian leaders. It's part of the history of Christendom."

 

I had read this link which talked of persecutions by Jews of Christians - the earliest mentioned, and the one I was interested in, was in 132. So maybe Paul was just speaking the truth about that.

 

[LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

 

To answer your question, no I did not believe "there was no such thing happening." I am very much aware that Jews have been aggressors as well as victims.  I'm not sure of the relevance of this post, though. Is there a bigger point this is working towards? 

 

I am curious as to how you came to choose this source to point out the many (sixteen) times Jews have persecuted Christians over the centuries. Are you familiar with their point of view? Take a look at their page on Jews and perhaps you'll see how this ironic turn of play in which you find (choose? stumble upon?) and cite a " "pro-European" electronic encyclopedia to illustrate persecution of the Christians in an attempt to explain how neither you nor your theology are anti semitic at all, caught my attention. 

Edited May 2, 2014 by Moderator

[Teannika]

I don't think you quite understand. The theology that identifies the Jews as being "on pause," or however you put it earlier, or spiritually blind to the messianic nature of Jesus (willfully or not), is the same theology that identifies them as being punished for deicide. This theology has been two sides of the same theological coin for nearly two millenia. If you present one side of the coin ("on pause"), everyone else is going to recognize the other (spiritual villains), even if you don't.

Gotcha now. So if this teaching believes that God is chastising this nation, then that is directly causing people (Christians) to either not care an inch about them suffering, causing them directly to suffer, allowing them to suffer and so on.

 

I haven't ever thought this way myself. And I can't think of any Christians who I know personally ever speak that way. I know Christians who pray for the peace of Israel to hurry up and come already, and I know that there are Christian groups who even send money to Israel (I think to help build their temple.)

 

It is a very sad situation with Israel. In Old Testament times before the Christian church existed, they also suffered a lot then also. This isn't a subjective thing. Their own scriptures record this. (It is out of a Christian's control.) Which is why Paul said that they killed their prophets - he was just referencing the Jewish Scriptures which he knew back to front, inside out.

 

If there is any balanced view, the bible says that other nations are also punished, chastised, and judged. Naming them and what will happen. The bible talks about the end of the period of the Gentiles when they will be then subject to the nation of Israel.

[Teannika]

To answer your question, no I did not believe "there was no such thing happening." I am very much aware that Jews have been aggressors as well as victims. I'm not sure of the relevance of this post, though. Is there a bigger point this is working towards?

 

I am curious as to how you came to choose this source to point out the many (sixteen) times Jews have persecuted Christians over the centuries. Are you familiar with their point of view? Take a look at their page on Jews and perhaps you'll see how this ironic turn of play in which you find (choose? stumble upon?) and cite a " "pro-European" electronic encyclopedia to illustrate persecution of the Christians in an attempt to explain how neither you nor your theology are anti semitic at all, caught my attention.

It was the opposite of what I was looking for. But it used the same keywords which was accepted in a different order than I put it. I was looking for Christians persecuting Jews.

 

I don't know if these things are true, and was only surprised to see such an early account. That's the only one I was looking at. In my understanding, the Jews were fleeing for their lives after the crucifixion when the temple was destroyed.

 

But on the other hand, if Paul had written that they had persecuted them, and these manuscripts were passed around, you think that there would be enough people to verify it. Why would he be believed if it weren't true? In that case the manuscripts would not have spread around like wildfire.

 

 

(Eta: my point of the post was because you quoted Paul saying it was evidence that he hated Jews (even though he was one). You quoted him saying that Jews were persecuting Christians. My point was perhaps that was just him telling the truth of the situation in the day that he lived. I had stumbled across that link before you said this, I didnt put it up as hate speech against Jews. I didn't even read past the first reference, as I said. I was simply curious if there was any evidence for it in the time that Paul lived.)

[Teannika]

Eliana, please accept my humble apology for upsetting and sickening you, that is the last thing I would ever want to do. This is another case where I should have stopped and thought before posting. I was on my phone and the easiest thing to do at the time was post the link, rather try to quote it, as I was concerned I'd lose my whole post here and was working quickly... My post was in response to Alberto to examine possible evidence which I was further exploring, and I was not yet drawing any conclusions. You both looked at that link more than I did, as I was only interested in the first source listed and no further.

 

I believe that Albeto is misrepresenting my beliefs to some degree, so I am defending them. Which is what you are doing as well when you are speaking against the Xtain belief. Thankyou for saying that you see good in some xtians though..

