Back to Thoughts on Christianity and God.
2: Male
3: Male
4: Male
5: Female
6: Male
7: Male
8: Male
9: male
10: Male
13: female
12: M
13: Female
14: Male
15: Male
16: Male
17: male.
18: Female
19: male
20: Female
21: Male
22: male
23: Male
24: Male
25: female
26: Male
27: Male
28: Male
29: Male
30: Male
31: Male
32: M
33: male
34: F
35: F
36: Male
37: Male.
38: F
39: Male
40: Male
41: Male
42: Male
43: Male
44: Male
45: male
46: Male
47: M
48: Male
49: female
50: Male
2: Computer Technician
3: Machinsit
4: Computer Consultant
5: Student
6: Engineer
7: University student
8: Waste Water Treatment Operator
9: mechanical engineer
10: Computer research.
11: student
12: graphic designer
13: Publisher
14: Software Engineer
15: Presently unemployed (plant closing)
16: Computational Linguist
17: Electronic Services Librarian
18: Teacher
19: logic designer
20: Student
21: Data entry
22: software engineer
23: Electrical Engineer
24: student
25: Bridal designer/seamstress
26: Student
27: Software Systems Engineer
28: Computer Troubleshooter
29: Budget Analyst
30: Software Engineer at a Fortune 100 company
31: Programmer
32: Computer Programmer
33: lawyer
34: Student
35: Housefwife
36: Youthworker
37: Library technician in a public library.
38: Student
39: Manager, Electronics Firm
40: Database Administrator/Programmer
41: Airline employee
42: Student, planning to have a career in Christian radio/
43: Physicist - Academic researcher and university instructor.
44: Computer Systems Manager
45: student
46: Teacher
47: Engineer
48: University student, would-be maths-physics teacher
49: student
50: Student
2: 36
3: 32
4: 40
5: 23
6: 40
7: 22
8: 43
9: 25
10: 27
11: 20
12: 28
13: 49
14: 35
15: 54
16: 36
17: 30
18: 22
19: 47
20: 21
21: 28
22: 47
23: 27
24: 19
25: 43
26: 24
27: 27
28: 23
29: 57
30: 35
31: 48
32: 54
33: 41
34: 18
35: 38
36: 41
37: 39.
38: 26
39: 51
40: 22
41: 38
42: 12
43: 33
44: 31
45: 23
46: 38
47: 38
48: 23
49: 15
50: 21
2: None, currently (Belonged to Church of Christ in the past)
3: I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ.
4: Methodest
5: Catholic
6: Christian Church
7: Evangelical Free, though while at school I'm attending a Presbyterian (PCA) church.
8: None
9: I attend a Southern Baptist Church, but I do not suscribe to 100% of their dogma. I do not as well subscribe 100% to any other Christian denomination. I believe in the truth.
10: Anglican/Episcopal, Presbyterian, Catholic, and many others.
11: penticostal
12: non
13: Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
14: None
15: Baptist, conservative flavor
16: Episcopalian
17: Non-denominational
18: I am not a member, but I am a student of Unity Church (as in Unity School of Christianity.)
19: baptist
20: None
21: United Methodist
22: Lutheran
23: Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (mormon)
24: non-denom, raised Catholic
25: Southern Baptist is the church I attend now - I really classify myself as simply Christian.
26: United Church of Christ (congregationalist)
27: Baptist/Methodist/Whatever...I'm a Christian first and formost
28: Mennonite
29: Episcopal Church USA
30: Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
31: United Methodist
32: Episcopal
33: Anglican (high church)
34: Catholic
35: RC
36: Anglican
37: My wife and I are members of a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church. She has spent all of her christian experience (raised in and confirmed in) in the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), whereas I came to know Christ through the efforts of a Missionary Baptist church. However, my loyalties go to Jesus Christ as head of the church-at-large (orthodox, catholic, and protestant --all in the lower case, notice), and my daily practice and doctrinal content is drawn variously from the whole spectrum of the church-at-large.
38: Baptist
39: Independent Evangelical
40: I grew up Pentecostal, but do not particularly subscribe to any denomination at the current time.
41: None
42: Wesleyen
43: I am a communicating member of the United Methodist Church
44: None specifically, but Pentecostal/Charismatic
45: none, i am an atheist. consider me, if you will, part of the control group. ;-)
46: None
47: non-denominational, I'm an ex-Baptist
48: I go to a Charismatic assembly (with holy laughter, etc), although I am critical of many doctrines and manifestations. My theological understanding is under development; I am influenced by Paul, Calvin and tend to despise some Catholic dogmas.
49: none
50: Church of Christ, Reformed
2: About once per year
3: Usually everyday (if you understand the definition of church).
4: about 3 times a month
5: approx. 5 times a week
6: 2-3/week
7: Weekly, unless I'm traveling or otherwise can't get to a church.
8: Weekly
9: Every Sunday morning and night.
10: Weekly
11: twice on Sunday, also fortnightly bible study on Tues.
12: rarely
13: 2 to 4 times a month
14: ~ 3 x weekly
15: 3
16: Weekly
17: 1-2 times per week.
18: Recently, about once a month. Will increase during the winter to at least every two weeks--attend the Catholic church with my husband.
19: usually twice a week
20: 1 or 2 times a week.
21: Weekly
22: fairly regularly
23: Weekly (and any activities during the week)
24: once a week
25: 2 times a week
26: weekly
27: Most of the time once a week.
28: Every Wednesday evening for cell group, and Sundays for worship.
29: At least every Sunday
30: Weekly (I also attend a Wed. night supper at our church every week)
31: 2-3 times/month
32: At least once per week
33: 2-3times / week
34: Fortnightly
35: weekly
36: Weekly
37: Every Sunday, health permitting. And occasional church functions, both social and institutional.
38: 1 or 2 times a week
39: At least once a week
40: I attend church when I visit my parents, but do not regularly attend church otherwise.
41: rarely
42: Weekley (unless we can't make it)
43: Weekly
44: Twice a Sunday, Prayer meetings wheer possible
45: only when i have good cause - weddings and such among family and friends. perhaps once a year, if that.
46: 3 times per week
47: 3 times per month
48: Once a month, basically due to my dissatisfaction with my assembly. Yet I won't leave it until I am excommunicated, which is an event of little possibility. Formerly I attended church once a week.
49: most Sundays and some Weds
50: 4xs a month
2: Yes
3: Yes
4: No
5: Of course
6: Yep
7: I've had times when I knew God was keeping me on a certain path, if that's what you mean.
8: Yes
9: Yes! And I continually have one.
10: Yes
11: yes
12: y
13: Yes.
14: Yes
15: Yes
16: Yes
17: yes.
18: It would depend on your definition of that. There are times where I just feel God's presence and guidance.
19: yes
20: Um, not sure.
21: Yes
22: not a spectacular one
23: Yes.
24: yes.
25: yes
26: Not supernatural persey..i think more of a sense that through the love of others I've seen God
27: Yes, several.
28: Yes
29: Yes
30: Many
31: Yes
32: That depends upon what is meant by "personal experience"?
33: Yes, I think so. bear in mind that it's not exactly like Bill Cosby: "Noah, this is GOD!" "Right!"
34:
35: yes
36: Yes
37: Oh, yes! By a deliberate act of trusting Jesus Christ, about 24 years ago, I asked Jesus to come into my heart, accepting his invitation to place upon him my life as it was, dying with him spiritually, and receiving his resurrected life as my own. In the intervening years, I've realized that this experience is the daily, moment-by-moment core of what it means to follow Jesus --a process of renouncing the harmful things in my life by consciously turning them over to him as an act of trust. Sometimes, this act is accompanied by deep emotions, sometimes not. Sometimes, I formulate this act intellectually, sometimes I simple do it. But it's the exchange that matters --the participation in his life, death, and resurrection --and his participation in mine. Also, in the intervening years, he has shared with me many acts of kindness as I pray with him, fix my thoughts on him, spend time alone with him. Lately, entirely unexpected by me, he has blessed me with the experience of ecstatic speech known in theology as glossolalia or "speaking in tongues," and this while I was sleeping (as my wife bears witness), even translating this speech in my sleep. I remember the experience pleasantly, fondly, gratefully.
38: yes
39: Yes
40: I used to think I had, on several occasions, but I have since concluded that what I experienced was simply an emotional experience caused, not by divine intervention, but by the overwhelming religious expectation of an experience that had been instilled in me by the church environment.
41: Yes
42: I don't know what you mean. I feel very close to God if that's what you mean.
43: Yes
44: No big visions or anything but most certainly the experience of a relationship
45: i suspect the correct answer would have to be "no". i *have* had what i think is meant by "spiritual" experiences, enough that i think i have some clue as to what they are, but these have not caused me to take up any belief in any deities.
46: Yes
47: Yes
48: Yes. A month after my conversion I heard a voice when sleeping, which quoted a passage from Isaiah 43:1b. It was a corroboration for me, and not a sign to help my decision to become a Christian.
49: yes
50: common (ie nature, regeneration, etc)
2: No (Have been very active in the past)
3: No
4: No
5: Yes
6: Yep
7: Not really.
8: No
9: No. I recently started attend the church that my wife and I now attend. We went to a church from my hometown (where my family has went for about 30 years), which is about 45 miles away. We then decided to find a church in this town.
10: Yes
11: no, except house group
12: no
13: Yes.
14: Yes
15: Yes
16: Yes
17: yes. Worship team.
18: No--there is no Unity church here, and that is the church that I would be active with.
19: choir, teach sunday school, deacon
20: Yes
21: Yes - Sunday school
22: yes
23: Yes, I am a member of my ward chior, I assist the Elder's quorum presidency and do my hometeaching.
24: not at church, but I used to teach CCD back home (I'm in college), and I am in IVCF now.
25: yes, s.s, youth sponsor
26: peer minister for United Campus Ministries which is mainline ecumenical ministries at North Dakota State University
27: Yes
28: I am currently holding a position on my church's Board of Servants, and am taking a part in building a worship team.
29: Yes
30: Yes
31: Yes
32: Yes
33: Choirs, advisory board, parish life committee
34: Yes
35: yes
36: Yes
37: In churches I've attended in the past, I've served as Sunday school teacher for senior-high-school-age members of the congregation. I've also given short talks or lessons to adults. Pastors and elders have had the opinion that our Lord has given me the spiritual gift of teaching. Currently, I am serving as a member of our church's evangelism committee.
38: Not currently. I just moved. Hopefully I will be soon.
39: Yes
40: No.
41: No
42: Yes.
43: Moderately active
44: Yes. Prayer meetings, home fellowship, head deacon
45: no.
46: Yes
47: not currently but have been in the past and will probably be again in the future.
48: No.
49: yes
50: no
2: Not in the "conventional" manner
3: I study the Bible when I can, and use study guides sometimes.
4: Humm, I read the bible daily by myself.
5: Yes
6: Yep
7: I attend a weekly Bible study and occasionally do devotions on my own.
8: Yes
9: I read the Bible and pray to God many times a day. Every oppurtunity I have, I spend with God.
10: No
11: yes, and yes
12: yes
13: No.
14: Yes
15: Yes
16: Yes
17: try to have daily quiet times.
18: No.
19: yes
20: Sometimes
21: Yes - Bible studies twice a week; used to do daily devotions, but have gotten out of the habit
22: yes/no
23: I read the scriptures each morning, though not always the Bible, I read the Book of Mormon and consider it scripture on par with the Bible and also other revelations given to modern prophets.
24: Yes, both.
25: yes
26: weekly bible study, and a discussion on Genesis..ie Bill Moyer's tv special on PBS. We have a theology for lunch program where faculty and students participate which deals with various topics
27: Yes I do daily devotions
28: Yes to both.
29: Both
30: Yes
31: No
32: Yes
33: no. (this is a bad thing)
34: Yes
35: yes
36: Yes
37: Yes, I do. With the help of God, I meet with him daily so that we may spend time alone in each others' company, in prayer and meditation. The experiential framework I use at this time is a modified Rosary chaplet (with Marian reference removed) wherein I pray our Lord's prayer as an antiphon to my own prayers, and in which I meditate on some aspect of the Apostles' Creed. In my early years as a Christian, I spent intensive time studying the Bible; but now, I read it primarily as an act of devotion prompted by my pastor's homilies and by things the Holy Spirit brings to my mind as the need arises.
38: Yes. Both.
39: Yes, but not as often as I'd like to.
40: I don't do devotions per se, but I do study the Bible itself and read about the Bible and Christianity in general often. I don't do this according to any schedule, but just when time permits and when I'm in the mood for it.
41: I do regular personal bible study.
42: I have a bible reading\prayer time every night before going to sleep.
