Comments on: A Letter To Religious Moderates http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates grep understanding Tue, 15 May 2012 12:09:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification | dmiessler.com http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-242300 Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification | dmiessler.com Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:13:20 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-242300 <p>[...] I’ve written before about my issues with religious moderates who build their own religions by arbitrarily rejecting and embracing various pieces of their chosen holy text. [...]</p> [...] I’ve written before about my issues with religious moderates who build their own religions by arbitrarily rejecting and embracing various pieces of their chosen holy text. [...]

]]> By: Another Jesus Quote You’ll Never Hear in Church | dmiessler.com http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-241419 Another Jesus Quote You’ll Never Hear in Church | dmiessler.com Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:38:48 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-241419 <p>[...] [ An Atheist Debate Reference | dmiessler.com ] [ How I Became an Atheist | dmiessler.com ] [ A Letter to Religious Moderates | dmiessler.com ] [...]</p> [...] [ An Atheist Debate Reference | dmiessler.com ] [ How I Became an Atheist | dmiessler.com ] [ A Letter to Religious Moderates | dmiessler.com ] [...]

]]> By: If You’re Agnostic, You’re Probably an Atheist | dmiessler.com http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-241355 If You’re Agnostic, You’re Probably an Atheist | dmiessler.com Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:36:54 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-241355 <p>[...] [ An Atheist Debate Reference | dmiessler.com ] [ How I Became an Atheist | dmiessler.com ] [ A Letter to Religious Moderates | dmiessler.com ] [...]</p> [...] [ An Atheist Debate Reference | dmiessler.com ] [ How I Became an Atheist | dmiessler.com ] [ A Letter to Religious Moderates | dmiessler.com ] [...]

]]> By: Shades of Astray: Why You Shouldn’t Be Calling Yourself Agnostic | dmiessler.com http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-241278 Shades of Astray: Why You Shouldn’t Be Calling Yourself Agnostic | dmiessler.com Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:48:49 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-241278 <p>[...] [ An Atheist Debate Reference | dmiessler.com ] [ How I Became an Atheist | dmiessler.com ] [ A Letter to Religious Moderates | dmiessler.com ] [...]</p> [...] [ An Atheist Debate Reference | dmiessler.com ] [ How I Became an Atheist | dmiessler.com ] [ A Letter to Religious Moderates | dmiessler.com ] [...]

]]> By: Amy Miller http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-131697 Amy Miller Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:59:20 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-131697 <p>I would consider myself a moderate (although Orthodox Christian) and it is my understanding that in the New Testament Christ's preachings were about taking our attention off picayune details such what combinations of fabrics we could wear and focusing us on love of God and our neighbor, which was the point of the OT law anyway. So when thinking about an ethical question I look at how I can best carry out the commands to love God and my neighbor. It would have been impossible to write a set of specific laws concerning every possible situation and at any rate would not have allowed us to use the gifts of intelligence and free will that God gave us. Jesus's frustration with the Pharisees was in their obsessive observance of the letter of the law without looking at the "big picture." Paul reiterates this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 when he says, "who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Daniel, I respect you and your efforts but at the same time I think the Bible and Christianity are incredibly hard to understand. I had a strong motivation which I will not go into here, but suffice it to say that before seriously wrestling with the basics of Christian faith I had many misconceptions.</p> I would consider myself a moderate (although Orthodox Christian) and it is my understanding that in the New Testament Christ’s preachings were about taking our attention off picayune details such what combinations of fabrics we could wear and focusing us on love of God and our neighbor, which was the point of the OT law anyway. So when thinking about an ethical question I look at how I can best carry out the commands to love God and my neighbor. It would have been impossible to write a set of specific laws concerning every possible situation and at any rate would not have allowed us to use the gifts of intelligence and free will that God gave us. Jesus’s frustration with the Pharisees was in their obsessive observance of the letter of the law without looking at the “big picture.” Paul reiterates this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 when he says, “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Daniel, I respect you and your efforts but at the same time I think the Bible and Christianity are incredibly hard to understand. I had a strong motivation which I will not go into here, but suffice it to say that before seriously wrestling with the basics of Christian faith I had many misconceptions.

