This is a poll.


Do you believe the Bible is historically accurate?

Does your church teach that the Bible is true and historically accurate?

Are all the stories set out and told in the Bible true or are they fiction or a mixture of both?

yes
no, don't go to church
both



and that's a fact!

Thank you for your participation Peter.

1. no
2. no
3. mix/both

there is nothing inconsistent between pantheism and christianity
it is just how you view God

I believe it to be historically accurate

my church never taught that it WASNT historically accurate, but never specifically taught that it was,, it just was a given that we would be learning what was 'accurate'

ITs a mix of

see for example: http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/panthesm.htm

Pantheism and Western Monotheism
How does pantheism relate to traditional Judaeo-Christian conceptions of God? As Paul Harrison ("Defining the Cosmic Divinity," SP website) points out, traditional (Western) religion describes a God who is ultimately a mystery, beyond human comprehension; awe-inspiring; overwhelmingly powerful; creator of the universe; eternal and infinite; and transcendent. The divine universe fits some of these descriptions without modification and it fits others if we allow ourselves to interpret the terms flexibly.

The divine universe is mysterious. Though we can understand the universe more adequately as scientific research proceeds, there will always be questions to which we will not yet have answers; and explanations of ultimate origins will always remain speculative (they are too far in the past for us to decipher clearly).

The divine universe is awe-inspiring. Would a creator behind it be any more awe-inspiring than the universe itself?

The universe is clearly very powerful. It creates and it destroys on a vast scale.

So far as we know, the universe created all that exists; which is to say that, the universe as it is now was created by the universe as it was a moment ago, and that universe by the universe that existed a moment before that, and so on. If we view universe in this way, we can keep the idea of creator and creation and yet have no need to imagine a being apart from the universe who created it. The divine being is indeed a creator, in the pantheist view. Indeed, the creativity of the natural universe is probably the best evidence for its divinity.

Is the universe eternal? Well, it depends on how you understand eternity. Traditional Western theology understands eternity as a quality of a God that exists altogether outside time. Yet the dynamic and changing universe is very much bound up with time, so it is not eternal in the theological sense. Possibly it is everlasting, maybe it had no first moment and will never cease to exist. Scientific evidence does point to a Big Bang several billion years ago, from which our universe in roughly its current form originated, but if we accept the time-honored precept that nothing comes from nothing, we cannot rule out the existence of a material universe before this Big Bang.

Is the universe transcendent? In Western theology transcendence is a term often paired with eternity. A transcendent being is essentially outside and independent of the universe. Of course, the divinity which pantheists revere is not transcendent in that way. However, in ordinary language, to transcend is to surpass. Well, the universe which includes us also certainly surpasses us, as it surpasses everything we are capable of knowing or observing.
Differences with Western Monotheism

Pantheism has clear differences with the traditional description of God. It departs from the picture of God given in the Old Testament to the extent that the Old Testament attributes human attributes to the divine being, such as a willingness to make deals (You worship me and I'll make you my Chosen People) and anger (for example, Yahweh's anger at the Israelites' worship of the Golden Calf).

Pantheism also avoids some features of the theological conception of God which arises from a mix of Greek philosophical influences and Judaeo-Christian thought. For example, pantheism does not hold that the divinity we revere is a first cause wholly independent of matter, or that the divine being freely creates the physical universe from nothing but its own will.

If Christianity taught that I would probably be a Christian.

But, no, I see no resemblance to Christianity there.




No Jesus there.

Thank you for your vote.

But
I'm confused about your second answer.

Did your church assume that you would assume the Bible is historically accurate? I'm going to take that as a yes answer. They taught that it was "true" or "accurate."

Otherwise that seems very ambiguous.

How do you define what a "Christian" is?

I was baptized as a Christian baby, cleansed of all my previous sins from past lives.

They erased my karma with Holy Water.

Although I don't think their spell worked. I actually had good karma and it seems to have stuck with me in spite of their attempts to beat our Holy Mother Nature at Her Master Plans.

I also accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior and was once again cleansed of all sin in his BLOOD. Metaphorically speaking of course.

I later renounced all of that because I came to realize that I want no blood of Jesus on me. I wash my hands of that whole affair. Just like Pilot. I want to parts of crucifying Jesus to pay for people's sin, and especially not for me. I don't feel that I have an 'sins' that need to be redeemed anyway so why should I contribute to that? I was taught that Jesus himself said that he only came for sinners and not for the righteous, so as a righteous Christian I have no need to be "Saved" by Jesus.

Of course, I don't buy into the whole story anyway, as I'm sure you well know.

Ok, what were the questions again?

As a perfect and righteous Christian who has no need to be saved since I am perfect like our creator as Jesus suggested we should all be, I'll give my Holy Christian answers:

Do you believe the Bible is historically accurate?

What do you mean by "historically accurate"?

I believe that some of the fables in the Bible were inspired by actual historical events. I don't believe in the historical accuracy of their claims of supernatural or divine interventions.

I also believe that much of what's in the Bible is obviously just repeated superstitions. Like a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices. Sounds too Zeus-like to me.

Does your church teach that the Bible is true and historically accurate?

I don't own a church, but if I had one I'd convert it to Wicca.

Either that or convert it to a dance studio and jazz and blues club. Or maybe both, a Wicca church and a dance studio and jazz/blues club.

Are all the stories set out and told in the Bible true or are they fiction or a mixture of both?

I already answered that. Most are probably either standard myths from the region, or new stories based on exaggerations and superstitions of important social events that occurred at various points in time.

I think they should have had more stories of dance and music.

