quote:

---

And where does the song of songs fit in to this theory?

---

quote:

---

Cant.7 1.[7] You are stately as a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
2.[8] I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches.

---

That's obviously 'profitable for teaching' but it's a bit tough on men who don't get attracted to palm trees.

Surely the problem arises when people take the Timothy quote to mean 'the bits in the Bible which I say are to be taken literally are to be taken literally - so there!'

For instance some people insist that six-day creation is to be taken literally and then insist that the Song of Songs is an allegory of Christ's love to his Church and not someone having fun writing enjoyably about er... sex.

It seems to me that quite often people who accuse others of picking and choosing are up to the same thing themselves - picking and choosing what to treat as allegorical and what to treat literally, but not admitting that that is what is going on.

Just my tuppence worth (how many Euros is that?)

What is your truth of the Bible, Jim?

That the vast majority of non-Anglo-Saxon humanity are going to burn forever.

quote:

---

All Christians believe in the validity, the truth OF the Bible, by definition.

---

By definition? I dont think belief in the Bible is the definition of a christian.
Belief in Jesus is the criteria, and even that can be stretched to include many differant beliefs!

in my opinion all scripture is useful, but you also have to interpret scripture consistently.
To take an example close to home at the moment: If you accept that women should not speak in church or have authority over a man because of what Paul says in 1 Tim 2 then you should also insist that they pray with covered heads because of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11.
Maybe on an aside, I think that if you interpret all scripture as being literal, then you will go nuts at all the contradictions there are there. (but god can allow paradoxes so that's ok?!)

whoops, I was going to try and keep those issues out of my posts for a week or two. Now look what you made me do!!!

if anyone disagrees, i'd like to hear they're views.

Where did you get your knowledge of Christ from?

What makes you think I'm jumping to any conclusions about Jim?

Why doesn't he refute what I KNOW he believes?

Ask him.

He believes that only those paltry few mainly Anglo-Saxons who proclaim Jesus as their saviour are saved, apart from some arbitrary cut-off of innocence for some children.

He believes that most of humanity were created to burn and not even be evangelized they are so worthless.

Don't you Jim?

and I now realise I have gone off topic, so I resume everyone to:

I find his use of the word 'distortion' interesting.

How does one distort primitive Calvinism? How does one distort the horrible, bleak, graceless, racist, inadequate 'theology' of most non-Orthodox-Catholic-Anglican-Methodist-Episcopalians?

Starbelly, you get your knowledge of Christ from the Bible and apostolic witness, ultimately. The Word of God. Just as the great Karl Barth did: 'Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cos the Bible tells me so'.

I repeat all Christians, by definition, accept the truth of the Bible.

2. I re-state that my knowledge of Christ comes through many sources, some that lead back to the Bible, so which do not. I know about the Mind of Christ through prophecy for today, Seeing Gods Love in others, Extra biblical books of the early church, personal revelation (some people through dreams and visions). I will of course admit the the Bible is the clearest description of Jesus and Gods plan for humanity, but it is concievable for people to be a christian without any knowledge of the Bible (as indeed tribes that have had no missionary influence, have been found to have Christian beliefs).

I like your style.

You'd make a good defence lawyer. I'd like to be a prosecutor or defendant in your court.

Jim and I have previous, on ChurchNetUk, currently the midden of a nauseatingly sanctimonious anti-semite (I'm not frightened of libel, just the paranoia here about it.)

[libelous content deleted again, this is getting tiresome]

My agenda is to engage as dialectically as possible with those whose gospel is graceless (Calvinists) or intellectually inadequate (Charismatics), especially from those who imagine they have grace or intellect, which I merely aspire to.

I want to see the better men and women than I here deal with the filth we have to put up with on ChurchNet. If you won't come out of your cozy ivory tower, we will come to you.

Martin

Looking for grace.