43: No/Occasionaly
44: Home fellowship
45: no.
46: Yes
47: Yes
48: No.
49: yes
50: no
2: At home, yes, but not regularly. Never at restaurants.
3: Sometimes, which are few and far between. I usually try to thank Him for everything at the end of the day.
4: No
5: sometimes (not regularly)
6: Sometimes.
7: Occasionally, but not as often at restaurants.
8: No
9: I thank God every day for the prosperity that He has provided. I pray and give thanks for the food and clothing that I have (as well as the other things) every day, not necessarily before each meal.
10: No
11: no
12: no
13: Sometimes.
14: No
15: Occasionally
16: No
17: yes and yes.
18: Yes, but silently.
19: yes,yes
20: not to often
21: No
22: yes/seldom
23: At home, yes, at restaurants, occasionally, but not as frequently
24: Yes, both.
25: yes , yes
26: at home, sometimes..not in restaurants
27: Yes, both.
28: Yes to both, but sometimes I forget.
29: Always at home, occasionally in restaurants.
30: Yes and Yes
31: No
32: Yes Yes
33: sometimes. seldom.
34: No
35: sometimes
36: Yes, both.
37: Yes, at home. I pray a modified version of the common Catholic grace:
Thank you, o God, for these your gifts which I am about to receive from your bounty and through Christ my Lord. Amen. At restaurants, I pray this prayer silently and mentally, out of a desire not to make nonbelievers uncomfortable, while showing outwardly that I am, in fact, praying. 38: Not usually, but sometimes.
39: Yes Yes
40: Not any more. I realized that not praying would not cause my food to be harmful and that praying would not prevent it from being harmful. In other words, prayer before meals, in my experience, has no measurable effect on anything.
41: Yes, most of the time. Sometimes I forget.
42: Yes.
43: Yes/No
44: Always
45: no.
46: Yes. Yes
47: At home yes.
48: At home, yes, when I am alone. My relatives are unbelievers, so I don't do it loudly when they are around. I seldom go to restaurants (twice a year). Then silently.
49: yes,yes
50: yes,yes
2: No No
3: I don't drink alcohol, but I do swear from time to time. This is a problem area I need work on, and isn't the only problem area I have.
4: No, damn it..
5: Drink alcohol, but not swear
6: Nope. Occasionally.
7: I drink alcohol about once or twice a month. I try not to swear, but it still happens occasionally.
8: Yes
9: I do not swear. The Bible forbids rough speech and cursing. I seldom drink alcohol, but never to the state of catching a "buzz". The bible is very clear on the fact that it is the drunkeness and alcoholism that is the sin.
I'm sure many will debate this subject. It is better not to consume any alcohol, since it may cause other believers to stumble.
10: Yes, yes
11: occasionally drink, don't swear
12: yes, yess
13: Alcohol - no, swear - occasionally
14: Alcohol - occasionally, swear - not to my knowledge.
15: I slip sometimes
16: Yes, Yes, but very infrequently
17: a sip of alcohol on occasion (maybe 1-2 times a year. Heck no, I don't swear. :)
18: No. No.
19: no,occassionally
20: sometimes
21: Swear - nothing more vulgar than "damn" or "hell"
22: yes/no Comments: (1) I do never drink *alcohol*, but I do drink beer, wine (both along with meals) or brandy (seldom). (2) The "no" with "swear" refers to religious or *strongly* indecent vocabulary when using "matter-of-fact" language. I do not always resist (and even do not always want to resist) the temptation of using direct language even if it is not considered decent by the audience.
23: I do not drink, I do not smoke, I do not partake of drugs, I do not drink coffee or tea, and I do not swear.
24: Don't drink (not because I'm Christian though). Don't swear (because I am Christian).
25: an occasional glass of wine with a meal , I try real hard not to,but I am human
26: i drink beer but don't swear for the most part :)
27: Alcohol - Yes, I try to do it only in moderation but I slip up sometimes. Swear - No, At least I try very hard not to but again.. I slip up sometimes.
28: Yes to alcohol, if you are talking about the use of various four letter words, I will have to say on appropriate occasions I use them, If you are talking about swearing in the biblical sense, I do not swear, I let my yes be yes, and my no be no.
29: Alcohol regularly, swearing very rarely
30: Rarely (part of communion - every week) Very rarely
31: Yes/No
32: FROM: jmm625@aol.com yes. not very much, but no religious prohibition is felt.
I worked oil rigs in the late '70's. What do you think? :-) yes. some. 33: Yes
34: no
35: Alcohol - a little. Swear - no.
36: I do occasionally drink alcohol, but not to the point of inebriation. This consumption is limited to an occasional glass of wine on special occasions. God forgive me, I have sometimes used inappropriate language spontaneously, if that is the intent of the question. Our Lord is fully willing to forgive such things and help us to amend our lives accordingly, if we will allow him to do so. I suppose these remarks demonstrate my own imperfections and the easy observation that I am not the person I ought to be. But as the Rev. Martin King, Jr. prayed, "Lord, I'm not the person I want to be, and I'm sure not the person I ought to be, but thank God, I'm not the person I was."
37: No.
38: Rarely Occasionally a he## or a sh##.
39: No, I don't. I've never had any desire to swear. I have been curious about alcohol, but I've never tried it.
40: A. On occasion, in moderation. B. Rarely
41: No.
42: Yes/Umm...well..yes <embarressed chuckle>
43: No (very occasional glass of wine or beer acc. to my beliefs but never if it can be a stumbling block to another)
44: yes and yes. the former is about the heaviest drug i bother with, i use it socially and privately with fair moderation, and the latter is for me a good way to relieve emotional pressure, blow off steam. i'd rather cuss a blue streak than risk getting physically violent.
45: No. No
46: rarely to alcohol. Occasionally to swear.
47: No.
48: no, yes (I'm working on this)
49: yes,yes
2: I believe the Bible to be literal and inspired by God. I'm not really sure if it is inerrant, but feel that is not that important. To me, the real value of the Bible is not to give us a text that we can spend hours pouring over the minute details, but to give us some insight into the Living Word of God. There are too many inconsistencies in the application of the Bible for me to accept it as the absolute reference for all of life.
3: I believe the Bible to be inerrent. Jesus said the scripture can not be broken.
4: Yes, I believe the works of the bible are the words related to us by god.
5: It is not LITERAL in the sense that every word is to be taken literally. It is the inerrant Word of God, written by men. That is, the men were not simply transcribers, but that their personality, perspective, etc. went in as well. But it is inerrant in that God allowed them to write error-free in terms of faith and morals. He also allowed no moral-errors to be introduced later.
6: Literally inerrent in the autographs, noe of which are extant (that I know of). The current translations are sufficient for God to use to save and sanctify us. In other words, there are no errors in the bibles that are available to a given person that would prevent that person from beiing saved and living a Godly life. For example, I have many translations and a couple of Interlinears. After putting all of these together, the result will be sufficient for me. If somebody only has the Gospel of Matthew in a poor translation, then that will be sufficient for him.
On the other hand, I have gone over the usual lists of bible contradictions, and have not found _any_ errors in the texts, just alot of ignorant conclusions :-).
7: Yes, the Bible is inerrant.
8: Some mistranslation, study puts the pieces in perspective
9: I believe that the Bible is inerrant. I believe that it is the eternal Word of God. I believe that some of the New Testament may have been mistranslated simply because the letters were not re-written with the sincerity and discipline that the OT was written in.
10: It is the record of certain people's individual and collective experiences of God, and is written from their limited and fallible perspectives. But God can reveal Godself through such fallible writings.
11: I believe the KJV is the word of God
12: I believe the bible is a product of man, no matter how inspired they may have been, it can not be the perfect word of God.
13: No. I view the bible as man's sincere but humanly flawed attempt to record man's interactions with God.
14: I believe it is perfect for the job for which it was intended by an omnipotent and omniscient Creator.
15: Define literal better. There is really a range of responses possible on this question. My answer is, I do not believe the Bible has to be 'perfect' to be God's word to us. So theoretically, some errancy is possible. Errancy is not the same as 'inspired myth' i.e. Genesis.
I haven't thoroughly studied the Bible yet, so I can't say how many things appear to be flat out errant. I would say not much. The real trick is, how not to read myth and allegory as chronologicalm history.
16: Define literal better. There is really a range of responses possible on this question. My answer is, I do not believe the Bible has to be 'perfect' to be God's word to us. So theoretically, some errancy is possible. Errancy is not the same as 'inspired myth' i.e. Genesis.
17: Literally inerrant. Almost the fundie position, but not quite.
18: No. It is a recorded history of faith. God was revealed in many ways, but the people also had "faulty" beliefs (in my opinion.) I don't believe the term inerrant should be applied to the Bible.
19: not literally -- the bible is god's revelation of himself to mankind. as such, it accomplishes its mission. any of the versions we have today are adequate for this purpose. seeming contradictions are of no import, as they do nothing to impede god's revelation (except perhaps serve as a focal point for people that would use the bible for some other purpose than to learn about god). it _can't_ be totally literal, else jesus would say 'baaa' (lamb of god), etc. also, it is impossible to 'literally' translate one language into another and have it make any sense.
20: I believe what 2tim3:16&17 says. Parraphrased: all scripture is god-breathed and usefull fo teaching, rebuking and training in rigteousness so that the man of god may be thoroughly equiped for every good deed.
21: The Bible was inspired by God but written by humans. It is likely that some purely human notions have been included in Scripture.
22: No, not literally inerrant. - Yes, inspired by God. - Yes, written by humans. - Don't think there were originals that were "better" than what we have now.
I would add:
- Trustworthy in its message.
- Used by the Holy Spirit to convey a message.
- Dubious for information mining without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
23: I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. I do not believe it to be inerrant, neither do I consider all prophets to be inerrant. I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
24: Yes, inerrant, but I believe in the historical-analytical approach of interpretation (it is bound by it's culture... women, sex, slavery, etc.
25: I believe the Bible to be the inerrent word of God in the original texts - but have found discrepancies some of the translations.
26: inspired by God but written by fallible humans, responding to the needs of a particular time period. The Bible doesn't fall out of an ahistorical vacuum, but is formed from a community of faith from a particular time. I believe God communicates powerful truths through myths, stories, poetry, wisdom literature, parables, etc. When we elevate the Bible too much i fear we may be practicing Bibloatry. Nor do i believe creeds should be frozen, but that as Christians we should be able to formulate language that makes sense for our day, it's that dynamic tension between religious faith and the world.
27: The concepts of the Bible are inerrant.
28: I believe the bible to be the word of God. I think that we miss out some on idioms, because of cultural differences.
29: I consider the Bible to be the Word of God, because God inspired their human authors, and God still speaks to us through the Bible.
30: Originals were inerrant. Translations may have errors but provide enough fact to be trustworthy.
31: No-it is the recording of the actions of good as interpreted by fallible humans
32: all is useful. all is inspired. not all is obvious (that old "through a glass, darkly" situation)
33: Not the way that, say, Joel Willard or William Altier does.
34: ?
35: God uses it to speak to us.
36: Inspired by God and occasionally lost something in the translations.
37: Well...a complicated question. I believe the Bible to reveal accurately and inerrantly the nature of God as summed up in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. So, I suppose you could say that I believe those concepts to be inerrant. It's a difficult matter to summarize, actually, without going into specific book-by-book examples. Yes, I do believe the Bible was inspired by God and written by humans, rather than dictated by God to humans as a secretary would take dictation. And with this said, the question of the original manuscripts being inerrant becomes somewhat irrelevant. Again, we'd have to go into specific texts to flesh out the discussion. I'd be happy to do so if you'd like to, sometime. The important subject matter is summarized in the creeds, and those doctrines, yes, I believe to be without error.
38: Not sure what you mean by inerrant. I would say the orignials were inspired by God, written by men and were inerrant.
39: The originals were inerrant but MAY have been mistranslated
40: I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. I do believe it is inspired by God, but only in a very specifice sense. I believe the Bible is inspired by God in the same way that a painting might be inspired by a beautiful sunset. The creator of the painting (or, in this case, the Bible) observes the object of his attention and feels inspired by what he sees. The painting (or writing) is then inspired by the original object. Of course this view allows no room for God to have in any way contributed actual content to the Bible independantly from what the human authors chose to see in God as they understood him.
41: I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, innerant in their original form.
42: Inspired by God, written by humans.
43: Here is one of the subtle ones. In line with the confessional stance of my church I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, solely sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. I do not consider it to be a scientific text or a history in the modern sence of the word. I belive early chapters incorporate some of the the pre-Patriarchal mythology of the Hebrew people and related cultures of the Fertile Crescent.