]]> By: Amy Miller http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248276 Amy Miller Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:59:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248276 <p>I would consider myself a moderate (although Orthodox Christian) and it is my understanding that in the New Testament Christ's preachings were about taking our attention off picayune details such what combinations of fabrics we could wear and focusing us on love of God and our neighbor, which was the point of the OT law anyway. So when thinking about an ethical question I look at how I can best carry out the commands to love God and my neighbor. It would have been impossible to write a set of specific laws concerning every possible situation and at any rate would not have allowed us to use the gifts of intelligence and free will that God gave us. Jesus's frustration with the Pharisees was in their obsessive observance of the letter of the law without looking at the "big picture." Paul reiterates this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 when he says, "who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Daniel, I respect you and your efforts but at the same time I think the Bible and Christianity are incredibly hard to understand. I had a strong motivation which I will not go into here, but suffice it to say that before seriously wrestling with the basics of Christian faith I had many misconceptions.</p> I would consider myself a moderate (although Orthodox Christian) and it is my understanding that in the New Testament Christ’s preachings were about taking our attention off picayune details such what combinations of fabrics we could wear and focusing us on love of God and our neighbor, which was the point of the OT law anyway. So when thinking about an ethical question I look at how I can best carry out the commands to love God and my neighbor. It would have been impossible to write a set of specific laws concerning every possible situation and at any rate would not have allowed us to use the gifts of intelligence and free will that God gave us. Jesus’s frustration with the Pharisees was in their obsessive observance of the letter of the law without looking at the “big picture.” Paul reiterates this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 when he says, “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Daniel, I respect you and your efforts but at the same time I think the Bible and Christianity are incredibly hard to understand. I had a strong motivation which I will not go into here, but suffice it to say that before seriously wrestling with the basics of Christian faith I had many misconceptions.

]]> By: Jacob Kline http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-125379 Jacob Kline Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:19:13 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-125379 <p>As to Christ being the completion of the law and the perfect sacrifice, it should be noted: just as He gave up life to provide the gift, so are we required to lay down our lives in discipleship to Him, in return. <blockquote>"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." Matt. 16:25, Matt. 10:39 </blockquote> Discipleship is the price of following Christ. <blockquote> "and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matt. 10:38 </blockquote> Good discussions.</p> As to Christ being the completion of the law and the perfect sacrifice, it should be noted: just as He gave up life to provide the gift, so are we required to lay down our lives in discipleship to Him, in return.
“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” Matt. 16:25, Matt. 10:39
Discipleship is the price of following Christ.
“and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Matt. 10:38
Good discussions.

]]> By: Jacob Kline http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248275 Jacob Kline Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:19:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248275 <p>As to Christ being the completion of the law and the perfect sacrifice, it should be noted: just as He gave up life to provide the gift, so are we required to lay down our lives in discipleship to Him, in return. <blockquote>"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." Matt. 16:25, Matt. 10:39 </blockquote> Discipleship is the price of following Christ. <blockquote> "and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matt. 10:38 </blockquote> Good discussions.</p> As to Christ being the completion of the law and the perfect sacrifice, it should be noted: just as He gave up life to provide the gift, so are we required to lay down our lives in discipleship to Him, in return.
“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” Matt. 16:25, Matt. 10:39
Discipleship is the price of following Christ.
“and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Matt. 10:38
Good discussions.

