Question for Theists.

[GAYtheist]

This is an honest question that I've been pondering for a while.

Theists, here is my question.

You say that God is our father. If that is true, wouldn't he, like any father, want you to grow to a point where you don't need him?

And a second, honest question that originally turned me from Christianity.

Isn't believing in the bible, in and of itself, a sin? In order to believe the bible true, you must believe the people who wrote it heard God's voice. Using this logic, in order to validate the bible, you must believe the authors of the books knew the mind of God. Using this logic, you are assuming the mind of God through the original authors of the book...Thoughts?

John

[Prea]

This is an honest question that I've been pondering for a while.

Theists, here is my question.

You say that God is our father. If that is true, wouldn't he, like any father, want you to grow to a point where you don't need him?

And a second, honest question that originally turned me from Christianity.

Isn't believing in the bible, in and of itself, a sin? In order to believe the bible true, you must believe the people who wrote it heard God's voice. Using this logic, in order to validate the bible, you must believe the authors of the books knew the mind of God. Using this logic, you are assuming the mind of God through the original authors of the book...Thoughts?

John

As for the first part, I think it's sort of the opposite. You grow into the father by loving others and yourself completely and without any negative judgments. And by hating others/treating others poorly is when you separate yourself from the one being.

Yea I've wondered that same thing myself, quite confusing indeed. I do not think the Bible is the only way to the truth (but I think it can help people when used in the right way), it is just a manifestation/reflection of the truth (as all religions and beliefs are, some maybe farther from the truth than others)......but certainly not a full representation of any truth (in fact all it is a bunch of stories, none of which are able to be validated). The Bible may be no different than a movie or a play. You watch a movie for entertainment, you might learn some things about yourself and the world around you, but you don't take all of it or any small part too seriously, etc...

I think the Bible may have in fact been written by god as somewhat of a mediator (dont ask me how). But since it was still written entirely by ordinary human beings, it inherently has faults that all human beings have, especially when human beings see these faults as being true.

[Reginus]

This is an honest question that I've been pondering for a while.

Theists, here is my question.

You say that God is our father. If that is true, wouldn't he, like any father, want you to grow to a point where you don't need him?

Not so, considering Christians are supposed to remain "Children of Christ".

But yeah, I can see how it would be confusing.  There just wasn't a perfect term available to whoever came up with the phrase "Our Father."

And a second, honest question that originally turned me from Christianity.

Isn't believing in the bible, in and of itself, a sin? In order to believe the bible true, you must believe the people who wrote it heard God's voice. Using this logic, in order to validate the bible, you must believe the authors of the books knew the mind of God. Using this logic, you are assuming the mind of God through the original authors of the book...Thoughts?

We need to look at the context of the verse that says that no one knows the the mind of god -- namely, the first sentence in this passage.

"For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

I think it's obvious that by "thoughts" the author meant "all the thoughts", or perhaps even something like "the deepest, most uncommunicatable thoughts".  The interpretation of "thoughts" as "some thoughts" can be proven to be baloney by the following line (assuming the hypothetical speaker is being truthful):

"I'm currently thinking about the taste of an ice-cold beer." [5 seconds later] "Now I'm thinking about how I really need to take a piss."

[Martin TK]

This is an honest question that I've been pondering for a while.

Theists, here is my question.

You say that God is our father. If that is true, wouldn't he, like any father, want you to grow to a point where you don't need him?

And a second, honest question that originally turned me from Christianity.

Isn't believing in the bible, in and of itself, a sin? In order to believe the bible true, you must believe the people who wrote it heard God's voice. Using this logic, in order to validate the bible, you must believe the authors of the books knew the mind of God. Using this logic, you are assuming the mind of God through the original authors of the book...Thoughts?

John

As for the first part, I think it's sort of the opposite. You grow into the father by loving others and yourself completely and without any negative judgments. And by hating others/treating others poorly is when you separate yourself from the one being.

Yea I've wondered that same thing myself, quite confusing indeed. I do not think the Bible is the only way to the truth (but I think it can help people when used in the right way), it is just a manifestation/reflection of the truth (as all religions and beliefs are, some maybe farther from the truth than others)......but certainly not a full representation of any truth (in fact all it is a bunch of stories, none of which are able to be validated). The Bible may be no different than a movie or a play. You watch a movie for entertainment, you might learn some things about yourself and the world around you, but you don't take all of it or any small part too seriously, etc...

I think the Bible may have in fact been written by god as somewhat of a mediator (dont ask me how). But since it was still written entirely by ordinary human beings, it inherently has faults that all human beings have, especially when human beings see these faults as being true.

I just love the way that theists take what the bible says and then applies that to what they want you to believe.  First off, to your first question, I would like to add to it this:  Why would any Father make a punishment that was so damning as to send his child/children to hell.  Doesn't this take away from the idea of pure love, of unconditional love?  Theists need not answer that one, as I have listened to your answers for this for the better part of half a century.

The second part is one that many theologians have fought over for centuries.  It brings to light that the bible is NOT the word of god, but man's interpretation of what he feels is the word of god.  Why else would there have been books that were not included, especially in the New Testament.  Man, not god, made the decision what was going to be included in the New Testament, and I doubt that god was there to inspire those at the Nicean Council.

Part of the problem with the answers that one will get from Theists is that they all are regurgitating the doctrines that were placed in their heads for most of their childhoods, into adulthood.  Almost NO theist will present an orginal thought and few will admit that the bible is full of lies, evil, and contradictions; even when faced with the reality.  One reason for this is that not many theists have read the bible, and compared the difficulties, therein.  Martin Luther was noted as saying that education is the single largest threat to Christianity in the world.

[Martin TK]

The greatest problem with the bible is simply the "Chinese Whisper" fault.  The bible has been translated, and re-translated; copied and re-copied so many times, by so many different scribes, many of whom would surely have their own agendas, that the reliability of the text HAS to be questioned. Another problem with this is that MOST Christians feel that to question the bible is seen as sacriledge, because religion in general has been given a pass when it comes to serious, scientific scrutiny.

Few Christians who actually read all of the texts of the bible, with an eye not tinted by pure faith but open to scrutiny, can say with certainty that there aren't some serious issues with what is written within the pages.  There are obviously two gods in the Old and New Testaments, one that is jealous and often cruel in the Old Testament, and one much more into love in the New Testament. Why is this?  Surely, since Jesus is God and God is Jesus, the God of the Old Testament would have known what Jesus was going to teach when he came to earth.  As a Jewish Rabbi once told me, "Jews understand that the Old Testament is about stories which have meaning, NOT about truth, per se.  No one believes that God actually told Abraham, the first man to hold a monotheistic view, to barbque his son, and yet there it is in the Old Testament.  It's right along with the story of Adam and Eve and Noah and the Flood.

My final thought to the bible, is that it was not written toward the eye of those of us in this century, but to those who were most likely to read the stories in the times when they were written.  No man living 7,000 years ago would have thought his writtings would be read into this century, and those who wrote the New Testament believed, for the most part, that Jesus would return to earth in their lifetime, and I am certain gave no thought to Christians 2000 years in the future.

I have written two textbooks in my career, and I assure you that neither of them will be very useful to readers 2000 years in the future.