44: The Word is inerrant but our interpretation is not always so. We also tend to build doctrine on trivial issues that God does not expand on, or do not allow scripture to interpret scripture. Errors *can* creep into any translations of the original doctrine but I firmly believe God will guard over His Word to ensure that anything of essence is kept accurate. If He cannot do this then I do not believe it to be worth pursuing my Christian faith as our Creator would not have provided a solid foundation for us. Therefore as I believe in God I believe in His Word.
45: i consider it a somewhat incoherent collection of antique middle- eastern mythology, unusual mostly for what's selected for inclusion; material as different as Proverbs, Kings and the Song of Songs on the face of them have little in common, and less still to do with the general context of mythology. as i said, somewhat incoherent.
46: Yes
47: I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. Its messages are inerrant and inspired by God but were recorded, compiled and translated by fallible humans. I do believe it to be sufficiently accurate to be a dependable guide to what God wishes to say to Christians.
48: It's a difficult question. I am coming from a "literal days", creationist background (Charismatic church), but I no longer believe in this interpretation. But as I mentioned, my theology is not a finished one, so I am constantly balancing between literalism and concepts-centered thinking. My understanding of inspiration is close to that of Calvin: God made His words fit our puerile minds, as the nanny speaks to the babe. We don't have to cling to a certain word if it is out of context, or hardly understandable. I support moderate textual criticism.
49: I believe it is all God's word, written down by people.
50: inerrant
2: Don't know, doesn't make any difference
3: Well, there is the dead sea scrolls, which people claim to they say just about anything. And there are manuscripts dating back 1000 years. The Bible is the book with the most original manuscripts and with the shortest time frame between copies made from past originals. There are about 2500 original manuscripts. And the Bible surpases every other writing with the Biographical, External, and Internal test put to it.
4: Yes, there are several 1st and 2nd century papers I have seen. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls contain much data that is the same as todays old test.
5: I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
6: No
7: If you mean, for example, finding the manuscript Matthew wrote himself of the Gospel, no, and you don't really expect them to. But we do have many old manuscripts.
8: No
9: What do you mean? Do you mean the original writtings of Moses? They were stored in the Ark of the Covenant. I am not really sure what you mean. There are many copies that date from about 200 bc, but I do not believe any of the orignials exist (if that is what you imply).
10: Nope, not as autographs, but the evidence is that the manuscripts we do have are by-and-large accurate enough for most purposes.
11: no
12: ???
13: No.
14: No
15: don't know (if you mean copies of original, probably, but I doubt that the first version of say 'Luke' is to be found)
16: don't know (if you mean copies of original, probably, but I doubt that the first version of say 'Luke' is to be found)
17: No. Definitely no. At least, none have turned up yet.
18: No.
19: no
20: No, but then, neither has the originals for most ancient documents
21: No
22: quite obviously not
23: Not that I know of.
24: yes (?)
25: don't know I use Strongs concordance with the greek and hebrew dictionaries - I place my faith in God
26: no
27: Don't know. I am confident, that not only the original manuscripts for the books of the Bible were inspired by God, but that the compilation of the Bible I have today was as well.
28: The Dead Sea Scrolls are some examples, The Jews still have some scrollsof the Old Testament.
29: No
30: No
31: Yes
32: No
33: don't think so
34: don't know
35: no
36: Yes (parts of)
37: This is an even more complicated question. It seems to me that biblical scholars speak not in terms of original manuscripts (How can we know, for example, if a particular fragment of Matthew's gospel was written physically by Matthew?) but, rather, in terms of extant manuscripts (numerous manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts we have in our possession which we believe to have come down to us from the hands of the writers and their copiers). I think we definitely have reliable extant manuscripts, reasonably accurate to the originals. As to whether we have the exact original manuscripts, God knows, not I. And I think the same textual principles apply to ancient manuscripts generally, whether they be biblical or not.
38: None that we know of.
39: Don't know
40: No, all we have are copies, none of which are probably exact copies. Many copies have real textual differences with the others.
41: Not as far as I know.
42: I don't think it's possible.
43: This is objectively verifiable - there are no "autographs" of any of the books, although there are fragments of New Testament books dating from the First Century.
44: None of the *original* manuscripts have survived although thousands of fragments of close copies have survived.
45: what would be "original" - by the original authors' hands? every decent source i've seen says no; quite the opposite. AFAIK the earliest complete Gospel manuscript we have dates to the fourth century, and though we do have snippets even from the end of the first they are not the originals. do correct me if i'm wrong.
46: No
47: No, I do not think there are any original manuscripts available.
48: I think they didn't, but I heard about the new discovery of Thiede based on philology, which suggests that a papyrus with some sentences from Matthew dates back to ~70.
49: yes (dead sea scrolls?)
50: don't know (original manuscript as in first time the cannon was complete?)
2: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.)
I believe a literal creation is the only explanation for the origin of life that makes any sense. IMHO, it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than in creation.
3: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.)
Yes, I believe the literal view of creation. Also, creation is a picture of a person getting saved. God is very precise and consistant in what He does. Throughout the Bible, He shows the same pictures over and over, with events that really happened.
4: No
If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.)
This is complex.. My belef on creation would take to long to describe here.
5: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.) It is not literally accurate. Genesis 1-2 was not meant to be a scientific or historical book. It was meant to teach us about God, mankind, our nature, why we are here, why there is suffering, and why Christ's salvific work was necessary.
6: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.)
Yes. And it will be interesting to find out what the word that is currently translated as "day" meant to Moses.
7: Yes.
8: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.) Mistranslation with respect to time
9: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.)
The account was written by a man, named Moses. He did not completely understand what God was telling him. The Creation story is somewhat symbollic, and somewhat allegoric, but I believe that the truth is in there. 10: Absolutely not.
If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.) It is two pure, powerful, and insightful myths (in the technical sense). They are poetry, intended to convey a sense of the majestic transcendance on God.
11: yes If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.)
12: No, I study and follow the New testiment. I believe the Christ came to replace the religion of his time and that the Old testiment has no place in Christianity.
13: No. I view it as an allegory.
14: Allegorical
15: Yes
16: no - it's an inspired creation myth. At the time of Abraham and Moses, do you think God could have explained quantum physics and genetics to the sheepherders?
17: Yes, the literal view.
18: No, I don't believe in the literal view. I believe that God is the author of evolution. And the story to me tells us of God's "creation" of all things and of God's will for us to be here.
19: the message of genesis is that we have a creator who is all powerful, and without him we nor our universe would exist. it is not to be taken as a description of _how_ god created the world, which would be beyond human understanding anyway, just that he _did_ create it. i see no justification for making a 'day' = 24 hours, particularly when the sun didn't exist initially.
20: Not literal - Genisis creation is an explanation of who did it rather than how. Besides, God as Creator/sustainer of the Universe fits in with most modern theories.
21: I believe Genesis 1-2 were written to teach spiritual truths, not to give a historical or scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the origins of humanity.
22: No, not literal, but "allegorical" is too weak. The "creation report" focuses on important questions (Who made it? Who created order? What power have the forces of disorder? Is the sun for ever, and is it a god? Is the world good or bad or without such a quality?) and not on questions which we, after the Enlightenment, consider interesting (In which sequence did it take place? How long did it take?). In the questions that *are* addressed, the creation report is reliable.
23: I really don't know how the earth was created. Except that I believe what Joseph Smith stated that the Earth was organized from existing materials, that the creation account in the bible is significant, but I think it is quite symbolic. I believe the earth itself is millions of years old (as was suggested by Joseph Smith) and that the creation that is currently on the earth is temporal dispensation of time.
As for Adam and Eve, I believe them to be actual beings, and that their trangression was as it was stated in the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. I believe that Adam partook of a substance that made his immortal body mortal such that they could bear children and progress according to the plan of Salvation.
I do not believe that God had another plan for man, but that this whole garden incident was set up for the very purpose of man to choose to exist in this temporal mortal existence. I believe that we were premortal spirits that chose to come to earth and partake of this plan of our own will and volition, and could not have done that had Adam and Eve not partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowlege of Good and Evil.
24: I believe it could have happened literally the way Genesis describes.
25: I believe God's timing is not necessarily ours.
26: the account is mythical , but if your familiar with Joseph Cambell's notions of myth it can be a very powerful way to know God. It does help provide a sense of identity for the Jewish people, while at the same time tells us important truths about the fallen state of creation,etc.
27: Doesn't matter. The most important thing are the first three words of Genesis "In the beginning".
28: Yes I do believe in a literal view of Creation as told in Genesis.
29: No.
First of all, the "literal account" of creation in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a may not be the same as the "literal account" in Genesis 2:4b - 25.
They have two things in common: the assertion that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Creator of the Universe, and the centrality of humankind within the created universe.
30: All of these questions are hard to answer because I think we are to 'Western' in our thought processes. The writer or Genesis was definitely eastern in his thinking process. My best answer is read my review of Genesis and the Big Bang which can be found on my listserver (see my signature).
31: No, allegorical
32: No. Neither of the two creation is literal history. They are mythic stories meant to explain why things (such as the fallen state of humanity) are as they are.
33: If not, what does this scripture mean to you? (days mean eons, the account is allegorical, etc.) It's poetry. It is still scripture, still inspired, still useful. It's not a technical manual for creating a universe in the astro-physics sense. I suspect that this is related to the fact the God is not Dilbert (I hope). Honestly, if Stephen Hawking were trying to describe creation to a tribe of stone age nomads, he wouldn't have gotten into the scientific end either.
34: Yes, but days were longer than they are now
35: no
It describes the spiritual relationships between God, humanity, nature, etc. by use of a common literary form of the time, i.e. creation myth
36: Yes - but days may not mean 24 hours.
37: Well, now...I don't think an interpretation of this passage need be entirely literal or entirely figurative. Usually, whatever we read is a mixture of literal and figurative language, and that's a good rule of thumb to use for reading the Bible. I know that that doesn't answer the question, though. I tend not to think that the creation account describes a literal six-day creation. I tend to think that some sort of guided evolutionary scenario was employed by God, and there's the all-important crux of the matter: the real issue is _whether_ God created what exists or whether what exists came into being randomly. The issue has nothing to do with _how_ God created. As to the "how," I'm not in a position to say how he did it because I wasn't there. We're talking about origins, here, and the origin of a thing is not replicable. Origins is an historical matter, not a scientific one. Science can provide us with tools for amassing evidence in natural history, but science can't (at least yet) take us back in time to the event. Whew....I hope this answer hasn't been confusing. I'm not concerned so much with the mechanics as with the point that God created what exists.
38: Yes, but according to your parentheses maybe not. Days meaning eons does not mean I don't believe the literal view.
39: Yes
40: No, I do not. I believe that Evolution is the best "scientific" explanation for the origin of humanity. This account to me is a story that helps to explain the way its author imagined humanity as having begun. To me, it also evidences the fact that the ancient Hebrews were not all alone in a little cultural island. From what I have read, it is my understanding that the first story of creation (in Gen 1:1-2:4 or so) is derived from Babylonian creation myths. Although this detracts from the notion that the Hebrews were a unique culture, it also makes their existence in history more believable.
41: I believe in a spiritual view of creation, and a spiritual interpretation of the scripture rather than a strictly literal one.
42: I think it's correct. Of course, days might mean eons. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a day to God is a thousand years.
43: I believe in a literal view that God created the universe. The two seperate creation stories in Genesis are clearly influenced by early Hebrew folk stories, but I believe they are true in that they communicate universal truths about the relation between God and his creation.
44: Difficult one. The Word cannot be inaccurate but I believe that our knowledge isn't even a scrape off the iceberg. I think maybe that time being relative was a lot different during this period to what we know.
45: no; i see it as an allegory of growing up, maturing into adulthood. the "fall" is allegorical of gaining an independent moral sense, becoming a moral agent capable of carrying responsibility, and the weight of that responsibility - childhood starts seeming by comparison paradisical, carefree, but Adam nonetheless did the right thing.
46: Yes
47: I take the creation story in Genesis as allegorical not literal.
48: Allegorical.
49: I believe what Genesis says. But the word "day," translated from the Hebrew text means something like "a period of time." A day to God may be different than a day to man.
50: not an issue, either possible
2: Absolutely
3: Yes
4: Yes, we may be in for another one if the ozone melts the ice caps.. look out kevin cosner..
5: Maybe, maybe not. It's not important. Again, the forshadowing of Baptism is more important than whether or not it actually happened. (i.e..what we learn from the "story" is more important than then accuracy of its historicity)
6: Yep
7: Yes.
8: Yes,
9: Yes. All things that have been written about in the Bible will be determined in time. Archeaological finds will reveal such things.