]]> By: Rick http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-67074 Rick Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:49:15 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-67074 <p>Timothy is correct in regards to the sacrifice. Christ was the completion of the law... the perfect sacrifice. However I would have to respectfully disagree that all earthly penalty for sin has been paid. While not popular today and often over looked by churches in the quest for members, there are portions of the NT that does give examples of penalties on earth. It is also worth noting that we have the promise of payment for our actions, good or bad, spiritually. To say that Christ’s death on the cross negated our responsibility would negate the whole point of commanding us to live right. It is true we are not commanded to kill anyone (read: fanatics miss-applying scriptures), one should remember the nation of Israel was given the law from God as a theocratic nation (the kingships came later) and it was given a due process with judging and rulings. The death penalty was determined not by the priests (while you can find examples of them doing so it was not as God set it up) but judges (and later kings and judges appointed by kings) and carried out, not by those affected or witnesses, but rather the elder men of the area. *Note: There is the exception of avenging murder. A man that avenged the murder of a family member was to be found innocent. This was typically illustrated in the Bible when a man would commit murder and run… the family could pursue and slay him and did not have to bring the murderer in for ‘due process’ but to not be found guilty of murder themselves had to be able to prove it. So the death penalty was given to the government in the OT. It is worth noting that the situation that Jesus when He said let “he that is without sin cast the first stone” he was being setup and He knew it. *Note: the Bible says she was taken in the very act… where was the man? And he was not condemning the Government or denying the penal system but rather a mob. And in the NT you have the reason for government: Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.</p> <p>So, government is given a responsibility to punish evil (by the sword… somehow I do not think it was community service) and reward good.</p> <p>That is one reason I am grateful to be an American my ‘authority’ is the constitution of our great nation. And we are given the ability (read: responsibility) to interact with our government.</p> <p>Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.</p> <p>-Rick</p> Timothy is correct in regards to the sacrifice. Christ was the completion of the law… the perfect sacrifice. However I would have to respectfully disagree that all earthly penalty for sin has been paid. While not popular today and often over looked by churches in the quest for members, there are portions of the NT that does give examples of penalties on earth. It is also worth noting that we have the promise of payment for our actions, good or bad, spiritually. To say that Christ’s death on the cross negated our responsibility would negate the whole point of commanding us to live right. It is true we are not commanded to kill anyone (read: fanatics miss-applying scriptures), one should remember the nation of Israel was given the law from God as a theocratic nation (the kingships came later) and it was given a due process with judging and rulings. The death penalty was determined not by the priests (while you can find examples of them doing so it was not as God set it up) but judges (and later kings and judges appointed by kings) and carried out, not by those affected or witnesses, but rather the elder men of the area. *Note: There is the exception of avenging murder. A man that avenged the murder of a family member was to be found innocent. This was typically illustrated in the Bible when a man would commit murder and run… the family could pursue and slay him and did not have to bring the murderer in for ‘due process’ but to not be found guilty of murder themselves had to be able to prove it. So the death penalty was given to the government in the OT. It is worth noting that the situation that Jesus when He said let “he that is without sin cast the first stone” he was being setup and He knew it. *Note: the Bible says she was taken in the very act… where was the man? And he was not condemning the Government or denying the penal system but rather a mob. And in the NT you have the reason for government: Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

So, government is given a responsibility to punish evil (by the sword… somehow I do not think it was community service) and reward good.

That is one reason I am grateful to be an American my ‘authority’ is the constitution of our great nation. And we are given the ability (read: responsibility) to interact with our government.

Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.

