The Bible and Love and Christians

[GonzoLeaper]

If anyone's see the entire episode of the Muppets on 60 Minutes, there was also a guest later in the program who called himself a radical, but not the way most people would think. He felt the most radical doctrine of all was the Sermon on the Mount, and it's very true. It dares to defy everything we know about the unjust world and claim that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

Amen!

 

[GonzoLeaper]

In church when I was a kid, I asked the pastor where dinosaurs fit into all of this. Obviously, they existed. We have all kinds of skeletons and fossils.

"Did Noah bring two of each dinosaur on the Ark? I mean, he had to if God said so, right? Also, in school, they said man and dinosaurs never lived at the same time, but if all the animals were created a few days before Adam and Eve, that includes dinosaurs. So that means Adam and Eve would have seen them at least. How could you miss them? They were HUGE!"

The pastor did a Charlie Brown "Well...I...uh..." then got distracted by another person asking him something. I never got an answer to my question (at least from him).

One of my philosophies is to keep an open mind to new possibilities, but think things through logically and believe what you choose to believe.

One of my favorite question marks in The Bible is exactly what Ezekiel saw in the sky (the wheel within a wheel of gleaming metal). There have been a lot of very interesting discussions about that over the years.

Good question, sir. As to what Ezekiel saw in the sky, The Bible says "this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of The Lord." (Ezekiel 1:28b) And then it goes on to say, "When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking."
This is certainly the most appropriate response to seeing a vision of the glory of The Lord. It is pretty awe-inspiring reading Ezekiel 1 with that description of the majesty and holiness of God.
As to the dinosaurs question, I'll lay out my basic thoughts on this. I'm sure many people out there disagree and I know many out there argue over it and all- but to me, it comes down to this. It seems pretty obvious that dinosaurs existed from all the skeletons and fossils that have been found. Some say The Bible actually mentions these creatures in Job 41, when the leviathan is spoken about. (Job 41:1)
I have heard some different theories on this. Some say the dinosaurs all died out before the Flood came and thus they were not around to be on Noah's Ark.
However, I also believe that if they were around at this time and God said that 2 of every kind would be kept alive, then they would be on the Ark. Genesis 6:19 says that 2 of every living creature was to be kept alive on the Ark. Of course, if creatures like the dinosaurs were no longer living, they would not be on the Ark.
Genesis 6:22 says that Noah did everything God commanded him to do. And of course, I believe in a God so big and powerful that He could've had 2 of every kind of dinosaur riding out the Flood in a thimble if He wanted to. The Bible describes the Flood and how God preserved Noah and his family and the animals in Genesis 6-9. I just trust that God carried everything out according to His plans.
Here's an article that offers some other ideas on how it might have come together- http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/dinosaurs-ark

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Heck, we have that in our own popular culture don't we? Hollywood is terrified to give their heroes real flaws. They'll claim to of course, but their attempts are usually pretty pathetic. Older Hollywood movies actually had a lot more guts about portraying imperfect heroes.

Just saw this and had to mention- this is one (of many) reasons I love MacGyver. (hence my avatar.)

 

[GonzoLeaper]

You said it right there. John the Baptist was single and considered a weirdo. Why wasn't the same said for Jesus?

The same was said of Jesus- Isaiah 53:1-3 says He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
John 1:10-11 says that He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him.
(And there are other accounts I could mention- like the time Jesus was not accepted in His own home town and He himself said that a prophet is never accepted in his home town.)
Although to clarify, I don't know that John the Baptist was considered a weirdo just for being single. It may have also been for wearing clothes made of camel's hiar with a leather belt around his waist and consisting on a diet of wild honey and locusts and lived in the desert, probably as a hermit.
I agree with heralde in that there isn't any evidence to indicate that Jesus was married, but it really wouldn't change the nature of who He is and the salvation He brought through His death and Resurrection even if He was. Nonetheless, I don't think He was based on how I know Him from the Scriptures and on lack of evidence to indicate otherwise.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Of course, getting aside from all these sidetracking issues, the main central issue of The Bible is the question that Jesus asked His disciples: "Who do you say I am?"
At first He asked them who do men say that He is- and the disciples answered the popular answers- "Some say Elijah or one of the prophets, etc."
But the real question is: "Who do you say Jesus is?"
Of course, Peter made the bold statement of the truth that Christians all over the world have come to realize about Jesus- "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
No matter what other issues people may have with The Bible, this is still the question everyone must settle for themselves. Some out there deny even the existence of Jesus Christ, which I think is intellectually dishonest because there is tons of evidence to show that Jesus historically existed and still exists in Heaven.
Just as I believe there was a historical figure named Siddhartha Gautama, but I don't believe he was an enlightened one and I don't believe he was God, as some seem to elevate him to that position (though I don't know that he ever really claimed that of himself either.)
The point of comparison I was trying to make with that is that I also believe in the historical figure of Jesus Christ and I know that He is The Christ, the Son of the Living God. He is the Savior who died on the cross to pay for all the sins of the world ever committed, being committed or to be committed- and He rose again on the third day and will return one day.
As they said at Nicea, this is my creed. (Also, Petra and Rich Mullins said it really well in musical form too.)
I feel sometimes people get bogged down with side details that are not nearly as important as the main point of the Gospel- and that is simply that God loves you and wants to save you for all eternity. He offers that salvation through Jesus' death and Resurrection and He's the only Way to Heaven.
As C.S. Lewis once said in "Mere Christianity"- "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of ****. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us- He did not intend to."