10: Maybe, maybe not. I understand any flood is unlikely to have been global in extent, but there is some evidence that a flood of widespread extent did occur at some point in far antiquity.
11: yes
12: It's possible.
13: No.
14: Yes, although the notion of "global" is not a modern one.
15: Yes
16: global, I really doubt it.
17: Yes.
18: Don't think it was necessarily global. Probably a local phenomenon.
19: yes. i believe that there is sufficient geological and cultural evidence to support this (source -- 'the genesis flood' by rehwinkle).
20: Who knows.
21: No
22: Don't know. The emphasis of the texts before Abraham seems not to be their historicity. This will change afterwards: in the Bible, God is reavealed as acting in history.
23: I have always found the flood to be a fantastic story, though not impossible. I believe the assertion by modern prophets that the flood was the physical baptism of the earth. And that it too needed to be born of water (and that it will be later baptized by fire) in order to inherit a celestial reward.
24: Yes.
25: yes
26: As i understand it Bablyonians also had some sort of flood but a global flood..no
27: Yes
28: Yes it did there is proof of this having occurred.
29: No
30: No
31: No
32: No, but it is quite possibly based on stories of a catastrophic flood in the Tigris-Euphrates region.
33: Don't think so. I believe that there was a real flood, and that it appeared to cover the whole earth. But I don't really believe that the himalayas, for example, were under water.
34: Yes
35: There was a major flood in Mesopaotamia, not a global flood. The spiritual significance of the story has to do with good/evil God/humanity, etc. It is interesting to compare this passage with the Epic of Gilgamesh.
36: Yes
37: In accordance with the above answer, probably not, but not definitely not. Actually I think a series of localized floods probably happened. Floods affecting that part of the world inhabited by human beings, which is, after all, the point of the story. An operative word is still "probably."
38: yes.
39: Yes (and this is found in more than "Christian" religions)
40: No. There is no evidence outside the Bible to indicate that it did. Perhaps a local flood occurred at one point and the story of this flood was expanded over generations to the point where it was said that the flood had covered the earth, but no truly global flood ever occurred.
41: If you accept God's Word, it is hard to deny that a global flood occured.
42: Yes, and this is something that can be proved scientifically, you **could** believe in the flood without beliveing in God.
43: There is no evidence to date for a Bronze age global flood. There is evidence of a large flood in much of the Middle East at this time.
44: Yes, the Bible says so.
45: definitely not. the evidence undisputably disproves such ideas.
46:
47: occurred in the past - perhaps large enough to cover the entire known world of the time. But I don't think it actually covered the entire globe to the depth described in Genesis.
48: I think not. However, the story can be used for teaching.
49: yes
50: yes
2: No... Too much perfection to have come from chaotic destruction
3: God said, "Let there be..." I dunno if it made a bang sound when it all came into being.
4: Prehaps.
5: It is definitely plausible. But it also does not contradict Christianity. It is not a theory of how the universe was "created" because it cannot go back to time=0 (i.e.. the very beginning). It is limited to Plank's Constant and probabilities. So the theory does not conclude there is no God. But, as with many other theories, it will continue to develop, or be overthrown by other theories.
I should also note that there is not just "ONE" "big bang theory". Having taken a course in it, you learn there are SEVERAL. (so of course it can't be accurate since there isn't just one) But the idea is plausible.
6: I'm not a physicist, so I don't have a qualified opinion. I don't think that it has anything to do with the bible.
7: No.
8: Yes, watch a firecracker -- light and bang
9: The Big Bang does not provide a completely sufficient model for describing the origin of the universe. I believe that I could probable descibe to you the Big Bang in a way that would correspond to Creation. I believe that they are the same if the constraint of a constant time is removed. First there would have been light being generated from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. Then the lighter compounds like water would have been formed, then planets, then plant and animal life, and finally man. The order that they occured in geological history is the same order that they occured in the Bible.
10: It's as valid as any scientific theory can claim for itself. There are still many debates about the exact nature of the big bang, and some physicists still reject the theory on technical grounds, but on the whole it remains the most convincing current explanation of the origins of the universe.
11: no
12: It could be, and if it is, I'm sure God started it.
13: Maybe
14: Valid? I know of no inherent logical contradiction.
15: Only as it agrees with Genesis creation.
16: maybe. I'm not convinced that the more subtle versions (Hawkings) are an improvement
17: It's a valid "theory" - but only that.
18: Perhaps in a way, but if it is true, then God is still behind it.
19: maybe. even so, it is not inconsistant with god the creator.
20: Refer to 13. Also - it doesn't really matter what happened.
21: Yes
22: A scientific question on which I cannot comment. I did not complete my physics education but switched to math before I was able to understand such theories.
23: Could be. Really this is not an issue with LDS. There is no official church position on it, and I personally think its as good a theory as any that man has, without the additional insights of God.
24: no.
25: maybe
26: yes
27: Could be, again it doesn't matter, refer to #13.
28: No, this theory has actually been disproven. I am not sure which scientific journal published the article.
29: Probably. I don't see any reason why it isn't valid, but then, I'm not a cosmologist.
30: Valid as what? As science it is a valid theory. Valid as a fact (it happened just like I am breathing right now) well who knows.
31: Probably
32: Maybe.
33: could be. God has done stranger things.
34: No
35: yes, current evidence supports it
36: It could well be (I believe that God spoke and the earth was formed. I reckon that when Goid speaks in that way it sure would create a big bang)
37: I think so.
38: Probably not.
39: Maybe God did it that way
40: I have seen no reason not to believe it. When I think about the creation of the universe, I think in terms of the Big Bang. As an aside, I do not believe that the Big Bang is at all incompatible with a creation by God. It is entirely possible to imagine that an infinitely powerful God could have created the universe by just this means.
41: It is possible, though the big bang theory excludes any "creator", so in that sense it does not agree with scripture. Could God have created the universe with a Big Bang? Sure, I do not personally believe this, but it is possible.
42: no
43: It is not a "popular" theory - it the best scientific theory that incorporates the observations at hand (3 K Cosmic Ray background, Hubble expansion, general relativity, etc). It is valid to the extent that all scientific theories are valid - it will remain the basis for cosmological research until it is revised by new oberservations or theoretical results.
44: It could very well be as it doesn't contradict the Word of God. Just needs to be interpreted properly.
45: i don't know enough modern cosmology to answer. about all i do know i have from Hawking's _A Brief History of Time_, and that's far from conclusive.
46: No.
47: maybe
48: As a teacher, I will teach it. And I think yes.
49: NOOOOOOOOO! When there is a word on a chalk board, some intelligent -being had to of put it there. It could not have magically appeared. We are too diverse on Earth to have been "poofed" into existance by star dust. Why are there still monkeys around?...
50: no (first cause?)
2: No
3: No, around 6000
4: No
5: No.
6: Don't know. Don't care much.
7: No, it's at least 6000 years old. If you're asking if I think it's in the billions of years, I don't believe that.
8: No
9: I believe that all things will be revealed in time. Yes, I think that the earth is about 6000 years old. Carbon dating does not take into considerations of a varying time.
10: Absolutely not.
11: no
12: NO.
13: No.
14: No
15: No
16: no
17: Probably older - in fact, many creationists will say it's 10-12,000 years old.
18: No.
19: oh, come now. even young earth creationists call it more like 6100 years. i personally believe that the earth is older than that, but admit to the possibility that it could be a lot younger than most 'scientists' believe. there is evidence that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is not a constant, and has been steadily increasing for about, oh, 5000 years or so. i'm not enough of an expert to adequately evaluate such evidence.
20: I doubt it.
21: No
22: hardly so
23: No.
24: no.
25: God's timing is not our timing - God has eternity we have mere years. Who knows?
26: no 4 billion i believe? am i off? I honestly know little about science I'm a poli sci grad student
27: Science would say no. I say I don't know for sure, but probably not.
28: No, I honestly have no idea how old the earth is. To tell you a little secret, I don't really care.
29: Of course not.
30: No
31: No
32: No
33: don't think so
34: Maybe
35: no
36: Don't know - probably.
37: Probably not, but not definitely not.
38: Doubtful.
39: No
40: Certainly not. The geological evidence available to us does not allow us to postulate such a short life span for the earth.
41: Not at all. I do not believe that science or the scriptures teach this. People have tried to figure out the age of the earth using the scriptures, but I believe made some serious mistakes in their calculations. The belief has been accepted by many as it is gospel though...
42: Probably not. It's probably less than 10,000 years old though.
43: The geological evidence suggests that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old.
44: Again the Bible doesn't specifically say so but deductions (valid or not) have been made to this effect. I believe no. Again a matter of interpreting that which has not been elaborated on. Scripture can be found and interpreted to substantiate a pre-Adamic race.
45: laughable.
46: No
47: Not likely
48: No.
49: Ask God. Like I said, the word "day" in the Bible was translated from a Hebrew word that means "a period of time."
50: not an issue, either possible
2: Micro-evolution. Species remain intact, but develop slight mutations over time.
3: An attempt to say man is just a sophisticated ape.
4: The selection and adpation of features and benifts of living animals to adjust to their environment and conditions.
5: "Survival of the fittest"...that is...that which survives are the creatures that are more adapted to survival.
6: Your mean vs. speciation ? :-), Wierd science.
7: Evolution is the scientific theory that changes in species through mutations not only occasionally make it easier for them to survive, but also can make new species.
8: Change of species -- monitored by God
9: Darwinian evolution does not occur. Stephen Gould agrees. The Burgess Shale findings agree. Natural selection based on genetic and environmental changes do occur. I think that this in no way discredits Creation.
10: A very big subject! It is the best current scientific explanation of the origins of life, and of species differentiation. As with the big bang theory, the experts are still debating precise technical mechanisms and so on, but this does not detract from its status as "our best understanding to date".
11: a load of rubbish :) (there are many theories, too many to describe here)
12: The idea that humans developed from other forms of life on this planet.
13: God's long, slow process of creating and modifying species.
14: A paleobiological theory of the origin of species.
15: Darwins Mistake
16: I define it as changes in a species that result in improvements. If you want to talk about specific theories (e.g. Dawkins) I'd use other names, such as "Blind Watchmaker Thesis")
17: I don't think evolution really exists. It's just an unproved theory.
18: The process of change that God implemented to create all things on Earth.
19: a theory which attempts to explain the origin of man outside of creation.
20: Ask Darwin!
21: The adaption of a species to its changing environment
22: a) a scientific theory that, just like other theories, explains some phenomena well and fails to explain other phenomena b) a belief system, explaining all otherwise unexplainable phenomena by (a)
23: Evolution is something we view occurring here on earth. I do not believe that evolution is the only force that created the universe because it simply goes against the natural laws of physics, such as entropy.
24: micro-evolution i believe, but extrapolation to macro-evolution... na ah. What is evolution? A theory.
25: I don't believe we evolved from a single celled organism - our world it too infinite and wonderful to have happened just by chance.
26: A1 theory that the various types of animals and plants have their orgin in other pre-existing types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. 9th New Wesbter's Collegiate Dictionary
27: A Theory that says species will modify over time due to the passing on of genes that produce traits needed for survival.
28: A theory that is being taken as fact through inductive reasoning. By its very nature a theory is something that has not been proven. There are many unprofessional scientists who use the theory as a law.
29: Change over time.
30: Evolution is the change in species through the process of natural selection. Due to environmental pressures certian individuals w/ normal variations in traits can survive and reproduce during these environmental pressures.
31: A theory that best describes the changes that have taken place over time in living creatures.
32: The change, over time, of one species into another
33: biological theory describing the devolopment of species. Quite likely true.
34:
35: species change over time
36: A theory :>)
37: It's a model for explaining the origin of the physical universe, using the tools provided by scientific methodology to uncover evidence in natural history.
38: A first "life from" chemically happened and then was transformed into various other life forms.
39: One way of God bringing about change that He desires.
40: It is a process by which things change form over time. In biological terms, mutations occur with each generation. Those which help an organism to survive are more likely to be successfully passed to the next generation. Over many generations, such helpful mutations accumulate and eventually it can be said that speciation has occurred.
41: Evolution is the scientific theory that states that species "evolve" or change through the process of "natural selection". By this process genetic traits that help a species with survival are more likely to be passed on. It is for the most part unobservable, unrepeatable, and so likely to always remain a theory, even though it is already widely accepted as fact. To the secular mind it is the only thing that makes sense. If there is no God then evolution MUST be a fact. A wide variety of life forms obviously connot just "appear" out of oblivion. Hense all must have started with one or more VERY primitive forms of life that somehow could be of a "spontaneous" generation, requiring no God to create them. Without a belief in God these things MUST be. There CAN be no other explanation for the existance of so many varied life forms.