-Rick

]]> By: Rick http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248274 Rick Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:49:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248274 <p>Timothy is correct in regards to the sacrifice. Christ was the completion of the law... the perfect sacrifice. However I would have to respectfully disagree that all earthly penalty for sin has been paid. While not popular today and often over looked by churches in the quest for members, there are portions of the NT that does give examples of penalties on earth. It is also worth noting that we have the promise of payment for our actions, good or bad, spiritually. To say that Christ’s death on the cross negated our responsibility would negate the whole point of commanding us to live right. It is true we are not commanded to kill anyone (read: fanatics miss-applying scriptures), one should remember the nation of Israel was given the law from God as a theocratic nation (the kingships came later) and it was given a due process with judging and rulings. The death penalty was determined not by the priests (while you can find examples of them doing so it was not as God set it up) but judges (and later kings and judges appointed by kings) and carried out, not by those affected or witnesses, but rather the elder men of the area. *Note: There is the exception of avenging murder. A man that avenged the murder of a family member was to be found innocent. This was typically illustrated in the Bible when a man would commit murder and run… the family could pursue and slay him and did not have to bring the murderer in for ‘due process’ but to not be found guilty of murder themselves had to be able to prove it. So the death penalty was given to the government in the OT. It is worth noting that the situation that Jesus when He said let “he that is without sin cast the first stone” he was being setup and He knew it. *Note: the Bible says she was taken in the very act… where was the man? And he was not condemning the Government or denying the penal system but rather a mob. And in the NT you have the reason for government: Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.</p> <p>So, government is given a responsibility to punish evil (by the sword… somehow I do not think it was community service) and reward good.</p> <p>That is one reason I am grateful to be an American my ‘authority’ is the constitution of our great nation. And we are given the ability (read: responsibility) to interact with our government.</p> <p>Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.</p> <p>-Rick</p> Timothy is correct in regards to the sacrifice. Christ was the completion of the law… the perfect sacrifice. However I would have to respectfully disagree that all earthly penalty for sin has been paid. While not popular today and often over looked by churches in the quest for members, there are portions of the NT that does give examples of penalties on earth. It is also worth noting that we have the promise of payment for our actions, good or bad, spiritually. To say that Christ’s death on the cross negated our responsibility would negate the whole point of commanding us to live right. It is true we are not commanded to kill anyone (read: fanatics miss-applying scriptures), one should remember the nation of Israel was given the law from God as a theocratic nation (the kingships came later) and it was given a due process with judging and rulings. The death penalty was determined not by the priests (while you can find examples of them doing so it was not as God set it up) but judges (and later kings and judges appointed by kings) and carried out, not by those affected or witnesses, but rather the elder men of the area. *Note: There is the exception of avenging murder. A man that avenged the murder of a family member was to be found innocent. This was typically illustrated in the Bible when a man would commit murder and run… the family could pursue and slay him and did not have to bring the murderer in for ‘due process’ but to not be found guilty of murder themselves had to be able to prove it. So the death penalty was given to the government in the OT. It is worth noting that the situation that Jesus when He said let “he that is without sin cast the first stone” he was being setup and He knew it. *Note: the Bible says she was taken in the very act… where was the man? And he was not condemning the Government or denying the penal system but rather a mob. And in the NT you have the reason for government: Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

So, government is given a responsibility to punish evil (by the sword… somehow I do not think it was community service) and reward good.

That is one reason I am grateful to be an American my ‘authority’ is the constitution of our great nation. And we are given the ability (read: responsibility) to interact with our government.

Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.

-Rick

]]> By: Timothy http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-67066 Timothy Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:45:21 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-67066 <p>Daniel,</p> <p>Thank you for the thought provoking post. Just a couple of thoughts.</p> <p>In Matthew, Jesus says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. I think the orthodox response to your argument would be that Christ paid the penalty for sins. So for this reason it would no longer be appropriate for man to punish sins in the way it was prior to Christ’s death.</p> <p>The penalty for working on the sabbath hasn’t gone away, but it has already been paid completely. To execute the sabbath breaker (or any other sinner) would essentially be a form of blasphemy since we would have to admit that Christ’s death was insufficient.</p> <p>AFAIK, this was also the reason Christians abolished the sacrifices that are required in Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are really the core issues around which the books of Romans and Hebrews are written.</p> <p>Respectfully,</p> <p>Tim</p> Daniel,

Thank you for the thought provoking post. Just a couple of thoughts.

In Matthew, Jesus says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. I think the orthodox response to your argument would be that Christ paid the penalty for sins. So for this reason it would no longer be appropriate for man to punish sins in the way it was prior to Christ’s death.

