[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

If someone had faith in a church or a teacher or written words on a page or in something else other than God and it failed them, then good. It was an idol anyway.

We're on the same page there. There is even a word for taking the Bible too seriously: Bibliolatry.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Although I study the Bible, I don't concern myself with getting all the theology exactly right especially if my knowing it won't change anything. I have missed the verse that says, "By your complete and correct study of the Bible you will gain entry into Heaven and eternal life."

The Bible purports to show the way to eternal life, as does the church. This is serious business and a serious claim. Yet you say that the Bible's language is mysterious / subject to interpretation, some of it "won't change anything" and that even getting it exactly right isn't crucial. So what's the point of treating the Bible as a holy book? Mind you, I didn't say there is no value to be found within its pages. I'm just saying -- if I have to sift through it to separate fact from fiction, value from fluff, then it is no different than any other book and we shouldn't pretend that it is. And we would learn more from it if we quite thinking it was special in that way.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I'm still working on getting this one right "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." What do you think that means? Do we take a survey? Or call Billy Graham? Or does the whole church need to agree before I can follow the Spirit?

Personally I'd ask Spinoza rather than Graham. But I digress. To respond to your point, I didn't say that NOTHING in the Bible is crystal clear. Although I don't think we need the Bible to tell us that we are "sons" of whatever spirit leads us. That is sort of self-evident.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

How about, "The letter kills but the spirit gives life."

How about it? If the letter kills, why bother with the letter?

You know, I was taught that the Bible is a superior source of truth because it's all there in black and white. Leaving aside that much of the language is far from clear cut or widely agreed upon even on important points, and granting for the sake of argument that scripture is inspired by God, think of the steps that revelation has to go through:

1. God speaks.
2. Some human vessel writes it down. Let's assume that they hear it right and that absolutely none of their preconceptions pollutes the well at this point. We'll grant you a miracle on that count.
3. I read what is written.
4. I interpret its meaning.
5. I apply it to my life.

If you reflect on all the misunderstandings and distortions that can occur in steps 3 thru 5 you find that this is far from a perfect mechanism. If you consider that through most of human history for most people (3) wasn't possible and interpose a layer of "experts" who decide for you what it means, it gets even worse and becomes ripe for manipulation as well.

(I've been nice and left out the issue of textual criticism: are the manuscripts available today substantially uncorrupted from the originals?).

If God wants to communicate crucial information with grave import to our soul's destiny, then the only way it would happen is if he communicates directly with us. So the Bible as a source document is of minimal importance and personal revelation is everything.

If God were communicating by personal revelation we could expect at least the initiated / enlightened to substantially agree on everything and to treat each other with love and respect on those points on which they differ.

Alas, even if you presume that God does not sweat the small stuff and allows us to believe for example in hell or not, purgatory or not, reincarnation or not, so long as we all can feel the love in the room, so to speak -- well, I am not impressed with the result. Provisionally at least I've had to conclude that God isn't speaking to anyone and that we are all nattering at ourselves.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Yes someone can get too wrapped up especially in end time prophecy or whether one can do this or that and still go to heaven or on single verse specks when logs are falling all around them. But if the reason they do is not to understand but to live as close to the edge as possible but still get to heaven, they are wasting their time. His kingdom is now.

I don't think people are looking for ways to game the system to the degree that you suggest. It certainly isn't my motivation. It's just that God's spokespersons can't agree on what's important and they frequently in my experience lead people into emphasizing irrelevant debates for the purpose of inflating their own egos (and attracting to themselves followers who will support them in their dysfunction). Also -- I don't know about the attitude of your tradition in these matters, but once you say that the Bible is word for word inspired you have the very serious practical problem that you can't filter out obviously garbled or nonsense passages so that you can get at the real meat of things.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

So who are you taking issue with? The "church" for deliberately teaching lies? Some self appointed authority standing in the gate that Jesus warned about? Some person who doesn't want to seek God himself but through someone else's understanding? Or at God for being vague and only revealing Himself by His Spirit to someone who wants to know?

There is enough blame to go around. I would say all of the above. And possibly, I am annoyed at God for NOT revealing Himself to someone who wants to know.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Please don't answer me, Bob, but what would that feel like to you, if you do influence someone away from their church or their faith with what you know?

It would feel like I had atoned for some of my past sins as a religious know it all. Leading people away from pointless dogma is a virtue. That is their only hope for finding God, to get their minds off drivel and to listen to their hearts.

--Bob