Where To Enter

[Frank]

Jesus said where to enter salvation:

Enter through the narrow gate.
(Matthew 7:13 NIV)

http://roines.home.mindspring.com

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Frank
Enter through the narrow gate.
(Matthew 7:13 NIV)

No he didn't. He said it was the gate to life, not the gate to "salvation".

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank
Enter through the narrow gate.
(Matthew 7:13 NIV)

No he didn't. He said it was the gate to life, not the gate to "salvation".

B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank
Enter through the narrow gate.
(Matthew 7:13 NIV)

No he didn't. He said it was the gate to life, not the gate to "salvation".

B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

Did Oliver Twist ask for more?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank
Enter through the narrow gate.
(Matthew 7:13 NIV)

No he didn't. He said it was the gate to life, not the gate to "salvation".

B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

Not true. The 'proof' of the witness of Scripture is good enough.

[AJA]

In orthodox or mainline Christianity are there any sanctioned secret
societies? If so, what would they be? Secret, of course, but what kind of
thing?
Blessings,
Ann

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

Did Oliver Twist ask for more?

B - Yeah..in the story. What of it?
heh..what the "Dickens" are you talking about?

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

Did Oliver Twist ask for more?

B - Yeah..in the story. What of it?
heh..what the "Dickens" are you talking about?

But if we follow your reasoning, we don't know whether he did or not. There is
no proof, we can only guess.

Interesting epistemological question -- how do we know what's written in a
book?

We can only guess, because like the books in the Harry Potter books, what's
written in them can change and disappear, but even of that we have no proof,
we can only guess, because the text in the Harry Potter books themselves is
magical and changes and disappears.

[Trevor]

Post by AJA
In orthodox or mainline Christianity are there any sanctioned secret
societies? If so, what would they be? Secret, of course, but what kind of
thing?
Blessings,
Ann

I don't believe that there are any "sanctioned" secret societies but I'm
sure they exist. I am not aware of any of them and I don't think that
many churches would endorse them.

Greets,
Trevor

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

Did Oliver Twist ask for more?

B - Yeah..in the story. What of it?
heh..what the "Dickens" are you talking about?

But if we follow your reasoning, we don't know whether he did or not. There is
no proof, we can only guess.

B - You can say..yes he did..in the book. You can't say "yes he did" in
reality..especially when everyone KNOWS that Dickens was writing fiction.
WE have no knowledge what has been totally changed in the Bible..what has
been hearsay..(alot in the case of Jesus I would say since he supposedly
died before it was written)...what is of man..what is of God.

Post by Steve Hayes
Interesting epistemological question -- how do we know what's written in a
book?
We can only guess, because like the books in the Harry Potter books, what's
written in them can change and disappear, but even of that we have no proof,
we can only guess, because the text in the Harry Potter books themselves is
magical and changes and disappears.

B - Heh...I do like those Potter books.

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
B - we don't know if he did either..we can only guess. No one has proof.
Bren

Did Oliver Twist ask for more?

B - Yeah..in the story. What of it?
heh..what the "Dickens" are you talking about?

But if we follow your reasoning, we don't know whether he did or not. There is
no proof, we can only guess.

B - You can say..yes he did..in the book. You can't say "yes he did" in
reality..especially when everyone KNOWS that Dickens was writing fiction.
WE have no knowledge what has been totally changed in the Bible..what has
been hearsay..(alot in the case of Jesus I would say since he supposedly
died before it was written)...what is of man..what is of God.

The question here, however, is what is recorded in the book. The question
whether the books is fiction or an accurate record is irrelevant.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes
The question here, however, is what is recorded in the book. The question
whether the books is fiction or an accurate record is irrelevant.

B - that's right..just like the fact that the words of what some people
"claim" are Jesus's are in the Bible...but whether the book is fiction or
not is another question. I take umbrage with people saying "Jesus said
____" in the Bible..instead of "supposedly..Jesus is Quoted as saying ____
in the Bible.
There is a big difference there..one speaks in the objective..the other
subjective. I personally believe that the subjective is the most honest
that anyone can get.

I.M.O
Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
The question here, however, is what is recorded in the book. The question
whether the books is fiction or an accurate record is irrelevant.

B - that's right..just like the fact that the words of what some people
"claim" are Jesus's are in the Bible...but whether the book is fiction or
not is another question. I take umbrage with people saying "Jesus said
____" in the Bible..instead of "supposedly..Jesus is Quoted as saying ____
in the Bible.
There is a big difference there..one speaks in the objective..the other
subjective. I personally believe that the subjective is the most honest
that anyone can get.

If everything we (assuming that there is a we) had to be bracketed with
endless qualifications there would never be time to write anything at all, and
ploughing one's way through the forest of qualifications to find the point
would take just as long if not longer.

As for taking umbrage -- grow up.

In this world not everyone is going to agree with you, so taking umbrage at
it is just juvenile, and leads to endless silly personal arguments that seem
to be all that are left in this forum.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
The question here, however, is what is recorded in the book. The question
whether the books is fiction or an accurate record is irrelevant.