42: It's the process of something getting better over a period of time.
43: This is found in any introductory biology text. Facts are not decided by popular opinion.
44: I believe it to be the evolvment of species within their own domain. ie a monkey can evolve into various species of monkeys, but not humans.
45: the definition is "change in allele frequencies over time". as such, it is observed fact; the scientific theory that deals with this fact, the theory of evolution, is the cornerstone of modern biology - and several other sciences.
46: An incorrect theory.
47: Evolution is the mechanism God gave to life to allow it to adapt to changing conditions. I believe God created evolution to benefit life. I believe that God created the Universe and life itself - life did not spontaneously 'spring to life'.
48: A process by which life came to the present form.
49: A process of developement or/and formation.
50: macro evolution-all life from common ancestery --micro evolution-natural selection and adaptation
2: Yes
3: Micro-organism, single cell organism have been proven to mutate. Is this a change into something different or is it a normal condition we just don't know about?
4: Yes
5: I don't know why not.
6: That's a science issue, not a religious one.
7: Of course; we've seen it happen to ourselves. At 5'7", I'm quite short for my age; a couple centuries ago, I would have been about average.
8: They do -- farmers all know this
9: Yes. I have better teeth than either of my parents.
10: Yes
11: no
12: yes.
13: Not sure.
14: Yes
15: Adaptation to local conditions
16: I think this has been proven beyond doubt
17: Yes. That's been proven. Case in point - people used to all be short, now they're taller on average.
18: I suppose so.
19: certainly. the fossil evidence is quite clear, as well as experimental (empirical, observable) evidence.
20: Of course it does - prooven by genetics.
21: Yes
22: no problem, this can be observed
23: Sure.
24: yes.
25: don't know don't care
26: yes
27: Yes.
28: Yes take a look at dogs.
29: Yes
30: Yes.
31: I am not a biologist
32: Yes
33: Yes
34: Yes
35: yes
36: Yes.
37: "Believe in" isn't quite the way I'd put it. It seems to me that there is observable evidence for small-scale evolution, either by micro-mutation or by natural selection.
38: Yes.
39: Yes, under the control of God
40: I'm not familiar with the implied connotations of this particular buzz word, but from the description given above I would have to say yes.
41: Yes. It is very difficult to deny these as they are observable.
42: Yes.
43: It is not a matter of belief - this is a scientific fact. See the London moths as a classic example.
44: Yes, I believe this to be quite obvious and does not contradict scripture.
45: the term "microevolution" is not from biology, and refers to nothing unique which would deserve a term of its own. but small changes definitely *do* occur in species - such small differences are what makes individuals of the same species unique as individuals. such differences are important to natural selection, for diversity.
46: Yes
47: Yes. This is clearly demonstratable in a lab.
48: Yes.
49: I'm not sure.
50: yes
2: No
3:
4: Yes
5: No...I think that enough of a small change would by definition be a new creature.
6: Again, a science issue. Has nothing to do with the origin of man.
7: No, nor do I believe in speciation -- that changes in one species could create an entirely new species.
8: Yes, a little at a time
9: No. No proof yet. Again, I don't think that macro-ecolution discredits Creation, but there is insufficient proof to convince me that it exists.
10: Yes
11: no
12: yes.
13: Yes.
14: I remain skeptical of punctuated equilibrium and Darwinian gradualism, but more so the latter. Since I am not a paleobiologist my opinions are not of great importance to me on this point.
15: No
16: Maybe, but the question is how, and is it really completely accidental? I await better theories before I'm convinced that time+chance does it.
17: No. Not proven.
18: I guess.
19: there is, however considerably less evidence for this -- as in none. certainly none for 'gradual' evolution. any differing fossils could support 'lucky accident' evolution, but current knowledge about reproduction and genes would tend to deny 'lucky accident' evolution. i think it is highly unlikely that macroevolution is true.
20: It *could* happen.
21: It seems possible
22: more of a problem, cannot be directly observed I am not sure the evidence is really overwhelming.
Here I miss a question:
19a) Do you believe in "superevolution" -- that the mechanics of evolution explains how life comes about?
No. Evolution requires life to function.
23: I personally do not believe in this type of evolution as the origin of man. I suppose if man actively tried to create a new species by mingling the DNA of two species they could create another species of creature, and it might even be possible to create hybrids beyond species limitations, but this is not the natural random evolution but a directed and deliberate change.
24: no.
25: no
26: yes
27: No.
28: I do not believe in the ability to change into another species.
29: Yes.
30: Yes
31: See 18.
32: Yes
33: Less certain, but it seems likely.
34: No
35: yes
36: Possibly - but not across species.
37: This one isn't observable in a single lifetime. So, again, "believe in" isn't quite right. There's historical evidence, brought to light by scientific methodology. But, going strictly by the light provided by scientific methodology, we can't even tell if the sense perceptions that come to us through our six senses really reflect what is in fact there. That's beyond science. Maybe, we're more blind beggars in the universe than we care to comfortably admit.
38: No.
39: Yes, under the control of God
40: Yes, with the same qualifications I gave for the previous question.
41: No.
42: Perhaps.
43: It is not a matter of belief - this is a scientific fact. See any modern microbiology journal on the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the evolution of HIV, etc. Most "macroelvolutionary" changes occur over many generations, and so are only observable in species like bacteria which go through many generations in a short time.
44: A fish cannot become a mammal but an amphibian may adapt to land over time.
45: again, the term you ask about is meaningless to biology, but one species splitting into several - or put another way, new species arising from out of different ancestral stock - has also been observed. repeatedly. would you consider a difference on the species level as "radical"?
46:
47: however, not strong evidence for it.
48: Yes.
49: I'm not sure. If it did happen, it would be God's doing.
50: no
2: Generally, yes
3: Yes. Notice that science says the stars were formed first. God said He made the earth first, then the stars, then the sun and moon. Just the opposite of what science says.
4: No
5: Not necessarily. It is certainly plausible that God created this universe in a fashion similar (but of course, not exactly since there isn't just ONE theory) to a "big bang". It is certainly plausible as well that God allowed the universe to evolve according (but not necessarily exactly) to an evolutionary process. And then, at some point, when "humans" evolved, He placed the soul into mankind, and thus, we begin (i.e.. Adam and Eve were the first humans WITH souls)
6: The application of the theory of evolution to the origin of man is contrary to the teaching of the bible, and is thus incorrect.
7: Yes.
8: No, Just different perspective
9: No.
10: Absolutely not
11: yes
12: no.
13: No.
14: No
15: Yes
16: No
17: Not neccessarily. The Bible doesn't speak to those theories.
18: No.
19: e-yes, er, well maybe bb- no
20: Nope
21: No
22: No.
23: Only if scientists use such theories to discount the existence of God or Christ. Personally I think that such theories have broad holes and are limited understandings of men, but I do not think that they inherently HAVE TO be contrary to Christianity.
As to the creation process I believe it was actively directed by a loving God, and thus if this is what you mean by being contrary to these theories then I would have to side on the side of God, but since it is not that clear cut, I leave it open to possibilities.
In addition, The LDS religion has no official stance on evolution.
24: not in themselves (you only really need to believe that Jesus died for your sins and confess that he is your Savior). however, it sorta denies the need for a Savior (as in no first man, no original sin, no sins afterwards?)
25: I think God created the world and all that is in it - How he actually did it I nor any one else will never know for sure as long as we are alive on this earth. there will always be theories and divisions just as there are many divisions in the church
26: no, because Genesis was never written to be a science text a hint of the allegorical nature of Genesis includes Adam..means mankind, etc.
27: No.
28: Yes
29: Absolutely not.
30: No. Only to the simple minded 8-).
31: No
32: No
33: No.
34: Yes
35: no
36: Not necessarily
37: No.
38: Evolution, yes. Big bang I am unsure of at the moment.
39: Not really And, don't you mean "contrary to religion?" Christ never really discussed these subjects.
40: As I said above, I do not perceive any problem between Christianity and the Big Bang theory. I know that there is a contradiction between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution, but I think it is not a necessary one. I believe this contradiction could be resolved in such a way that both evolution and christianity are preserved. But clearly, christianity will have to change somewhat to accomodate evolution. I don't say that evolution must change to accomodate christianity because evolution is a scientific theory. By its very nature, it will change as the known facts change. But, christianity is not about facts. It is about belief. Therefore, there is no reason why evolution should have to change to accomodate christianity. But, christianity must change to accomodate the facts. Belief is fine. Faith is fine. But blind faith is foolish and christians have to realize that.
41: Yes, but in my opinion we have a misunderstanding in one or both. I do not believe that good science and good interpretation of scripture are incompatible. If one does good science and comes to the truth about the world around him, he will come that much closer to discovering God's universe and will find it to be as God has said.
42: Yes.
43: No. A scientific theory is just that, a theory that deals with scienitfic;y verifiable results in a scientific manner. Spurious efforts to apply evolutionary theory to social issues, so called "Social Darwinism", is contrary to Christian belief and practice, and unscientific to boot.
44: Evolution as per Darwin's later years ; Yes. The big bang ; No.
45: i'm arguably not qualified to answer, but i have heard self-professed xians answer in the negative; people i respect as knowing what they speak of. i'll take their word for it.
46: Yes.
47: Evolution is partially contrary to Christianity.
The big bang is not contrary. In fact, I think it is in general agreement with the creation account of Genesis (taken allegorically...)
48: No. The Bible is not a book of Physics.
49: Yes. Most christians believe in creationism, not evolution.
50: most, yes
2: Not really, just in the generic support for evolution
3: Science can be at odds. Science has tried to give a natural explination of events that happened in the Bible. Jesus fed 5000 people with five loafs of bread, then had 12 baskets left over. Meaning, He finished with more bread than what He started with, and that is after feeding 5000. Scienctist try to make God fit natural order of things. God created the natural order of things and will work in that order if He so chooses.
4: No, only some science members
5: Not at all. There have been many writings by Pope John Paul II on this topic... that there is no contradiction, and there can be no contradiction since God created science.
6: Nope. "Evolution" is wierd science. Ask any physicist what the difference is between a scientific theory and a law is :-).
7: Not really; scientists will never prove a soul, or eternal life, nor will they disprove it happens. As a matter of fact, occasionally you see science (in particular archaeology) support religious accounts.
8: Can't be, in reality. Just in understanding.
9: No. I am a scientist; I have no conflict. I believe that science can do nothing but reveal God's handiwork.
10: Absolutely not
11: some scientists are, some aren't, depends on the researcher
12: With the Old testiment, yes. WIth the New, no. Jesus spoke of Human condition, not origins of the universe.
13: No.
14: No
15: No
16: It shouldn't be and doesn't have to be. Certain prominent scientists and populizers (Sagan, Dawkins) are at odds with Christianity.
17: IT's at odds with religion in general, but it's not "picking" on christians.
18: Not really.
19: no. western culture heavily influenced by christianity is largely responsible for science. they ancient egyptians built the pyramids, without cranes and buldozers -- a feat we would have trouble duplicating today. but they didn't have the scientific method. i think god wants us to explore and learn about the creation he has given us. i also believe that the more science discovers, the more god is shown in his creation.
20: Nope - It supports.
21: No
22: No. I have not checked but I suspect that the share of believing Christians among great scientists is neither extraordinarily low nor high.
23: No. I think that there are scientists that are at odds with religion, but there are many more scientists that are perfectly in harmony with Christianity.
24: no.
25: no
26: no, Paul writes that nature attests to God, by the study of science we seek truth (as best as we possibly can do..we are limited here..not everything is quantifable), which if we believe that God is the God of truth than it can in fact become a religious excercise.
27: I think that it attempts to be and that Christians sometimes get bogged down in the details. God is so much greater than this piddly controversy.
28: Yes, more is accomplished when both work together.
29: It's not in conflict with Christianity. I can't speak for "religion in general," whatever that might be.
30: Science - no. Some scientists - yes.
31: No
32: Not necessarily, although some scientists are
33: No. This is the real question. About two hundred years ago the church started to believe that science really would replace belief. There seems to have been a massive loss of intellectual nerve. But God invented science along with everything else. How can it contradict Him? It may contradict my understanding of Him, but surely that says more about me than it does about God.
34: Yes
35: no
36: No
37: Science is probably at odds with some religions or parts of some religions. I don't know. I do know that it's not at odds with Christianity as it has been historically handed down to us.
38: I don't believe science per say is, but a lot of scientists are. Scientists as a rule tend not to believe anything that would support Christianity (with some exceptions).