From: Dr. John S. Weekes (chaberpublishing@aol.com)

In my book Understanding The Doctrine Of The Trinity, I expressed the view, that the holocaust, although immediately carries out by Hitler and his henchmen, was within the permissive will of God and as such the nemesis that overtook a people, imprudent enough and reckless enough to murder their Messiah, King and God, simply becuse he proclaimed love for others too! What do readers think?

I told him what I thought and I QUOTE (so that can't be libellous):

From: You stupid, ignorant, graceless, fascist lunatic. (martin.clarke4@ntlworld.com)

Whatever befalls you, will we judge you as you judge the Jews? You are a disgrace worse than that charlatan David Irving.

And:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not:
Other people's truth, endorsed by the likes of Jim - how on EARTH does one deal with this?

---

Smile, nod and ignore?

Perhaps more helpfully:
In response to "Do you still think that I am more of a fascist than you are?" you could point out that if the jews hadn't killed jesus we wouldn't have any christian faith today. Therefore God is not likely to be mad at them!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not:
(I'm not frightened of libel, just the paranoia here about it.)

(OOOH! LIBEL ALERT

---

I would like to remind you that
libel is included within the Ship's 10 Commandments (no. 7). One person has already departed because he could not keep these commandments.

We should take very seriously the fact that it is not univocal.

It has many different strands - cp. Gen 1 with Gen 2-3; the variety of voices in the psalms; the difference in understanding of God between, say, the Torah and the prophets; the variety of voices in the NT). We have to accept these differences exist and also that the editors/compilers/canonisers of these texts had no problem with these inner tensions, so why should we try to impose an outward uniformity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not:

Jim and I have previous, on ChurchNetUk, currently the midden of a nauseatingly sanctimonious anti-semite (I'm not frightened of libel, just the paranoia here about it.)

---

How very very brave of you to not be concerned about libel, considering that it is not your career/website/money/ass on the line. For us, however, it is. If you're in such a dire need to post this stuff on the Internet, my suggestion is you shell out some money for a site of your own and post it there.

In your posts you have broken Commandment 7, by continuing to post what you knew was libel, and Commandment 6, by ignoring Simon's rulings, and ultimately Commandment 1, because in ignoring Commandments 6 and 7, you're being a jerk in the process. Plus I'm thinking that you're in violation of Commandment 8, because you've got quite the little crusade going against a few individuals and organizations.

We can generate all the quarrels we require. In fact, we can generate considerably more than we require.

I think it is intresting to note different strands with in the Bible; Paul saying women being silent. We have Phoebec (in Romans) the first woman Deacon and the daughters of Philip being prophets. so we have tension between women not be allowed to have authority and women having authority.

My apologies for in any way threatening your livelihood or well being.

I hadn't the faintest idea that I could be.

I had no idea the situation was so delicate.

Furthermore I hadn't any idea that my comments were being edited, nothing was said directly to me. I've been intemperate.

Forgive me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will:
All scripture is Truth. Not all of it is literal Truth.

---

Are you saying that it's all true, but sometimes when it says "a double headed eagle" it is an analogy, and other times it means a bird with two heads?

If so I agree. The problems come when we try to decide what's literal and what isn't. That can be as difficult as deciding what's true or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Will.. I am disappointed that I find it necessary to defend myself.I promise you that I am not antijewish.FAR FAR from it!! I am very pro Israel.Satan is antijewish,and many of those he controls.My Pastor has declared if anyone in his Church wishs to be antisemitic that they should leave!!!!!!!
I accept the promise given to Abraham,that those who bless you I will bless,and those who curse you I will curse.
I love the word of God and am grateful to the JEWISH writers used by God to give his truth to all.
I believe that salvation is faith alone in Christ alone.This does not make me a hater of Israel.Indeed I have several fine friends who are Jewish.
All the best Jim

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Will.. I am disappointed that I find it necessary to defend myself.I promise you that I am not antijewish.FAR FAR from it!! I am very pro Israel.Satan is antijewish,and many of those he controls.My Pastor has declared if anyone in his Church wishs to be antisemitic that they should leave!!!!!!!
I accept the promise given to Abraham,that those who bless you I will bless,and those who curse you I will curse.
I love the word of God and am grateful to the JEWISH writers used by God to give his truth to all.
I believe that salvation is faith alone in Christ alone.This does not make me a hater of Israel.Indeed I have several fine friends who are Jewish.
All the best Jim

---

Jim,

I can see you're grateful that God used His people of Ancient Israel to pass along His words of truth and you're also grateful that they begatted the Jewish-born Jesus.

