Just a few general comments on some recent points/arguments made.

We keep doing this:

"Why do you believe xxx"
"Because I read yyy in scripture"
"I don't buy scripture, especially Paul's stuff"

It should be obvious from the outset that if we don't agree on the authority of scripture then we're not going agree on the conclusions I draw from it. I never appeal to scripture here to convince anybody of anything; rather my purpose is to explain why I believe what I do. Since we are starting from different places, obviously beliefs will diverge. But I'd hope an honest inquiry trying to understand my beliefs would also understand that I am always going to be coming from a frame of reference that starts with scripture as the inspiried Word of God. You don't need to adpot this belief to understand mine better, but if every time I appeal to scripture we end up having the "Paul didn't meet Jesus/ had his own agenda/ was gay" discussion we are not going to get very far in seeking to understand one another.

My suggestion is that if we want to have a discussion about the authority of scripture and why John and I believe it to be the inspired Word of God, that might be an interesting thread. But if there are other questions we are intrested in discussing regarding things such as gambling, greed, or how Christians derive their moral outlook, it would more profitable to accept that we have different starting places and move on to where that leaves us and how we apply our different views rather than constantly re-treading the same issue of the inspiration of scripture.

Just an observation and a thought to try and get a little farther in these disuccions


I also wanted to respond to the whole "why dosen't God talk to us anymore" stuff. I'd like to make clear that Christians believe God still does talk to us, just not in the authoritative way of scripture. Scripture remains the objective Word of God that we can use to measure individual subjective encounters with Him. In scripture He has given us all we need to live the Christian life the way He intends; no more objective truth is needed.

The Bible never seeks to prove the existense of God. It always just assumes His existense and centers around themes of our relationship to Him. So saying, "God spoke 2000 years ago and then became silent" is an innacurate characterization of the Bible. Rather, God spoke through the Bible to tell us how to relate to Him, and has been communicating to us in His still small voice ever since.

It is easy to think that we'd relate to God differently if He suddenly appeard and start doing God-like things, but scripture teels a different story. When He actually DID come in human form doing God-like things, here are some of the responses people had:

-Some believed and became followers
-Some called Him evil and not worthy of being followed
-Some felt threatened by the implications of the things He said and claimed
-Some thought it was a hoax.
-Some treated Him like a curiosity but no real significance
-Some really couldn't be bothered because they had their own issues to deal with

These are the same responses people have today, and it appears that even putting the miraculous right in our faces didn't make much of a difference from the beleif standpoint. I think very few attitudes would change if God were to show up and start working miracles. There would still be doubters, those unconcerned, and people who believe and trust. At the end of the day, the real issue isn't belief in His existense (though that is the first step of course)- it is answer the question of our need for a savior and putting our trust in His sacrifice. His showing up might help with the first part, but the second part is always going to be a matter of faith.