The penalty for working on the sabbath hasn’t gone away, but it has already been paid completely. To execute the sabbath breaker (or any other sinner) would essentially be a form of blasphemy since we would have to admit that Christ’s death was insufficient.

AFAIK, this was also the reason Christians abolished the sacrifices that are required in Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are really the core issues around which the books of Romans and Hebrews are written.

Respectfully,

Tim

]]> By: Timothy http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248273 Timothy Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:45:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248273 <p>Daniel,</p> <p>Thank you for the thought provoking post. Just a couple of thoughts.</p> <p>In Matthew, Jesus says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. I think the orthodox response to your argument would be that Christ paid the penalty for sins. So for this reason it would no longer be appropriate for man to punish sins in the way it was prior to Christ’s death.</p> <p>The penalty for working on the sabbath hasn’t gone away, but it has already been paid completely. To execute the sabbath breaker (or any other sinner) would essentially be a form of blasphemy since we would have to admit that Christ’s death was insufficient.</p> <p>AFAIK, this was also the reason Christians abolished the sacrifices that are required in Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are really the core issues around which the books of Romans and Hebrews are written.</p> <p>Respectfully,</p> <p>Tim</p> Daniel,

Thank you for the thought provoking post. Just a couple of thoughts.

In Matthew, Jesus says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. I think the orthodox response to your argument would be that Christ paid the penalty for sins. So for this reason it would no longer be appropriate for man to punish sins in the way it was prior to Christ’s death.

The penalty for working on the sabbath hasn’t gone away, but it has already been paid completely. To execute the sabbath breaker (or any other sinner) would essentially be a form of blasphemy since we would have to admit that Christ’s death was insufficient.

AFAIK, this was also the reason Christians abolished the sacrifices that are required in Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are really the core issues around which the books of Romans and Hebrews are written.

Respectfully,

Tim

]]> By: Steven G. Harms http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-66576 Steven G. Harms Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:07:04 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-66576 <blockquote> Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men. </blockquote> Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom Remember us — if at all — not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men. ]]> By: Steven G. Harms http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248272 Steven G. Harms Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:07:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248272 <blockquote> Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men. </blockquote> Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom Remember us — if at all — not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men. ]]> By: Rick http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-66518 Rick Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:07:24 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-66518 <p>:-)</p> :-)

]]> By: Rick http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248271 Rick Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:07:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248271 <p>:-)</p> :-)

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-66516 Daniel Miessler Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:02:06 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-66516 <blockquote> <p>Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog.</p> </blockquote> <p>You can preach all you want, man. This site is open to debate. Those are your beliefs and as such are part of the discussion.</p> <p>:)</p> <p>Cheers,</p> <p>-Daniel</p>

Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog.

You can preach all you want, man. This site is open to debate. Those are your beliefs and as such are part of the discussion.

:)

Cheers,

-Daniel

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248270 Daniel Miessler Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:02:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248270 <blockquote> <p>Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog.</p> </blockquote> <p>You can preach all you want, man. This site is open to debate. Those are your beliefs and as such are part of the discussion.</p> <p>:)</p> <p>Cheers,</p> <p>-Daniel</p>

Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog.

You can preach all you want, man. This site is open to debate. Those are your beliefs and as such are part of the discussion.

:)