 

[RedPiggy]

Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

A lot of people seem to confuse CS Lewis for some sort of official Christian spokesman, as often as he's quoted. Considering this is a false dichotomy, I'm inclined to think he should've stuck with writing stories and leave the theology to people who think about it for a living.

But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher.

Leaving aside Jesus' divinity issue, if one believes the teaching would qualify Jesus as a "madman" ... why bother following Him, even if He is divine? An insane jerk is still a jerk, mortal or otherwise. CS Lewis seems to be arguing that Jesus' teachings are insane. If that is the case, why would people deify Him? What is there to respect? And if His teachings ARE wise, why does it matter what form of life He took?

 

[CensoredAlso]

And yet...people still can't prove or disprove this clip either way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvEERL2Efdk

Well my own theory, I think it could be a human because at one point it does sort of look like the "thing," whatever it is, is mugging, that is looking at the camera very deliberately.

Just saw this and had to mention- this is one (of many) reasons I love MacGyver. (hence my avatar.)

Lol, nice, used to watch MacGyver with my Mom all the time. Ah memories!

Although to clarify, I don't know that John the Baptist was considered a weirdo just for being single. It may have also been for wearing clothes made of camel's hiar with a leather belt around his waist and consisting on a diet of wild honey and locusts and lived in the desert, probably as a hermit.

Oh yes absolutely, that was part of it too.

Some out there deny even the existence of Jesus Christ, which I think is intellectually dishonest because there is tons of evidence to show that Jesus historically existed

Yeah to deny that is a matter of ignorance at this point, there is evidence the man at least existed, period.

Just as I believe there was a historical figure named Siddhartha Gautama, but I don't believe he was an enlightened one and I don't believe he was God, as some seem to elevate him to that position (though I don't know that he ever really claimed that of himself either.)

Well I think the Buddhists are actually divided on this issue as well, whether Buddha should be considered a god. But btw, the book Siddhartha was a great read!

A lot of people seem to confuse CS Lewis for some sort of official Christian spokesman, as often as he's quoted. Considering this is a false dichotomy, I'm inclined to think he should've stuck with writing stories and leave the theology to people who think about it for a living.

Well I guess it's like how people quote Dante's Inferno as though it's part of the Bible. In reality it was basically a really, really good fanfiction, hehe.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

A lot of people seem to confuse CS Lewis for some sort of official Christian spokesman, as often as he's quoted. Considering this is a false dichotomy, I'm inclined to think he should've stuck with writing stories and leave the theology to people who think about it for a living.

C.S. Lewis did a great job of writing stories (namely "The Chronicles of Narnia" and the Space Trilogy- among others.)
and writing many nonfiction theological writings- like "Mere Christianity" and numerous others), all well worth reading.
I quote him because I love his writings and he did a great job of bringing forth the truth of God's Word in a fresh way.
Jesus Christ Himself is the ultimate official spokesman for Christianity of course- and I read His Word, The Bible, first and foremost. But He also sent out His followers as His spokespeople too.
I like how C.S. Lewis expressed the statement I quoted but others besides him have drawn the same conclusions.

Leaving aside Jesus' divinity issue, if one believes the teaching would qualify Jesus as a "madman" ... why bother following Him, even if He is divine? An insane jerk is still a jerk, mortal or otherwise. CS Lewis seems to be arguing that Jesus' teachings are insane. If that is the case, why would people deify Him? What is there to respect? And if His teachings ARE wise, why does it matter what form of life He took?

How do you find Jesus to be a jerk, insane or otherwise. C.S. Lewis was definitely not arguing that Jesus' teachings are insane and he certainly wasn't calling Him a jerk. Perhaps it would make more sense in the context of the book, "Mere Christianity". If you haven't read it, I would definitely suggest it- great read.
Jesus' teachings make perfect sense because Jesus is God. What Lewis was saying is that Jesus would be a liar IF the Resurrection wasn't true and He wasn't really God. He would be a lunatic perhaps IF He hadn't proved His Word to be true by dying and rising again and showing He is God.
People have not deified Jesus. Jesus is The Deity- The One True God. He makes that statement Himself in John 10:30.
The point Lewis was making was that Jesus could not have done all the things He did and said all the things He said and be just a good teacher. A good teacher doesn't tell lies. A good teacher doesn't make up wild and fanciful stories. But The Lord God can truthfully say He will rise from the dead and then do it- and Jesus did.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

But btw, the book Siddhartha was a great read!

I read that book in high school- it was quite interesting, definitely.

Well I guess it's like how people quote Dante's Inferno as though it's part of the Bible. In reality it was basically a really, really good fanfiction, hehe.

True. Though it is an interesting read, it's still Dante's ideas rather than God's absolute truth. Much as I love C.S. Lewis and other Christian writers, I certainly hold to the actual Word of God- The Holy Bible- above anything else.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I read that book in high school- it was quite interesting, definitely.

Me too, in High School. Good old summer reading, lol.

True. Though it is an interesting read, it's still Dante's ideas rather than God's absolute truth. Much as I love C.S. Lewis and other Christian writers, I certainly hold to the actual Word of God- The Holy Bible- above anything else.

And I want to clarify, I do have a lot of respect for Dante's Inferno as a literary work of art. I was just kiddding about the fanfiction remark, hehe.

GonzoLeaper, can I ask, have you ever seen Jesus Christ Superstar or Godspell? Just curious.