But I'm wondering if you believe that our Jewish friend Will and his fellow-Israelites will suffer an eternity of torment unless he and they profess Jesus as their Saviour before they go to their graves?

Just an honest question waiting for an honest answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by starbelly:
Surely many - if not most Christians see no reason why Jews today should be "saved" without some kind of faith in Jesus - Surely this belief does not put them all in "cult" territory, as Jim has seemed to be accused of?

---

I understand that this is a major belief for many Christians. I didn't imply it was "cult territory" in my reply here.

I was specifically asking for Jim's response on the statements he made to Will.

And I'm still waiting.

I spent most of my life in a 'Christian cult' that my parents joined when I was a kid. It hurt like hell when God delivered me and thousands of others out of that. Its hard to realise that you've been duped and stuffed into someone else's belief-universe. Its been a hard struggle coming out of that. I hate psychological abuse, especially if it comes packaged as religion. I'm struggling to learn how to think for myself instead of with someone else's programmed thoughts. Sorry if I came back to your reply a bit too strongly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by starbelly:
Surely many - if not most Christians see no reason why Jews today should be "saved" without some kind of faith in Jesus - Surely this belief does not put them all in "cult" territory, as Jim has seemed to be accused of?

---

quote:

---

. I'm struggling to learn how to think for myself instead of with someone else's programmed thoughts. Sorry if I came back to your reply a bit too strongly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
To me the issue of salvation is very simple,Christ died as a substitute for all the world so all of the world can be saved. He is the only way of salvation,he was the saviour of Abraham,Moses,David,Adam&Eve.
John3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,that whoever believes in him should not perish,but have eternal life.
17. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,but that the world should be saved through him.
18.He who believes is not judged;he who does not believe has been judged already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I accept that Christ has always been the way of salvation for all of humanity,and that color,or race is no issue.

---

So you believe that Abraham, Moses, et al. "believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Mouse...To me the issue of salvation is very simple,Christ died as a substitute for all the world so all of the world can be saved. He is the only way of salvation,he was the saviour of Abraham,Moses,David,Adam&Eve.
John3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,that whoever believes in him should not perish,but have eternal life.
17. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,but that the world should be saved through him.
18.He who believes is not judged;he who does not believe has been judged already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I accept that Christ has always been the way of salvation for all of humanity,and that color,or race is no issue.
All the best Jim.

---

Jim, do you know that 'judgment' is not the same thing as 'damnation'?

I wouldn't want to confuse the two.

You quoted John 3.17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,but that the world should be saved through him.

But John 5:22 says, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.

And John 9:39 says, And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

Clearly Jesus did come here to judge the world, Jim.

You also quoted John 3.18, He who believes is not judged;he who does not believe has been judged already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

But God wrote through Peter in 1Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I'm sure you would agree that Peter was a believer and that he taught that God is judging believers, wouldn't you?

If someone wanted to substitute the word 'damnation' for 'judgment' I suppose they could do that. It wouldn't be true to scripture, of course. Hopefully your qualified, original-languages Bible teacher doesn't substitute the word 'damnation' for 'judgment'.

By the way, Jim, just how simple is it for people to believe in Jesus Christ if they've never heard of Him in their lives?

Different people have different types of truth. In modern Western society scientific ideas predominate, so truth has to be demonstrable by experiment, with a culture of wighing, measuring, counting, timekeeping etc. This has not always been the case.

Those who claim that the bible is true should bear the burden of explaining what they mean by truth and how it can be aplied to the different literary forms within the bible. This is not easy.

Pt