Image of God - the Bible or Christ? (page 13)

Chariklo

Yes, it's off topic, but just send me a PM, Cofty, and I'll do my best to answer.

I'm off to bed now. Tomorrow is another day.

cofty

Don't go to bed yet you will miss "Match of the Day"

I was upset to miss the Metropolitan Opera's production of the entire Wagner Ring last year. Last month it aired on PBS. Watching it on TV for hours on end over many days was actually fun. The production was gorgeous. Wotan, Valykiries.

I tried to access The Ring over many years but this was a rare opportunity to see it full force in consecutive performances.

It must be available on the INternet in some form. If you did not see it, you would glory in the gods. The music is aweome.

OnTheWayOut

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief.

--Frantz Fanon

tec

That is worthy quote, OTWO, for us each to apply to ourselves.

Truly though, there is no cognitive dissonance in this... at least not in me.

There is no logical or rational reason to think that the bible is the image of God. None. It does not claim to be so, those who wrote individual books within it do not claim it to be so (none of them even had the bible as we have it, so as to even consider such a thing)

It makes no logical sense to hold onto a false teaching that the bible is inerrant, or even an all or nothing book... or that those who wrote within it believed it to be so. That is a man-made doctrine based on no evidence, and the evidence that shows otherwise is the evidence that is being ignored.

Peace,

tammy

THE GLADIATOR

On page 3 Terry delivered an excellent clarification of how worshiping a living god is different to worshiping the image of a god as found in a book. He makes no judgment, just explains the difference and sums up what Tec is seeking to explain. I’m amazed that an ace can be laid on the table and ignored.

Here it is again for those that missed it:

“We stand or fall in our response to the God we know.

Worship is man's natural reaction to an encounter with the living God.

For humans unacquainted with anything but a book or a prayer or a seat in an arena where "god" is spoken of no reality exists.

Idolatry becomes necessary. What better way to serve an unknown and unknowable except by erecting an IMAGE?

The IMAGE of "god" has no effect on the life of the idolator. None at all.

But, the transformation in the life of someone who has God living inside is a beacon so bright there is a glory reflected of how real such a god must be.

The goodness in any of us is attracted to such light so compelling is the majesty of such reality.

The sin in any of us wrenches away in the cynical mockery which is the only refuge of disbelief.

Those for whom such a God is undeniable no explanation is necessary. No image is required.

Those for whom such a God is impossible no explanation is possible. Only the image is real.”

snare&racket

How sure are you that the new testament is anything but human and how do you decide?

How is Jesus NOT like many other saviour/deity stories? Therefore how can we put so much substance in this 'image of god' over the others such as Krishna, Horus, Mithra etc....

seriously, how do you know?

elderelite

OHHHHHH sounds awesome band! I dont how much i could do at a time myself, but taken in smaller parts i bet i would enjoy it as well... i will file it away for a rainy day and start on it at some point

tec

Yeah, Glad... Terry did a great job with that.

How sure are you that the new testament is anything but human and how do you decide?

I think it is human it parts, and inspired in other parts, but again... it is not all or nothing. These are different accounts of people witnessing what they or others saw (and later wrote down). Letters building one another up, answering questions, speaking on what knowledge they have, or that they attribute to the Spirit. Investigations (such as from Luke) as to all that happened. So probably not perfect. Revelation is the only book that the author was IN SPIRIT and TOLD to write it down, by Christ. The rest were what peole did to help others, and to give what witness they could.

It is a great deal of testimony to Christ and to/of those who followed Him (in person or in spirit).

How is Jesus NOT like many other saviour/deity stories? Therefore how can we put so much substance in this 'image of god' over the others such as Krishna, Horus, Mithra etc....

seriously, how do you know?

You should check a bit deeper into the info listed in your chart, Snare. That stuff has been covered on jwn as well, and I can try and pull up some of the threads if you want, preferably the ones by Leo, because i think you might put more weight into what she has to report, over what I did.

Bottom line, most of those comparisons are false. Without even doing any research though, your first red bell for the (lack of) genuine research or authenticity in those claims is the supposed similarities of a Dec 25th b-day. We know Christ wasn't born on that day, and none of the others are given such a day as their birth either. So sloppy research, or just false claims to promote a false agenda? I'd say a mixture of both on behalf of those who put these together.

Peace to you,

tammy

Band on the Run

Tammy,

If the Bible is not inerrant but some writers were mistaken, how do you know that you are not mistaken? All the writers claim legitimacy and that they are inspired by God. I don't see how one can pick and choose. When you add the Gnostic and infancy gospels to the mix, it is even more confused. For others to believe that you have a personal revelation, you need legitimacy. Yet you do not set forth any legitimacy.

I believe in both grace and works. Grace should lead to works. What concrete deeds has your experience done to improve human life? I respect groups such as Catholic Charities and Doctors without Borders reflecting Christ much more than I do. Jesus said our love for one another would be the litmus test. You aren't St. Theresa (learning more about here, I now see no saint. quite the opposite).

I don't claim to show the love too much in my own life. A Catholic relief agency came to help me once. It was literally as though Jesus of Nazareth knocked on my door and came in to my home to soothe me. The Quakers are very impressive at showing the love that Christ mentioned.

Love for one another makes sense. Intelligence or education can only go so far. I have experienced that love as a recipient. It is very real. As skeptical as I can be, it moves me greatly. I don't see what Jesus accomplishes with these private, exclusive experiences. I've cried from the experience of Christ's love reflected in certain groups.

I focus on concrete, measurable results. The Joel Osteen and the woman (I can't recall her name" repulse me.

Image of God - the Bible or Christ?

Share this