 

I hope you still feel loved and safe on this forum. Katie.

[Rosie_0801]

Eliana knows we  :001_wub:  her.

[Jasperstone]

Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of scripture and a belief in a young earth do. The question is if Orthodox Jews have the same belief.

 

I also believe in a literal interpretation, but leaning towards an old earth. But that's another subject. ;-)

[Onceuponatime]

Teannika, you have said you are not part of organized religion. If you don't mind my asking, do you attend worship services anywhere? If not, why not, considering there is a verse in the NT that says "forsake not the assembly." If you were to attend a worship service, are there any particular words that are most likely to be on the sign out in front of the building? Or do you home church?

 

Thanks for being patient.

[Teannika]

Teannika, you have said you are not part of organized religion. If you don't mind my asking, do you attend worship services anywhere? If not, why not, considering there is a verse in the NT that says "forsake not the assembly." If you were to attend a worship service, are there any particular words that are most likely to be on the sign out in front of the building? Or do you home church?

 

Thanks for being patient.

 

I briefly mentioned this earlier, and have no problem repeating and even expanding a little :-) I don't attend a church these-days, but I do believe in maintaining fellowship for the exact reason that you mentioned. I just find alternative ways to do that, and don't believe that it is limited to what happens on a Sunday. I have a couple of close, like-minded friends to fellowship with, and also like-minded friends who I have met online. Our family studies the bible together, and we were about to have a home church situation with some local friends but that has just fallen through for the time being.

 

If we attended a church we would not become official members as we believe that we are members of the real church anyway (the body of Christ). We don't need to be attached to one particular kind so to speak. A 'denomination' I tend to view more as a business type of setup if I can say it like that, however I believe that there are true Christians in many different denominations and I believe that a Christian can with a clear conscience belong to one. It's just not for our family. If I had to use a denomination for a label the closest would be Baptist (even though there are so many variations with what Baptist means today.)

 

I'm not sure what the church sign would say!

I think part of the problem might be our end in not attending a church, so I wouldn't place any expectation to be won into a church by a sign, or through any other means. We can't expect any church to be perfect as the individuals within them aren't. We just had convictions not to keep going to our local ones that were options to us here. There were things we felt that we couldn't go along with.

[HRAAB]

Eliana knows we  :001_wub:  her.

 

:iagree:  When scrolling through threads, I always make a point of reading Eliana's posts.  She's such a gracious (and smart) lady. 

[albeto.]

Gotcha now. So if this teaching believes that God is chastising this nation, then that is directly causing people (Christians) to either not care an inch about them suffering, causing them directly to suffer, allowing them to suffer and so on.

 

I haven't ever thought this way myself. And I can't think of any Christians who I know personally ever speak that way. I know Christians who pray for the peace of Israel to hurry up and come already, and I know that there are Christian groups who even send money to Israel (I think to help build their temple.)

 

It is a very sad situation with Israel. In Old Testament times before the Christian church existed, they also suffered a lot then also. This isn't a subjective thing. Their own scriptures record this. (It is out of a Christian's control.) Which is why Paul said that they killed their prophets - he was just referencing the Jewish Scriptures which he knew back to front, inside out.

 

If there is any balanced view, the bible says that other nations are also punished, chastised, and judged. Naming them and what will happen. The bible talks about the end of the period of the Gentiles when they will be then subject to the nation of Israel.

 

 It's interesting to me that you are unfamiliar with the very theology you refer to in answer to the OP's question, "how do you know what you believe." 

 

It was the opposite of what I was looking for. But it used the same keywords which was accepted in a different order than I put it. I was looking for Christians persecuting Jews.

 

I don't know if these things are true, and was only surprised to see such an early account. That's the only one I was looking at. In my understanding, the Jews were fleeing for their lives after the crucifixion when the temple was destroyed.

 

But on the other hand, if Paul had written that they had persecuted them, and these manuscripts were passed around, you think that there would be enough people to verify it. Why would he be believed if it weren't true? In that case the manuscripts would not have spread around like wildfire.

 

 

(Eta: my point of the post was because you quoted Paul saying it was evidence that he hated Jews (even though he was one). You quoted him saying that Jews were persecuting Christians. My point was perhaps that was just him telling the truth of the situation in the day that he lived. I had stumbled across that link before you said this, I didnt put it up as hate speech against Jews. I didn't even read past the first reference, as I said. I was simply curious if there was any evidence for it in the time that Paul lived.)