39: Not really and No (science is not really a subject of the NT)
40: No. Science is, ideally, neutral on the subject of religion. Some scientists may be at odds with religion in general and/or christianity in particular, but science itself is not.
41: Sometimes it is. Sometimes Christianity is at odd with science. In other words when they disagree, one or the other, or both are obviously wrong. Scientific assumptions can be wrong, just as interpretations of Scripture can be wrong. If you understand scripture correctly, and truly understand the world scientifically there can be agreement. Christianity was wrong about Galileos theories but they misunderstood God's word. Galileo contradicted the teaching of the religious leaders of his time, but he did NOT actually contadict the scriptures, only the leaders "mis-understanding" of them.
42: Not really. The bible aggrees with science in many places.
43: No
44: No. Science has a lot to say in support of Christianity.
45: not unless xianity puts itself at odds with science. never once does any respectable science mention the god of xianity, as such deities are irrelevant to science; not in its area of study.
46: No.
47: Science really can't say much about God. Religious faith and the scientific method are entirely different things and generally cannot be compared (apples to apples kind of thing...). However, some scientists are hostile to religion and some religions are hostile to science.
48: No. But it has to be careful not to exceed its limits (speculations about scientifically unproven ideas, etc.)
49: Science can be a religion in itself. Scientists have faith in that the earth has different layers underneath. But I truly think science and christianity can go hand in hand. I.E.: Genetics. The DNA that any living thing has is too complicated to have evolved over time. God created it. I, a christian, am interested in careers involving science. Science can be used to explain christianity.
50: science and religion are not at odds, but scientism and religion are
I accept them as literally and miraculously true. 2: Yes, but must be tempered with the cultural influence of the day.
3: Yes, I believe the accounts to be literal. When a person accepts something, he shouldn't try to change it afterwards. Why did the person accept something he doesn't totally agree with?
4: No, most is as it happened and related as it happened.
5: Yes. They are literal. Unlike the Old Testament, the Gospels were an account of Jesus's life, ministry, death, and resurrection. The writers were more concerned about relaying the moral points than the accurate "this happened first, then this second". Also, the Epistles/Letters/etc were historical things that happened. And their purpose was to convey accurate moral teachings.
6: Yep.
7: Yes.
8: Yes, virgin birth not that far fetched.
9: Yes, they are literal as interpreted by the writers of the particular books.
10: Not exactly literal, but on the whole reliable.
They are the written record of people who directly experienced Jesus physical presence, collected together with second-hand accounts from other of the apostles, but written quite a long time after the events they describe. As such they are authentic records of those people's understanding of what happened, although some of the details may be mangled. 11: yes
12: Not literal, but a good idea of Jesus' life. The miracles and virgin birth may have happened...
13: Maybe but no one knows for sure.
14: Yes
15: Yes
16: Very close to literal.
17: Yes.
I accept all of them.
18: Don't believe in the Virgin birth, Jesus' words are pretty much what he actually said, some of the miracles he performed, some he didn't.
19: (except for the objection to 'literal' as explained in question 11), yes, i believe these are actual eyewitness accounts, at least in the case of matthew and john. mark, i believe, recorded what peter told him from his memory.
20: Of course it is - it's a historical account.
21: At their core, the Gospels revolve around the historical person of Jesus. However, they are primarily theological, not historical, writings. Though I suspect that there are parts of the Gospels which are not historical, I believe there is a deeper level at which they are fully *true*, and that is the level at which I try to understand them.
22: They were intended to paint an accurate picture of what happened. I see no reason to distrust any particular issue, but I would not expect formal inerrancy.
23: Yes.
I believe in the virgin birth, the literal ressurrection of Christ in the flesh, and I believe that he showed himself physically to prophets even in this day and age.
24: Literal.
25: yes
26: The The Gospels like the rest of the Bible does not come from an ahistorical vacuum. The Gospels are addressed to different people, responding to different concerns. Thus when we see Matthew written after 72 AD with the fall of Jerusalem and the division clear between judaism and christianity the anti-semitism can be seen through the book. It is believed that Matthew is a synthesis of Mark and Luke and that Mark can be traced to a source that some scholars call Q.None are eyewitness accounts. No i generally don't believe in the miracles or virgin birth
27: Every thing in the New Testament is literal...except for the parables of course.
28: Yes
29: This has the same problem that your question on Genesis 1 and 2 had. For example, the "literal account" in the Infancy Narrative in Matthew 1-2 is not the same as the "literal account" in the Infancy Narrative in Luke 1-2; the "literal accounts" of the Passion Narratives differ in in all four Gospels.
For your three cases:
The New Testament is in Greek; it was most unlikely that Jesus spoke Greek. Consequently, the words attributed to Jesus are almost certainly not literal.
There is no inherent reason not to believe the miracles in the New Testament; but then there is nothing to prevent them from being theolegoumena, either.
The purpose of the narrative of the Virginal Conception (not Virgin Birth; whatever that curious phrase might mean, the New Testament notes nothing out of the ordinary about Mary's labor and delivery during the birth of Jesus) is to demonstrate the uniqueness of Jesus. Whether Joseph was His father or whether Mary conceived without the aid of an earthly father is not so important, and I would hesitate to make a final conclusion.
30: Yes.
31: No - probably Midrashic traditions.
32: No. The ministry period is probably quite accurate, but one must keep in mind that the Gospels were written not as biography but as proclamations that Jesus is Lord. The birth narratives were probably composed independently to demonstrate, in narrative form, that Jesus was not an "adopted" son of God. They, as most myth, are stories meant to reveal a deep underlying truth.
33: Pretty much. The necessary miracles (resurrection, etc.) I am sure of. I wonder if the feeding of the 5,000 was a physical miracle, or a spiritual one: maybe the sight of God sharing a pittance with a horde moved people to "remember" that they had a little something to share after all. The story "works" as an example of God working in the world either way.
34: Yes
35: They contain spiritual truths and should not be evaluated as journalistic biography. I do consider the events to have some historical basis.
36: Yes
37: Yes. I believe the New Testament gospels are historically accurate. As to literal, that Jesus told the parables in the gospels I am certain is literally true; that the parables are intended to be interpreted literally I am certain is not so. I don't see _any_ convincing evidence to give me confidence in weeding out sayings from miracles. People should really find other adjectives than "literal" to describe these issues.
38: Yes.
39: Yes, in the original texts.
40: I would rather use the term literal. I would rather discuss whether or not they are historically accurate. I think this is the same thing you're going after with your question, but the term historical accuracy is more precise and less prone to misinterpretation. I do not believe the gospels are completely historically accurate. Let me list some of the things in the gospels which I believe to be historically accurate. Jesus was born. Jesus lived and taught people. John lived, taught and baptized and was killed by Herod. Jesus was killed by the Romans. After his death, his followers believed that he had been resurrected. These things I think are pretty certain. To go beyond this much we would need another more historically accurate source. The gospels were not written to tell history, but to tell a story. They were written to win converts. This bias makes it difficult to tell which bits actually happened and which did not.
41: Basically literal. Much of what he spoke about had a spiritual fulfillment though. I.e., he was not here to setup a literal (physical) kingdom on earth, but a spiritual one, etc..
42: Yes.
43: I belive in the the historical reality of Jesus (i.e. he really existed. Historical evidence in strong in support of this.) Cf above on the rest : I believe the Bible (Old and New Testaments) to be the Word of God, solely sufficient for all matters of faith and practice.
44: All literal.
45: difficult, if at all even possible, to say. if there was a physical person behind the accounts, he would by necessity have to be so drastically different from the accounts' descriptions as to be - today - nearly irrelevant to them.
46: Yes.
47: Yes, they are generally literal accounts. Quotes attributed to Jesus are likely as he said it or nearly so.
48: I accept them as literally true. However, the arrangement of events obviously reflects post-Pentecost standpoints.
49: The New Testament is literal in what you are asking. God doesn't lie. But how can a person take a book like Revalations literally. A person needs to look deeper into God's message.
50: literal, yes
2: Yes
3: Yes
4: Moses hand a hand in writting them. It may have been his brother who worte some. Or members of the Levi clan.
5: It is ascribed to him, but I don't think it matters.
6: Yep.
7: Yes.
8: Probably.
9: Yes. They were updated after the Deporation to correct for actual locations of certain places and were written in ways that the people might more easily understand them. This would be equivalent to re-writing a King James version Bible to a New American Standard.
10: It is unlikely.
11: yes
12: don't know.
13: It is not known.
14: Yes, essentially, although not verbatim and unaided as recieved.
15: Yes
16: it is not known. Moses couldn't have penned the part where he died.
17: Probably not. This is where I'd vary from being an extreme "inerrantist." He could only have done this if God told him ahead of time about his own death. Which, I suppose, is possible...
18: No.
19: it is not known (for sure).
20: Probably did, but I'm not 100% sure.
21: Parts of the Torah probably originated with Moses (or earlier), but later writers added to it to give us what we have today.
22: I don't know, but I suspect that not.
23: As far as I know he did.
24: Most of them. However Gen 1 and 2 have different authors, and there's a part in Deut where it talks about Moses I think at the end...
25: I believe so -
26: no..most scholars believe that it is a long process some of it dating even into the Bablyonian captivity (especially deuteronomy.) The 5 basic sources come from the Jawhist, Deuteronmic, The Priestly tradition, and Elowhist (can't remember the 5th) which produce different creation stories, etc.
27: Don't know. I'm sure God had a huge hand in it.
28: Mose compiled the first five books of the Old Testament.
29: No.
30: Probably wrote most of the first five books.
31: Probably not
32: No
33: Not in the literal sense. He may have had some hand in creating them.
34: don't know
35: no
36: Yes
37: Probably, but not definitely. Actually, it's possible that the identification "Moses" as author could be an eponym, in the same way, for example, "Israel" is used through the Old Testament. An eponym is a particular individual's name used later to describe that person's ancestral line. At any rate, I don't think this is a very important issue.
38: I'm not sure. That's what people claim, but I'd have to research to review my position.
39: Probably
40: No, he didn't. The first five books were not written by any one person. The current theory (for the past hundred or more years) is that the 5 books of the Pentateuch were written by different authors at different times, ranging from the earliest at about the time of David, to the last during or at the end of the Babylonian exile. These authors (or, rather sources) are called J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist) and P (Priestly).
41: I do not know. That is the traditional teaching, that he was inspired of God to write down the oral tradition up to that point. I have not had a reason to question the validity of this tradition.
42: Much of it was. Some was probably added. like at the end where it says that nobody knows where his grave is.
43: Textual analysis suggests that the Pentatuch was written much later than the period the Exodus.
44: Yes. I'm not sure how he got some of the earlier material but he seemed to be on good terms with the creator. It's not what you kow but who you know.
45: no. for crying out loud, Deuteronomium contains an account of Moses' death, did he write that too?!
46: Yes - but others have added to the books.
47: Its unlikely that Moses wrote the Torah.
48: No, but the codification began in the desert.
49: Maybe. God told somebody to do it. But I wasn't there to witness it, and the Bible only hints at it.
50: yes, with additions
2: Yes
3: Yes, and they are called the "Gospels"
4: Yes and no.. Matthew for sure, he was a learned man who knew greek and Hewbrew. Mark prehaps or one of his followers by Marks command. John. Yes. John same as mark.
5: It is highly likely. But who wrote is not as important as what is written, and it's moral content. It was the content that was declared as inerrant revelation. That is not person-dependent.
6: Yep.
7: Yes.
8: Probably not.
9: It is generally accepted that they did not.
10: Probably.
11: yes
12: probably, but some may have been copied from others.
13: No.
14: No better attribution has been made, to my knowledge, so, yes.
15: Yes
16: maybe on all accounts. We can't really know for sure.
17: No. They aren't named as authors, so we don't know.
18: It's not really certain.
19: again not known, for sure. but i see no reason to doubt this.
20: Probably
21: The Gospel of John was probably written by one of his disciples who used the Apostle's own writings as a source. Ditto for Matthew.
It seems likely that Mark and Luke wrote the books attributed to them. 22: Yes. (But it would not embarass me in any way if I learned that this was not so.)
G e n e r a l r e m a r k t o q u e s t i o n s 2 5 t o 2 9 :
All these questions have a tendency to regard the Bible or the teachings of Christ and his followers as a source of law. This is a wrong stance. It is God's desire that man live in accordance with his will, but not so by fulfilling a couple of laws. With every single question, I have the choice of being either rigourous (and thus wrongfully establishing the law) or liberal (and thus undermining God's good will). I try to avoid this trap by answering deliberately ambigously and briefly.
23: As far as I know they did.
24: Yes.
