So, Tammy, to determine which parts of the Bible are trustworthy, you're saying we must first accept some parts at face value and then base the rest of our judgment on that which we've accepted without question?
Well, if I'm just going by the bible, I take what Christ says and measure everything against Him - which I can further measure against love. God does not contradict love (and if he was the petty tyrant that people have thought in the past and continue to think, but also an all-powerful one, then this entire conversation is meaningless because we're all in for a heap of trouble anyway. But then of course, that contradicts that Christ came in the image of His Father)
Even the bible says that it is to Him we must look. But now, for me, that means look to Him in Spirit, so I try to listen in MY spirit. So that by listening in spirit (in my heart, I guess is as close as I can compare it), I can read something and feel in spirit 'oh yes', and feel joy and peace... OR I can look and say... hmm, I'm not so sure about that. Then I can leave it for a while, because I could easily not understand. And some other things I can see that completely contradict Christ and love, and think... nope.
I realize that, Tammy, and you guys are cooler than many. But you have to take a pretty flexible view of the Bible (in myopinion, per my previous comment) and I really can't buy that either. According to the majority of Christians I've spoken to, hell is the sentence for not accepting Jesus as my savior.
If I were you, I wouldn't give it much credence unless someone could prove that statement biblically (without mistranslation and contradiction with things Christ taught/said). This is one that I believe JW's got mostly right... and even applied that a God of love would not send billions to suffer eternally in an eternal place of fire and damnation and torture.
Thomas, from what I understood, was simply asking for proof that Jesus had been resurrected. My point was that Thomas did not accept hearsay as adequate reason to believe the "Jesus spottings". Therefore, why should I accept the hearsay of the Gospel accounts without sufficient evidence.
You don't have to. You can ask for faith, or evidence as you with or require. But 'blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen'.
If you were a general in an army, and you went away (for a long time) and some of the soldiers under your command continued to exercise faith and love for you, even to their children... while others no longer believed... who would you want at your side when you returned? Does that mean you disregard the others? No. But do you think that the loyalty and faith of the first group is going to mean something extra to you?
I've yet to hear of a ruler who has ever led his subjects to an era of peace and prosperity by applying these qualities to the perfect degree. Please elaborate.
I was speaking about the qualities themselves, and not a ruler who exhibits them (because of course you're right... we have had no human ruler in the past or present who is also not guided by his own interests/ambitions/etc... at least none that I know of)
Take Nazi Germany (sorry, but its the clearest one I can think of - though we could also use whoever decided to gift native americans with blankets contaminated with small pox)... those who followed Hitler and that regime were not following mercy/forgiveness/love/justice. Granted, many of them did so out of fear. But some did so out of hate, and they fed on the suffering of others, or on the bullying of those weaker than them, or simple callousness and greed for whatever extra they would be able to get with so many minorities out of their way.
Do you not think that if a God of love/mercy/justice/peace showed up right now that there would be people who say, 'screw that, I want to do things my way?' Or 'I don't want to share' ? There are many people who have wealth to an excess and don't care about the little guy dying in the street because he hasn't eaten in a week. They don't want to give up what's theirs.
That's all I meant.
Tammy