 

Just to clarify a point I think you misunderstand, I didn't say Paul hated Jews. I drew an analogy between Christian theology and Mormon theology with regard to "fulfilling" the previous religious theology. You then asked, "Are you saying that Christians are responsible for killing Jews?" That's when I replied with some examples of systematic and legally and church sanctioned persecution of the Jews throughout European history.

 

But you ask,  "Why would he [Paul] be believed if it weren't true? In that case the manuscripts would not have spread around like wildfire." I would answer, for the same reason Joseph Smith or Mohammed sparked enormously successful religions - spreading like wildfire isn't related to credibility. These claims are fantastic. Utterly fantastic. Paul talks about Jesus bellowing down from the sky with such power, others think it's thunder (in one account, in another account no one hears anything at all, in yet another account people hear but do not understand). Paul's mention of the "Last Supper" comes from a similar vision (1Cor 11:23-25). As Paul's writing predates any other mention in the bible, we can argue that it's more likely this "vision" was no more credible than Mohammed's "vision" or Joseph Smith's "vision," and the gospel writers simply wrote their fan fic episodes about it.

 

 Why would Paul be believed if it weren't true? The same reason any religious founder is believed when making a false claim (and you must admit that founders of other religions make false claims) - they have all the elements necessary to create a new religious movement. They have charisma, character, the appearance of authority, the environment is ripe for such a message. If you haven't looked at the video lectures I linked upthread, I would encourage you to do that. It will give specific details explaining this phenomenon. 

 

 

Eliana, please accept my humble apology for upsetting and sickening you, that is the last thing I would ever want to do. This is another case where I should have stopped and thought before posting. I was on my phone and the easiest thing to do at the time was post the link, rather try to quote it, as I was concerned I'd lose my whole post here and was working quickly... My post was in response to Alberto to examine possible evidence which I was further exploring, and I was not yet drawing any conclusions. You both looked at that link more than I did, as I was only interested in the first source listed and no further.

 

I believe that Albeto is misrepresenting my beliefs to some degree, so I am defending them. Which is what you are doing as well when you are speaking against the Xtain belief. Thankyou for saying that you see good in some xtians though..

 

I hope you still feel loved and safe on this forum. Katie.

 

I haven't misrepresented your beliefs because I haven't talked about your personal beliefs. I have shared the general and well-known theology that you refer to, and the historical consequences of holding and respecting that theology. 

[Mom-ninja.]

I could easily find other "fingerprints" that show that the canon is supposed to have 73 books. See, I can start with any conclusion and then find the evidence for it!   :D  I can also cherry pick from the Bible and prove any dozen of completely bizarre things. That's the joy of starting with the conclusion and "finding evidence" after the fact. 

 

That's exactly what you're doing with the numbers.

 

So, the number 40 appears often in Hebrew religious stories. Yes, it's a meaningful number. And?  Exodus wasn't written with 40 chapters. It was later divided into 40 chapters--perhaps with the number 40 in mind. Doesn't mean it HAD to be divided that way, just that it suited the theme. Hey, 40 years in the desert? Let's put 40 chapter in this book! Is this making any sense? 

 

I used to believe just as you did, Teannika. (Yes, even down to the 42-week connection you're making between Job and Daniel). You're writing the sorts of stuff I wrote on this same board 2 incarnations (boards, I mean) ago. Now I can really understand the frustration of people trying to reason with me back then. 

 

You're in a circular reasoning, affirming-the-consequent vortex.

It's called confirmation bias. I don't normally link Wiki but it's easier than linking the many books I've read discussing it.

 

 

Yeah, I don't take responsibility for killing the Jews. Just as an athiest today wouldn't take responsibility for any killing of Christians or Jews in past persecutions.

Well, for starters, atheists as a group and historically, have not been responsible for genocide or persecution. There is nothing an atheist believes that could be interpreted as reason to cause (or not prevent) harm to others.

[albeto.]

This is simply not true.  I'm not meaning to be rude, but this is not true.  

 

Communism claims atheism.  One only need look at what happened to religious of all stripes under the Communist revolutions of the 20th Century.  Russia.  Albania.  Romania.  China....