25: I believe so -
26: NoNo Matthew is a synthesis Mark is believed to be a roman author, lots of latinisms can be found in the text Luke uke is inconclusive...some believe it may be Luke who was a convert of Paul's (Colosians 4:14) but inconclusive Joohn most scholars believe that a student of John
27: Yes.
28: Yes
29: No.
30: John or a close disciple of John's wrote John. Luke and Mark I would say wrote the Gospel's which have their names. I don't know about Matthew.
31: No
32: Those are the traditional names of the evangelists. The actual authorship of the Gospels is unknown, but it is possible that tradition is correct in one or more cases.
33: I think so. (or perhaps it was four other dudes by the same names :-) )
34: Yes
35: no
36: Yes
37: I'm confident that they did. Despite form-criticism, I really can't say that I see any convincing reason to reject their authorship. In fact, concerning documentary integrity, the gospels are better attested to than much of the literature of antiquity.
38: Yes.
39: Probably
40: No. We don't know who wrote them and we certainly don't know their names with any certainty. The one possible exception to this is Luke, but that book is not a completely original work anyway. It is derived from Mark and the Q sayings Source.
41: Yes, most likely they did.
42: Yes.
43: Mark, or someone like MArk (an apostolic companion) may have wirtten Mark. Even the Patrisitic writers didn't believe Matthew wrote Matthew. Luke may have written Luke, but he used some older source (the so called Q document, plus others). John was written later, possibly by a school that followed "John".
44: Yes.
45: possibly their authors were named thusly, but who they were is another matter. disciples of the hypothetical Jesus, they were certainly not.
46: I don't know.
47: Don't know.
48: I leave it to scholars. I am content with the traditional headings.
49: Yes. It was their account's of Jesus' life.
50: yes, with help (and also inspired)
2: Yes
3: No
4: No
5: No. Separation, maybe, but not divorce (even for cases of adultery). Simply because the bond of marriage is not man-made but God-made, and we as man cannot break that bond....even if we try.
6: It is in all cases sinful, because it violates the intent of God.
To the Christian believer, this is a debateable issue, and a matter of concern, since one's decisions affect one's relationship with God.
Whether or not divorce is sinful for the unbeliever is irrelevent, since they are not saved, and thus have no relationship with God. Jesus made no laws for the unbeliever. To them He taught only one thing - repent and be baptised in His name.
7: In a very few cases (abandonment, one spouse continually beating another, etc.).
8: Yes, better not to remarry
9: No, it is not accceptable. It is a sin that can be forgiven, but it should not be done.
10: Yes, for instance in cases involving abuse.
11: no (except possibly were a female is being beaton up)
12: yes. particularly abuse.
13: Yes.
14: It is often preferrable to the percieved alternatives, but I suspect that this is primarily a failure of perception. Being of defective sight myself, I prefer not to comment decisively.
15: Possibly in the case of abandonment
16: yes
17: No.
18: Yes.
19: tough question. divorce is certainly not god's plan for our lives. sometimes, however, we screw things up so bad there aren't many alternatives. i believe that we can be forgiven for divorce, as for any other sin. (been married 25 years, no divorce, no plan to).
20: Grey issue - I wouldn't want to divorce - God hates it, but some cases are extreme ie wife-beating, adultery.
21: Yes - e.g. spousal abuse
22: Divorce is always inacceptable: adultery is not an exception because adultery is inacceptable, too. I am not in a position to judge those that have seen no other way than to react inacceptably in an inacceptable situation.
23: I am sure there are exceptions where divorce is acceptable. In my own life I would not divorce my wife even if taken in adultery. I love her and have committed my life to her. I have no intention of ever being apart from her because I made an eternal covenant to her. I believe that marriage can be an eternal covenant, between myself, my wife and God. It is sacred.
I personally believe that there are too many divorces in this world. That there is too much selfishness in marriage and that this is the central reason why marriages are failing today.
24: yes. (all cultural)
25: I do not believe that it is God's best - we live in a sinful world and things happen, God forgives and we go on. I know that it is not what God wants for any of us.
26: yes but i think we should measure adultery..is battery of a wife anything but adultery..certainly unfaifthfullness of the vows to love one another
27: No.
28: Yes, the marriage covenant can also be breached by abuse.
29: Divorce is a fact. It is never (even in cases of adultery) "acceptable," but it happens, for poor reasons and for even poorer reasons. Like other sins, it can be forgiven, and life can, and in some cases, should, go on.
30: Yes. I think spousal abuse is a legitmate reason for divorce.
31: Yes
32: Yes
33: Yes. physical beatings, threatening the wife and children with firearms, sexual abuse of the children -- in these cases, I have some difficulty believing that God has joined these two together.
34: No
35: yes, divorce is acceptable but not always remarriage
36: NO
37: No. And it's undesirable but permitted in the case of adultery. Marriage is a serious, serious thing. But I'm speaking of marriage as a sacrament, from my perspective in Christ. This matter is a thing that can only be agreed upon by those who share faith in him.
38: No.
39: No (But if you wait long enough, you'll find a joker in the closet anyway)
40: Yes. Divorce is not an evil in itself. It is symptomatic of other things being wrong. Although I do believe that frivolous divorces are wrong, I also believe that frivolous marriages are wrong.
41: For Christians it is not acceptible. For unbelievers it really isn't either, but I do not believe they are held by God to the same standards that believers are.
42: That and if a christian is married to a non christian and the non christian wants out.
43: It is acceptable in cases of spousal abuse.
44: I believe the Word makes it clear that divorce as a rule is not acceptable. I also have to believe that there will be exceptions when it is wrong to remain married to a person (abuse etc). I also believe that this is most often used as an excuse and people do not try hard enough.
45: yes. no reason why it shouldn't be.
46: NO.
47: No.
48: No. But I don't think the Christian ideal of marriage should be applied to the marriages of all people in the world. They weren't intended for them. And the Church wasn't planned to lend its moral teaching to the world for a while and then complain that they are too weak to live up to them.
49: Hard one. I don't think God would want a woman, or a man to stay with an abusive spouse. But I think God is against some cases of it.
50: no
2: Practicing
3: Both, sin starts in the heart.
4: Being a homosexual in any form is a sin in the eyes of God and Jesus. There are no degrees to sin.
5: To the extent that it is practiced. There are many homosexuals that realize the practice of it is wrong, so they accept the call to chastity. It is the same thing as being an un-married heterosexual. You know that fornication is wrong, so you remain chaste. The attraction is not wrong. It's the giving into temptation that is wrong.
6: I am not aware of any studies that provide scientific evidence that "homosexuality" is a genetic disorder.
Practicing homosexuality is sinful. Again the statements of Q25 apply. The Christian has no message to the unbelieving homosexual other than the gospel.
7: Practicing homosexuality.
8: Full blown sin, same as any addiction.
9: Any and all extent.
10: Not at all. By which I mean that homosexual love comes under exactly the same principles as hetrosexual love. If it is either wrong or right for a het to engage in a specific attitude or behaviour, then the same standard applies to a gay person.
11: completely
12: I don't know.
13: Homosexuality is not a sin.
14: Homosexual acts are sins, i.e. contrary to the manifest will of God. Homosexual identity is a spiritual illness.
15: Yes
16: practicing homosexuality outside of some sort of long-term commitment to their partner. Same goes for straights.
17: being a homosexual, etc.
18: Being a homosexual definitely isn't a sin. Practicing homosexuality--I don't know. I think they have to work it out with God. It's not for me to decide.
19: first, i disagree that any 'innate tendencies' defines a person. if one is 'severely tempted' to steal, but refrains, is he a thief? i believe the bible teaches that homosexual acts are sinful. this, like any other sin, can be forgiven also. however, repentence precedes forgiveness, and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the sinfulness of the act is certainly idolatry (worshiping the creation rather than the creator).
20: Practicing homosexuality is a sin.
21: Unsure
22: The Bible frowns on homosexuality. It is not me who has to decide what conclusions homosexual people have to draw.
23: Any sex outside of the bounds of marriage is wrong. And I do not believe in same sex marriage.
24: homosexuality is a sin when you put the other person before God. that's like how is drinking alcohol a sin... in itself, not a sin.
25: I think that practicing Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery or sex outside of marriage is a sin. We are not slaves to our desires. Having the desires and acting on it is what I consider wrong just as I would consider it wrong for me to cheat lie or steal. I believe that God has set guidelines to keep us safe, healthy, and happy.
26: no, it's God given sexual orientation
27: Practicing homosexuality is a sin. However, sins don't separate the saved Christian from God.
28: Any perversion is a sin.
29: One ought to attempt to conform his or her life to the standard that sexual relations are conducted only within Holy Matrimony.
"Being a homosexual" (whatever that might mean) is not a sin.
30: Practicing. I rank it with having three wives.
31: Don't Know
32: I'd hold it to the same standard as heterosexuality.
33: Not really sure what it is. Certainly the orientation is not a sin. The practice may be. I'm not sure I'm called to judge.
34: practicing
35: Being a homosexual is always not a sin. Whether practicing homosexuality is a sin depends on the circumstances, for example, if it is exploitive, how much choice is involved. (practicing heterosexuality is also a sin under some circumstances)
36: Practising not tendency. That is acting on the temptation, not the temptation itself.
37: I think it's pretty unequivocal that God considers homosexual behavior sinful. I've heard the arguments against such an interpretation of Scripture, but they sound like wishful thinking to me. The plain, normative meaning in these passages is quite reasonable. Beyond this, though, things get a little murky. There's a difference between the daily practice of one who has accepted one's homosexuality as desirable and the struggles of one who feels homosexual impulses but finds them undesirable spiritually and morally. Only God can see into the personal lives of most such people to determine the state of their relationship with him and with themselves in this matter. The person who desires God and who is struggling, failing, and struggling against homosexual desires God will not abandon. The person who desires homosexuality has started down a path of abandoning both self and God.
38: Practicing homosexuality and not being open to God's potential healing from feelings of homosexuality.
39: Any sex outside of man-woman marraige is wrong. Keep in mind that a truly religious person of any faith will pray for and love a sinner, homosexual, adulterer or other.
40: It is not a sin. Hating people for being homosexual is a sin.
41: The sriptures teach that the act of laying with a man "as with a woman" is a sin. They also teach that non of us are without sin, and we all fall short of the glory of God and are in need of salvation. Many christians confuse the sin with the person and over-react to this and other things.
42: anything.
43: Homosexuality, according to the Old Testament, is just as sinful as adultery, and we should (according to the New Testament) be just as forgiving and accepting of Homosexuals as we are of adulterers. Homosexual practice is comdemned by the Bible.
44: It's a sin.
45: to me, of course, the word "sin" is undefined and meaningless, but i do not consider homosexuality negative. i have no reasonable grounds for any such opinion.
46: Practicing is sinful. Fantacies are sinful.
47: It is a sin to be a practicing homosexual. However, we all sin and we should not be judgemental about another persons weaknesses. We have plenty of our own sins to clean up before (if ever) we should point fingers. Homosexuals are no worse sinners than divorced & remarried persons.
48: It is a shameful thing to do, but I would not stone anyone for it. The Bible says "Don't judge those outside; God will do it."
49: All of it is a sin, just like coveting is a sin.
50: not being a homosexual, but practicing homosexuality
2: No
3: Well, I wouldn't say "morally wrong." I compare it to jabbing your eye out with an ice pick. Basicly, I'm saying it is a stupid thing to do.
4: No, gives you the chance to convert.
5: Not necessarily. But they can be difficult, and if they lead to the Christian giving up his/her faith, then it has become morally wrong. (i.e...allowing yourself to lose your faith).
6: Yes. The bible specifically speaks against it.
7: I wouldn't call them morally wrong, but they seem to have a lower chance of working.
8: No
9: No.
10: Not necessarily. It might be difficult or inadvised for certain combinations of people, perhaps even most people, but fine for others.
11: no, but i believe they cause problems, but it is a spiritual issue not a moral one
12: no.
13: No.
14: They are at least unutterably foolhardy.
15: Yes
16: no
17: Not morally wrong - just stupid.
18: Nope.
19: not necessarily morally wrong, but extremely difficult to maintain.
20: It happens - I don't know if it's immoral, but it is difficult - and that's the issue.
21: No
22: Morally not. But so highly impractical that I consider them inconceivable. How could they share their lives?
23: No. I think it is shortsighted but not morally wrong.
24: no morally, but perhaps it can be a stumbling block for the Christian.
25: Only because of the difficulties that arise in conflict of values.
26: morally wrong? No but problematic ..if the values, religious beliefs are soo fundamentally difference it raises questions of raising the children, etc..it can produce conflict, but not morally wrong
27: No, but I do consider it ill-advised.
28: No, but it is really stupid.