I also think that more kings in biblical stories would have been better off if they all went to seek the psychic wisdom of the witches when they truly wanted to have spiritual knowledge.

They really blew it when they started making it up themselves.

That's my CHRISTIAN opinion.

Although, I confess that my Pantheist opinion isn't any different.

I don't know what happened to that other post. It appears to have been deleted, but I explained.

Anyone can express their opinion here.

But the poll is for Christians.

The poll is a result of a statement made by 'someone' that most Christians did not believe that the bible is historically accurate or true.

I disagreed.

So in order for your vote to be counted, (in the poll) you have to be a Christian, and that includes anyone who claims to be Christian.

But all opinions are welcome!

Hmmm?

Well that's interesting. I don't know whether I should claim to be a "Christian" or not.

The Christians themselves have me totally confused on what it means to be a "Christian". Every Christian I meet seems to have a different idea of what that means.

Is Slowhand a "Christian"?

He seems to be cool with the Bible being just hearsay rumors that may or may not contain any actual literal truths.

Is Peter_Pan a "Christian". Based on his posts in other threads he doesn't even know what the Biblical scriptures even say. How can someone claim to be a "Christian" when they don't even know what's in the doctrine?

Some Christians have told me that all you need to do to be a Christian is believe in Jesus. Well, I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe that the hearsay rumors in the New Testament can be trusted to represent what Jesus actually stood for.

Some Christians have told me that all a person needs to do is be a "follower" of Jesus in terms of following his moral guidelines. Well, I find that quite confusing because when I read about the moral views of Jesus they seem to all coincide with my own moral values. How can I "follow" someone who already thinks like me?

Some Christians have told me that as long as I agree with, and follow the same more standards as were taught by Jesus, then I'm a Christian. Well, I guess if Jesus taught the same moral values that I already have then I'm in agreement with following those same moral standards.

So by that definition then I must be a "Christian".

Other Christians tell me that if I don't confess that Jesus is the only begotten sacrificial son of God who died to pay for my sins then I can't claim to be a "Christian".

Well, I certainly can't "confess" to something I neither know to be true, nor have sufficient reason to even believe.

So the whole religion is totally confusing.

I have no frigg'in clue whether I'm a Christian or not. I suppose it all depends on WHO you ask.

I think if you asked Jesus he'd probably say, "Who cares? What does Christianity have to do with anything anyway? Did I not tell you that the Scribes and Pharisees are hypocrites?"

I cant assume what others assumptions were,,lol

I just think of explicit lessons when I hear the phrase 'does the church teach', and there was never any explicit mention of accuracy anymore than there was a mention of accuracy in my american history class

I trusted that someone would not spend time and energy to study with me something that was 'inaccurate', the fact that they were teaching it led to a conclusion that it was an 'accurate' lesson,,,,

If you define being a Christian as one who follows the teachings of
Jesus Christ then I don't see any problems with pantheism and
Christianity.

Christ being one with God/Nature is also no problem.

No big deal. Easy.

I think these are all reasonable and appropriate views and definitions.
Plus it makes Abra a Christian and that is the most appealing part.





Even if he is still fuming over his forced baptism.
That water must've been a powerful shock on the wee Abra!

That's sort of how we get the lies we have though msharmony. Because people assume that if someone is teaching it from a position of authority, than it must be true. We must not do that, we cannot be afraid to question.

to an extent, questioning serves a purpose

questioning just for questioning sake or distrusting for the sake of distrusting, is not something that works for me


As far as I Can tell, we are taught things (in schools, at jobs, or in churches) that provide us with the knowledge to survive and progress in the environment we are in.

I Can always look for extracurricular information on my own time, of course,,,, but in the course of an interaction with authority I believe it serves me best to listen to what they have to say as a GUIDE of how and why I will be best suited to survive in my environment

For instance, I dont feel its right to 'embellish' what we have done, but we are taught over and over that that is the EXPECTATION to be viewed and considered in the business world


I can still hold on to what I believe, I Can still study whatever I Wish, without feeling any particular desire to be confrontational or argumentative with those who are trying to give me the knowledge I need to be on par with the rest of the population I live amongst

whether I agree with it or not...

I think a lot of people do that just to fit in with society. I feel like a hypocrite if I try to do that.

Yes, but what I mean is......if something you are told doesn't sound right, you should be free to ask why, not just accept it cause someone above you says it's true you know what I mean?

This is the problem with religion and Christianity, when you try to question truths you are presented with that don't make any good sense, it's always you that doesn't understand, never that maybe what you are being told is false. It creates a closed mind in that sense to anything that may go against what you have been told.

well then this is also the problem with education of any type. THere has to be a foundation that is counted on to build upon. THat foundation has to be assumed to be accurate for any of what is built upon it to be accurate. IF I am being taught, by someone who has already studied something(anything) and I dont understand it,,, of course I have the capacity to ask for clarification

but the problem becomes, IF I question the validity of the information I am being given to start with, how should the answer to my questions about that information satisfy my curiousity any more than the original answer?

its one thing to ask for clarification, its another to demand proof and convincing,,,,


why would any teacher ever teach from a place of falsehood and why would such a teacher ever admit that?

if I understand something and my student doesnt, even after I try to clarify it,, it is very probably going to seem to me that they 'dont understand it',,,,,and need to study it further

Well for some people in positions of authority, be it in religion or politics, have an agenda, and they use what they spout as truth to be to further that.

So that's one answer to that question. Secondly, there are other teachers who maybe think they are teaching from a place of truth, but in reality have been lied to themselves too. They just don't realize that.