 

Perhaps what you misunderstand the nature of atheism. It's not a positive belief in something, it's a lack of belief in a god or gods. Full stop. Communist revolutionaries killed specifically for political reasons. They did not do so in the name of no-belief. There were no crusades rallied against people for the non-existent honor of a non-existent god. There were no exiles of believers to protect the non-existent spiritual health of those without belief in a god. Promoting an end of organized religion isn't a fasset of atheism, but one of antitheism. Doing so violently is inspired by an additional belief that violent acts can be rationalized to obtain certain resources. That's not a part of Lack Of Belief In God/s, but an addendum for some people who don't believe in god/s. Make sense?

[albeto.]

It makes sense to a degree.  

 

I wish that the same grace would be extended to those who have been accused of killing in the name of Christ when really they were killing for selfish or political or territorial gain, and used the label "Christian" as a tool.  

 

Well, arguably, from the standpoint of a nonbeliever, all Christians who kill in the name of their god are really killing for selfish or political reasons, or territorial gain. You might run into the No True Scotsman fallacy when you accuse a self-identified Christian as not being a real Christian or not motivated by real Christian reasons, but we're talking about wholescale, systematic antisemitism sanctioned by the greater Christian community. The aggressive mobs, the systematic forced conversion, social oppression, forced exile, and murder done to the Jews can only be understood to have been done for religious reasons. The Jews were identified as targets for religious reasons. Rationalization surely played a part, and blaming Jews for economic woes, or for social unrest wouldn't be understood as a direct result of the Christian faith except that Jews were identified as being corruptors of humanity, children and followers of the devil because they were Jewish. They were segregated because they were Jews. They were oppressed because they were Jews.  They were rounded up and forced to convert, leave, or be killed because they were Jews. There's no getting over the history of anti semitism in the Christian community for the last 2000 years. 

[Teannika]

........

 

I haven't misrepresented your beliefs because I haven't talked about your personal beliefs. I have shared the general and well-known theology that you refer to, and the historical consequences of holding and respecting that theology.

 

Albeto, thankyou so much for not making this personally about myself or an attack on me. I still feel like I am being lumped in with a theology that is not quite mine though, and hope that you can recognise what I see as the significant difference.

 

You quite often say how Christians hold to many different interpretations of scripture. This is the very case here, you are not talking about MY theology. You are talking about a theology that is close-to it, but is a twisted perverted version of it. The same scriptures may be being referenced but by different belief systems. (Actually in this case, even the underlying sources of scripture are not the same, so I can't even be sure of what further differences there may be behind this driving it along.... But that's a separate topic.) I shared the stern warning from Paul that we are to esteem Jews and remember our place as Gentiles, which is NOT above the Jewish people. And various other reasons I gave for praying for the peace of Jerusalem and so on. Which you seem to not accept as some Christians belief systems as having legitimate respect for Jews, because you seem to want to hold to only one possible interpretation, blaming every different type of Christian (so it sounds like) for hate towards Jews and the suffering for them caused throughout history.

 

One very same 'sect of Christianity' you are pointing the finger at for being responsible for killing the Jews, are the very ones who also murdered my "type" of Christian linage. Lest we not forget the many thousands of poor souls who were martyred and faced such awful torture and deaths because they just wanted to own the holy scriptures and have them translated into their own language. Let's not forget translators Tyndale who was burnt at the stake, and also Wycliffe who was hated so much by this 'Christian sect' that not only did they kill him, but years later they dug him back up again to burn his bones!

 

(Please lets not get off topic with further exploring that, but hopefully that can help drive my point home for the significant difference in belief, and my type of Christianity actually sharing something in common with the Jewish people in regards to persecution..)

 

I think that you should please accept that my theology is NOT the same as what other "Christian" groups may hold to. It may have some similarities, but it has no hateful or persecuting aspect to it. There are Christians who are not responsible for variations in the theology used for ill will.

[Rosie_0801]

I think that you should please accept that my theology is NOT the same as what other "Christian" groups may hold to. It may have some similarities, but it has no hateful or persecuting aspect to it. There are Christians who are not responsible for variations in the theology used for ill will.

 

My opinion only, but I think you ought to lose the quotation marks.

[Jasperstone]

Can I ask how quotation marks can be viewed as offensive, but crossing out Christ in xtions is acceptable on this forum?

 

Isn't that kind of a double standard?

 

I'm not looking for trouble, but sincerely find that a bit strange.

[Teannika]

My opinion only, but I think you ought to lose the quotation marks.