Cheers,

-Daniel

]]> By: Rick http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-66515 Rick Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:58:40 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-66515 <p>In having had this debate many times with professing moderate believers, they site that they cannot believe in a book that has been changed but that their faith is not in a text but in Jesus Christ (in the instance of Christianity) and thereby removing themselves from this equation. I will challenge however that everything they are taught and do believe goes back to the Bible and that 99% of the time I find it is not about textual critizism (which is what they site as to why they cannot believe in a literal word of God) but is about their own logic or opinions. I contend that those are not valid reasons to dismiss the text. There is a lot that I do not understand, humanly speaking, about the methods God has chosen to use, but I accept the fact He is God and not me. Therefore I do not have to agree in my human understanding, but rather follow after His paths and trust Him. And I will attest that since I purposed to do so; my journey has been much more rewarding and often times I can look back and see why He did something I would have done differently on the onset... because I did not know wheat He knew.</p> <p>Daniel, I am not trying to 'preach' on your blog, I respect your beliefs but did not feel I could adequately attain a solid representation of the 'other side' of the coin and why I do not buy it.</p> <p>I am willing to put in my two cents whenever... and I am to think skinned to be offended so, everyone can fire away.</p> <p>Good day all!</p> In having had this debate many times with professing moderate believers, they site that they cannot believe in a book that has been changed but that their faith is not in a text but in Jesus Christ (in the instance of Christianity) and thereby removing themselves from this equation. I will challenge however that everything they are taught and do believe goes back to the Bible and that 99% of the time I find it is not about textual critizism (which is what they site as to why they cannot believe in a literal word of God) but is about their own logic or opinions. I contend that those are not valid reasons to dismiss the text. There is a lot that I do not understand, humanly speaking, about the methods God has chosen to use, but I accept the fact He is God and not me. Therefore I do not have to agree in my human understanding, but rather follow after His paths and trust Him. And I will attest that since I purposed to do so; my journey has been much more rewarding and often times I can look back and see why He did something I would have done differently on the onset… because I did not know wheat He knew.

Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog, I respect your beliefs but did not feel I could adequately attain a solid representation of the ‘other side’ of the coin and why I do not buy it.

I am willing to put in my two cents whenever… and I am to think skinned to be offended so, everyone can fire away.

Good day all!

]]> By: Rick http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-letter-to-religious-moderates/comment-page-1#comment-248269 Rick Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:58:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1423#comment-248269 <p>In having had this debate many times with professing moderate believers, they site that they cannot believe in a book that has been changed but that their faith is not in a text but in Jesus Christ (in the instance of Christianity) and thereby removing themselves from this equation. I will challenge however that everything they are taught and do believe goes back to the Bible and that 99% of the time I find it is not about textual critizism (which is what they site as to why they cannot believe in a literal word of God) but is about their own logic or opinions. I contend that those are not valid reasons to dismiss the text. There is a lot that I do not understand, humanly speaking, about the methods God has chosen to use, but I accept the fact He is God and not me. Therefore I do not have to agree in my human understanding, but rather follow after His paths and trust Him. And I will attest that since I purposed to do so; my journey has been much more rewarding and often times I can look back and see why He did something I would have done differently on the onset... because I did not know wheat He knew.</p> <p>Daniel, I am not trying to 'preach' on your blog, I respect your beliefs but did not feel I could adequately attain a solid representation of the 'other side' of the coin and why I do not buy it.</p> <p>I am willing to put in my two cents whenever... and I am to think skinned to be offended so, everyone can fire away.</p> <p>Good day all!</p> In having had this debate many times with professing moderate believers, they site that they cannot believe in a book that has been changed but that their faith is not in a text but in Jesus Christ (in the instance of Christianity) and thereby removing themselves from this equation. I will challenge however that everything they are taught and do believe goes back to the Bible and that 99% of the time I find it is not about textual critizism (which is what they site as to why they cannot believe in a literal word of God) but is about their own logic or opinions. I contend that those are not valid reasons to dismiss the text. There is a lot that I do not understand, humanly speaking, about the methods God has chosen to use, but I accept the fact He is God and not me. Therefore I do not have to agree in my human understanding, but rather follow after His paths and trust Him. And I will attest that since I purposed to do so; my journey has been much more rewarding and often times I can look back and see why He did something I would have done differently on the onset… because I did not know wheat He knew.

Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog, I respect your beliefs but did not feel I could adequately attain a solid representation of the ‘other side’ of the coin and why I do not buy it.

I am willing to put in my two cents whenever… and I am to think skinned to be offended so, everyone can fire away.

Good day all!

]]>