B - that's right..just like the fact that the words of what some people
"claim" are Jesus's are in the Bible...but whether the book is fiction or
not is another question. I take umbrage with people saying "Jesus said
____" in the Bible..instead of "supposedly..Jesus is Quoted as saying ____
in the Bible.
There is a big difference there..one speaks in the objective..the other
subjective. I personally believe that the subjective is the most honest
that anyone can get.

If everything we (assuming that there is a we) had to be bracketed with
endless qualifications there would never be time to write anything at all, and
ploughing one's way through the forest of qualifications to find the point
would take just as long if not longer.

B - so speaking for all is more important than kindness and honesty
because it's quicker?

Post by Steve Hayes
As for taking umbrage -- grow up.

B - Oh dear...never. I come to God as a little child.
Umbrage means it bugs me..not that I am livid or rabid.

Post by Steve Hayes
In this world not everyone is going to agree with you, so taking umbrage at
it is just juvenile, and leads to endless silly personal arguments that seem
to be all that are left in this forum.

B - I guess you must be taking umbrage with my words then? ;)

I tend to be very accepting of different beliefs as long as people speak
for themselves or what is written etc. I accept all manner of spirituality
etc. I also tend to drop my responses or reading certain people's posts
when it gets to the stage of silly personal arguments...for example I
don't read Isenders or Matthews posts anymore because I don't see any
point in it. So....asking me to not take umbrage is rather...funny really.

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
If everything we (assuming that there is a we) had to be bracketed with
endless qualifications there would never be time to write anything at all, and
ploughing one's way through the forest of qualifications to find the point
would take just as long if not longer.

B - so speaking for all is more important than kindness and honesty
because it's quicker?

So weeping at the elastic as it stretches is more important tha rejoicing that
it might have been otherwise.

Singing because round things roll is more important than rejoicing that it
might have been otherwise.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
If everything we (assuming that there is a we) had to be bracketed with
endless qualifications there would never be time to write anything at all, and
ploughing one's way through the forest of qualifications to find the point
would take just as long if not longer.

B - so speaking for all is more important than kindness and honesty
because it's quicker?

So weeping at the elastic as it stretches is more important tha rejoicing that
it might have been otherwise.
Singing because round things roll is more important than rejoicing that it
might have been otherwise.

B - I agree. I just feel that if someone on here said "God is a big
donkey" ....people would respond in either humour,anger,or irritation. No
one usually likes it when someone speaks for them...makes statements that
try to sum up what they believe for everyone. I've seen it happen time and
time again..which is why I would rather people just speak for themselves
especially when they are discussing "God" which seems for many of us...a
subjective thing. We may all agree on somethings...but I can't see God as
being one of them. I also see it as more honest period...to say how God
seems to each of us instead of making those objective statements that we
don't really "KNOW" is true..even though we may feel it in our bones.

Just a thought.

If a person "DOES" do the objective statement bit then they have to be
prepared for others disagreeing with them or digging at them. It happens.

respectfully,
Bren

[shegeek72]

No one usually likes it when someone speaks for them...makes statements that
try to sum up what they believe for everyone.

Hear, hear.

I've seen it happen time and
time again..which is why I would rather people just speak for themselves
especially when they are discussing "God" which seems for many of us...a
subjective thing.

Agreed.

At our church (MCC) we have a unique Sunday evening service,
'Elevation,' which is a progressive, youth-oriented (though many in
the congregation are old fogies, like me) service, where there's
discussion on a variety of topics (chosen by the assistant pastor).
For example, this past Sunday the discussion was on specific sections
in Mark, before that it was on the movie 'Evan Almighty.'

The pastor made two revealing statements at the last Elevation: he
doesn't have all the answers concerning the Bible and he learns from
us. The former I expected, but may shock some who attend traditional
churches where the pastors might as well be God, as they think they
have all the answers concerning the Bible (particularly gay and
lesbian issues). The latter surprised me. To have a reverend say he
learns from his congregation was refreshing. It indicates that we're
all on spiritual journeys and just because someone has spent years
learning to become a Christian scholar and church leader doesn't mean
he or she has stopped learning.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[B.G. Kent]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, shegeek72 wrote:

**snip

Post by shegeek72
The latter surprised me. To have a reverend say he
learns from his congregation was refreshing. It indicates that we're
all on spiritual journeys and just because someone has spent years
learning to become a Christian scholar and church leader doesn't mean
he or she has stopped learning.

B - and that he is humble and honest. I can study the same error over and
over...memorize and schpiel it off....but that doesn't make me any better
a scholar than anyone else. I respect learnedness but knowing the human
condition I also know not to let appearances fool me. Bless your
reverend!!!

and bless you.
Love Bren

[shegeek72]

Post by Steve Hayes
If everything we (assuming that there is a we) had to be bracketed with
endless qualifications there would never be time to write anything at all, and
ploughing one's way through the forest of qualifications to find the point
would take just as long if not longer.

There's a big difference between, say, a science book and the Bible.
The former we can usually safely assume has been researched, peer
reviewed and checked for inaccuracies, the latter has not. The are so
many links along the line where the Bible could've changed, not the
least the scribes. On top of that, there's different interpretations
of what's there. The more I learn about the Bible the more I
understand that I don't have all the answers (like some in this group
claim to do).
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org