 

That's 'the damned if I do, damned if I don't' scenario that I mentioned earlier. Christendom is a big place, and obviously beliefs are very vast. I don't want to belong to an organised religion that comes with a hierarchy and power, that I see as a very separate thing to my belief system.

 

I just simply believe that being in the church means that the person is 'in the body of Christ.'

 

 

I hope that makes some sense. I don't want to be lumped in altogether with people who's whole belief system is a contradiction to mine. (My belief system is salvation by faith alone. The other type of Christianity is salvation by faith plus works).

[Dana]

Can I ask how quotation marks can be viewed as offensive, but crossing out Christ in xtions is acceptable on this forum?

 

Isn't that kind of a double standard?

 

I'm not looking for trouble, but sincerely find that a bit strange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

 

First paragraph.

[Ipsey]

Can I ask how quotation marks can be viewed as offensive, but crossing out Christ in xtions is acceptable on this forum?

 

Isn't that kind of a double standard?

 

I'm not looking for trouble, but sincerely find that a bit strange.

 

I was waiting for someone to bring this up! 

 

Anyone else want to respond here?  I don't think I'm in the mood right now.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Can I ask how quotation marks can be viewed as offensive, but crossing out Christ in xtions is acceptable on this forum?

 

Isn't that kind of a double standard?

 

I'm not looking for trouble, but sincerely find that a bit strange.

The X in Xtian and Xmas come from Christian not secular origins. The X stands for Christ.

[HRAAB]

X stands for the Greek letter chi which is the first letter in the word Christ.  No one is crossing out Christ in anything.

[HRAAB]

When a writer uses quote marks to set off or emphasize a certain word it usually implies that the writer feels it is not an accurate description or doesn't agree with it.  It can indicate sarcasm.

[Ipsey]

When a writer uses quote marks to set off or emphasize a certain word it usually implies that the writer feels it is not an accurate description or doesn't agree with it.  It can indicate sarcasm.

 

Yes, and the original was an instance of one Christian using quotation marks to disparage every other sort of Christian that doesn't align with her specific framework.  

 

I'm not even a Christian, and I find it terribly rude.

 

To use "xian" is no more disparaging than using than using "G-d" when denoting God (which some Christians also do, I believe).

[Jasperstone]

When a writer uses quote marks to set off or emphasize a certain word it usually implies that the writer feels it is not an accurate description or doesn't agree with it. It can indicate sarcasm.

Then Teannika was using the quotes correctly. She doesn't align herself with the mainstream Christianity out there.

 

Looking in, it seems like a few are always pouncing on her. If you don't agree, that's fine, but to nit pick over quotation marks is a bit much, imho.

 

Sorry for the edits- on my phone and it keeps changing the words!

[HRAAB]

Not aligning yourself with other Christians is one thing.  That's fine.  To insinuate that all the other people out there who identify themselves as Christian aren't truly Christian (are we back to this yet again) is different.    Is Teannika really in position to make that judgment about other Christians?

[Ipsey]

Then Teannika was using the quotes correctly. She doesn't align herself with the mainstream Christianity out there.

 

Looking in, it seems like a few are always pouncing on her. If you don't agree, that's fine, but to nit pick over quotation marks is a bit much, imho.

 

Sorry for the edits- on my phone and it keeps changing the words!

 

I think maybe she was trying to spare Teannika some embarrassment, in case she had didn't realize she was being exceedingly rude to possibly every other Christian on this board apart from you and her. Sometimes people are unintentionally rude.

 

If that was her intent to be rude, it's noted, and she's more than welcome to be so. 

[Jane in NC]

Then Teannika was using the quotes correctly. She doesn't align herself with the mainstream Christianity out there.

 

Looking in, it seems like a few are always pouncing on her. If you don't agree, that's fine, but to nit pick over quotation marks is a bit much, imho.

 

Sorry for the edits- on my phone and it keeps changing the words!

 

Frankly your choice of using the word mainstream instead of quotation marks struck me as more polite and less judgmental. 

 

Let's return to the OP's original question. How do you know what you believe?  After reading through these pages, I believe that all of us have found ourselves questioning dogmas, assumptions, and stereotypes.  Knowledge can be dangerous--it can move us to uncomfortable places; but lack of knowledge is even more dangerous, particularly if it leads to rigidity or stagnation.

 

Do we know with certainty or is it a matter of faith when it comes to belief--faith and acceptance of mysteries?

 

 

[HRAAB]

Teannika keeps posting, and people keep responding/pouncing which is the nature of this board.  The only way to stop that is to stop posting.  I thought she was finding the conversation challenging and helpful to her.  I admire her tenacity; I would have quit some time ago. 

[Teannika]

I think maybe she was trying to spare Teannika some embarrassment, in case she had didn't realize she was being exceedingly rude to possibly every other Christian on this board apart from you and her. Sometimes people are unintentionally rude.

 

If that was her intent to be rude, it's noted, and she's more than welcome to be so. 

 

Honestly, I am separating myself. I am separating myself from Catholicism, and I don't see a way to get around that. It is not my religion. Catholics may also call themselves by the same label at times as myself "Christian", but that doesn't mean that we hold to the same belief system. I'm really not trying to offend anyone, it's simply a conviction. I understand that this is a most unpopular opinion, especially with the ecumenical drive on at the moment. I don't want to be a Catholic, and I am sorry to the Catholics out there. It's nothing personal.

 

Feel free to let me know any further thoughts...

[Rosie_0801]

That's 'the damned if I do, damned if I don't' scenario that I mentioned earlier. Christendom is a big place, and obviously beliefs are very vast. I don't want to belong to an organised religion that comes with a hierarchy and power, that I see as a very separate thing to my belief system.

 

I just simply believe that being in the church means that the person is 'in the body of Christ.'

 

 

I hope that makes some sense. I don't want to be lumped in altogether with people who's whole belief system is a contradiction to mine. (My belief system is salvation by faith alone. The other type of Christianity is salvation by faith plus works).

 

Then pick a different word to describe yourself. You cannot possibly own the word Christian and the quotation marks imply a chunderously rude and hugely arrogant position. If you don't wish to be perceived that way, drop the quotation marks.

 

Perhaps "Jesus Follower" would suit you better. That's something I've heard around here before. And the word Christian does not imply Catholic and hasn't for hundreds and hundreds of years.

[HRAAB]

So when you put Christian in quotes ("Christian") are you referring to anyone who self-identifies as a Christian but doesn't hold to your specific beliefs, or are you just referring to Catholics.  And Orthodox.  And Mormons. And.....?  It seemed that you were inferring that these people (whoever they are) who call themselves Christian aren't truly Christian.

[Jasperstone]

 

 

 

To use "xian" is no more disparaging than using than using "G-d" when denoting God (which some Christians also do, I believe).

From my understanding the Jews who write

G-d like that do it in respect to him.

 

I'm quite certain that when others use the x rather than writing Christian, that they aren't doing it out of respect.

 

I have always made a point of writing Christmas and not Xmas, even when texting. As I felt it was crossing Christ out.

 

I do accept your explanation though at how it has come about. And will now try and see it differently, and not take offence to it being written like that, though, I wouldn't personally start writing it like that.

[Teannika]

Then pick a different word to describe yourself. You cannot possibly own the word Christian and the quotation marks imply a chunderously rude and hugely arrogant position. If you don't wish to be perceived that way, drop the quotation marks.

 

Perhaps "Jesus Follower" would suit you better. That's something I've heard around here before. And the word Christian does not imply Catholic and hasn't for hundreds and hundreds of years.

 

They were first called "Christians" in Antioch. (Acts 11:26) 'And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.'

 

So it's not like I have a choice. Catholics are very proud to call themselves Catholic. I don't think they see themselves as just a 'denomination'.

 

 

I was replying to Albeto who didn't mention Catholicism, but Catholism is behind the persecution of the Jews. Which is why I used quotation marks. I was trying to say it indirectly in an attempt to be a little discreet knowing that it wouldn't go down well.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm quite certain that when others use the x rather than write Christian they aren't doing it out of respect.

 

 

That doesn't mean they are doing it to be deliberately insulting either.

 

 

On this forum? If anyone finds themselves suspected of that, they'll get their ears chewed.

[Teannika]

From my understanding the Jews who write

G-d like that do it in respect to him.

 

I'm quite certain that when others use the x rather than writing Christian, that they aren't doing it out of respect.

 

I have always made a point of writing Christmas and not Xmas, even when texting. As I felt it was crossing Christ out.

 

I do accept your explanation though at how it has come about. And will now try and see it differently, and not take offence to it being written like that, though, I wouldn't personally start writing it like that.

 

 

 

I have to say that I have never seen Christians write it with an x either. I also don't write xmas, the same as you don't Jasperstone. So it would depend upon Eliana's own reason for writing it like that, which only she can know.