29: I wouldn't say morally wrong, but I wouldn't recommend them; for the unity of their marriage, husband and wife should have a common faith.
30: No.
31: No
32: Not necessarily
33: No. A real problem, but not morally wrong.
34: No
35: no
36: No, but inadvisable.
37: No, but I do consider such marriages unwise. Not from a sense of superiority, because I have nothing of my own to feel superior about. But, rather, because someone in such a marriage risks enormous emotional hurt when conflict arises as to the spouse's relationship with God. Also, there's the matter of a Christian's participation in marriage as a spiritual sacrament. How can a Christian healthily experience marriage as anything but a sacrament? And conversely, how can a Non-christian consider marriage a sacrament? (I'm not saying a Non-christian cannot value marriage for the intimate union it is; I am saying a Non-christian cannot regard marriage as a sacrament --that unique relationship between the participant and our God and Savior Jesus Christ.)
38: Yes with the exception of a person having become a Christian after the marriage ceremony.
39: Morally - no. Biblically - yes.
40: No. They may be socially difficult but they are not morally a problem.
41: It is morally wrong for a believer to marry an unbeliever. It is not wrong for the unbeliever. Also it is wrong for a person who comes to faith in Christ AFTER marriage to an unbeliever to leave that unbeliever.
42: Yes, If you are a christian when you marry the person who isn't. If you aren't a christina when you marry, It's ok to stay married.
43: I consider it to be cumbersome.
44: Not morally wrong as in sin, just a little stupid. God gives us clear warning.
45: no.
46: After conversion, yes. If the marriage took place prior to conversion, no.
47: No but maybe unwise.
48: Yes, unless the wedding preceded the conversion.
49: Not morally wrong, but I think God wants us to spend the rest of our lives with a person with the same beliefs. I know God wants us to have non-christian friends, and love other people. But the closest person in your life should share your beliefs.
50: no
2: Many times
3: Yes, I consider all days Holy. I do not hold one day above another. I'm a Christian always, not just on Sundays.
4: Yes
5: Yes.
6: Yep.
7: Yes, nothing strenous or for pay, but I will occasionally do yard work.
8: Yes
9: Yes.
10: Yes, occasionally (in paid employment), and very frequently (in Church employment).
11: no
12: yes.
13: Yes.
14: Yes
15: Yes
16: Yes
17: Yes.
18: Yes.
19: yes
20: Yes
21: Yes
22: Nearly never.
23: I try my best to avoid it. There have been times when I have felt the "ox was in the mire" but I do my best to devote Sunday to God.
This also means I avoid watching much TV, or doing sporting events or following personal ambitions. I treat it as a day of rest.
24: Yes.
25: yes
26: yes... but it should be noted A.Jesus said the Sabbath was made for men, not the vice versa B.the Sabbath is saturdy :)
27: Yes.
28: Yes
29: Only on the rarest of occasions, because my job does not require it. I have no essential objection to working on Sundays; I do, however, expect to be able to attend Church on Sunday.
30: Define work? If you mean did I go to my M-F job and work, I can't remember a time I did that.
31: Yes (do you consider Sunday to be the Sabbath???)
32: How do you define "work"? Turning on a light switch? Yes. Employment for a salary? No.
33: Yes. Works of necessity and mercy are always allowed.
34: Yes
35: for money, no -housework, yes, although I try to avoid as much as possible
36: Yes - every Sunday almost.
37: Yes. I prefer not to do so, but I don't feel bound by moral legalism to avoid such a situation. Out of devotion to Jesus, I'd prefer not to do so. Besides, Sunday isn't the Sabbath, Saturday is. (I'm not a Seventh-Day-Adventist, by the way.)
38: Yes.
39: Yes, on emergencies, but not as a scheduled shift.
40: Yes. And I wasn't struck dead.
41: The Old Covenant Sabbath? Many times. We have a New Covenant and a New Sabbath and it is not a day of the week.
42: Maybe a few times.
43: I try to avoid it. Circumstances sometime make that impossible.
44: Yep, I have had to. I avoid it as much as possible though,
45: very likely, i've not kept track.
46: Yes
47: Yes.
48: Yes, very often.
49: Yes.
50: yes
2: No
3: Yes, and I have found answers to all questions I have had, so to speak, if you know what I mean.
4: Mostly.. can't depend on social morales.. look at Rome at the end of 49AD.
5: Not at all.
6: Yep.
7: Yes.
8: No
9: Yes.
10: No. I take the standard Christian position of a quadrilateral of moral reference - Scripture, Church tradition, reason, and personal experience of the Holy Spirit's promptings.
11: yes
12: The New testiment, but I also relize that many things are up for discussion.
13: No.
14: No, that is a role reserved for the One who judges correctly sui generis.
15: Yes
16: The living God is the ultimate reference. The Bible is really silent on many contemporary issues.
17: Yes.
18: No.
19: yes
20: Yes
21: No - it is *a* reference, but it is not complete within itself
22: Surely one of the most authoritative references. But it is not a law (it used to be one in a previous covenant).
23: No.
24: Yes.
25: yes
26: a useful guide not the ultimate reference
27: Yes.
28: yes
29: I have no idea what this question means.
For example, I have to make decisions on such questions as whether or not my wife and I use contraceptives or whether I should smoke cigarettes.
Since God still speaks today through the Bible, it is useful in making decisions such as these. But I can't use an index or concordance, and look up "contraceptive," or "cigarettes," and find the answer, as I might in other reference works. The Bible alone is not enough to make a moral decision; I must also use Tradition and Reason.
30: Yes.
31: Methodism teaches us there are four legs to determinining such issues. However, the Bible is consider the primary reference.
32: No, but it is definitely *one* of the. It must be interpreted in the light of tradition and reason.
33: Not in the literal sense. It is always useful, but may not always be clear or easily interpreted. It can never be ignored.
34: Yes
35: no, but it is an important part of moral decision-making process
36: Yes
37: I think there's a real danger of Non-christians getting the idea that Christians worship the Bible. This is not true! So, to answer the question, I consider God, in the nature of who he is, to be the ultimate reference on all issues of morality. This means God as he has expressed himself in Scripture, as he has expressed himself in the wise counsel of those who seem mature in their relationships with him, and as he has expressed himself in his relationship with me through trust in prayer and meditation --and disavowing any conflict between these methods of expression.
38: Yes.
39: Yes, The Bible, Koran, etc. - these are our instruction books.
40: No. It couldn't possibly be. It doesn't address every possible moral dilemma. Eg. Does the Bible say that maintaining a nuclear arsenal is good or evil? No concordance will help you come up with an answer to that one from the Bible. The Bible can only address question like that by being pulled out of the original context in which it was written. By using a technique like that, any written work could be made to answer any moral question. But there is no way to vouch for the reliability of answers derived in this way.
41: Yes.
42: Yes.
43: I belive the Bible to be the Word of God, solely sufficient for all matter of faith and practice.
44: On anything that matters, yes.
45: great stars no. much of its moral teaching is useless today; twenty centuries of philosophical thought has made it largely irrelevant.
46: Yes.
47: Mostly. However, we have additional morals which we've added which add to what is in the Bible. For example, we feel it is immoral to have more than one wife or have slaves when these things were not condemned (and were sometimes condoned) in the Bible.
48: Yes.
49: Yes.
50: yes
2: Other religions, yes
On atheists, I think it would depend on if their lack of understanding was from ignorance, or if they were anti-God. I view God's love as universally available to all His creation.
3: Nope. Jesus said He is the Way. He said you have to go through Him to get to Heaven. He said He is the door. What about good people? Jesus said there is only One who is good, and that is God. Jesus said this "I'm a good person doesn't cut it with Him."
4: Yes, except atheists. If they reject god by free will, they will not enter the gates of heaven.
5: Yes. Christ died for all man-kind. It takes a direct defiance of God (i.e..chosing death) to go to Hell. But there are many who choose neither God nor death out of ignorance. If the ignorance is honest, then Divine Justice allows for their possible salvation
6: Yes, if they have rejected God by rejecting the gospel.
7: I don't know about other religions; there may be some people who find salvation in another religion, but as a general rule, no. Atheists can't go to heaven that I know of. ("What is impossible with man is possible to God", but if you don't believe in God ...)
8: Yes, Atheists are in trouble.
9: Atheists most certainly. There are several qualifications to go to heaven. Hindus, Buddists, the Chinese religion followers, Shintoists, etc. have no possibility. Jews and Muslims can if they meet the qualifications established by Jesus. Most Muslims and Jews can not however, since neither Judaism or Islam acknowledges Jesus, then they can not meet those qualifications.
10: "Go to heaven" is a phrase with very little Scriptural support, and as such, I sincerely doubt that the way it is commonly understood would be recognised by any of the apostles or early Christians. But if you accept the phrase as denoting something like Christ's "kingdom of heaven", then it would seem that Scripture allows people to enter it regardless of religious affiliation - other criteria are more important.
11: no
12: yes.
13: Yes.
14: In Jesus Christ, yes, for with God, all things are possible. Without Christ, no, for with men not all things are possible.
15: No, not as I understand the Scriptures. If God wishes to make an exception that is His affair.
Atheists? No
16: Yes, yes. I do believe that no one can get to heaven except through Christ, it certainly is possibly that many respond to the call without knowing who the caller is. While I would worry a lot about atheists, one who dedicates his/her life to truth and compassion may very well have responded to the call.
17: Only if they become christians.
18: I don't believe in heaven as being an actual place, so I can not answer that question.
19: i don't know. god can choose to do what he will. however, i believe for me the only way to heaven is through jesus christ. and it's the only sure way i can offer you.
20: No
21: Yes to both
22: Fortunately, I have not to decide that. There should be other reasons for those people to become Christians.
23: It depends on how you define Heaven. I believe that there are many realms and glories in the life to come. That even atheists will have a place in glory, because they chose to come to earth before the world was and this was a good decision, and thus will be rewarded. I do not believe that any man or woman can in the end, by judgement day, attain the highest realm of salvation without accepting in full the ordinances and principles of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe, however that many people on this earth do not get a chance to choose while here, and thus I, and the LDS church everywhere, believes that man will have choices after this life to accept the ordinance of baptism and other choice covenants. That is why we have temples, partially to perform ordinances in proxy for those who have passed beyond the veil. Else why are they baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all (Paul to the Corinthians).
24: Other religions, perhaps, if they never *knew* about Jesus but had some sort of GOD in their lives which they followed. All truth is from God, right? Atheists...absolutely not.
25: Jesus is the way the truth and the light, no man cometh to the father but by Him. He is the payment for my sin.
26: yes, I believe God's love is that expansive and his (or her's ) grace is that wide
27: No. The gate is narrow, there is only one way and that is through Christ.
28: Not if they have at some point heard the Gospel.
29: I believe that Mary's Son, Jesus, reveals to me and to humankind what God is like and what humankind ought to be.
Jesus commended His spirit into the hands of God (Luke 23:46). I commend all humankind into God's hands, and leave it to His judgement the destiny of humans after their earthly death. I am sure He is more merciful than I.
30: I think God saves who He wants to save. The only sure way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Anything else is folly.
31: Maybe/No
32: Yes. Yes. Else why did Jesus preach to the departed?
33: Yes. Yes. (and won't they be embarrassed!)
34: Only if they haven't heard of Jesus.
35: yes yes
36: No.
37: I believe that the only thing required to "go to heaven" is to desire God with all one's heart, soul, and mind. Heaven, contrary to shallow, popular notions, isn't the spiritual equivalent of a paycheck. Heaven _is_ living fully aware of and connected to God. It's ultimate presence with God, as opposed to hell, which is ultimate separation from God. Since Jesus _is_ God, how can one want God and not want Jesus? God has made clear to us that, sooner or later, everyone will either choose or reject Jesus' offer to participate in his life, death, and resurrection. God desires that we choose him before our physical deaths, so as to reap the benefits of the unique spiritual relationship with him presently available. But later, either after our physical deaths or when he returns to earth, the need to decide will be unavoidable and face-to-face.
I want to make clear to you that, if you do not know Jesus as your God and Savior, you can know him right now. He knows our failings. He came to earth to suffer and die and to take upon himself our pains, failings, and fears. All you need do is talk to him, admitting your need for him, placing yourself in his hands, and trusting that what he said he came to do, he will do.
38: no if contrary to word of God
39: Yes No
40: I'm ambivalent on the whole issue of whether Heaven even exists. But I would say that if Heaven does exist, then it would be open to everyone. If I were God, I would not want to exclude anyone from eternal bliss. How could God be any less compassionate than I, a flawed human, am?
41: I believe that God is sovereign. I believe that God's will IS done. I believe that it is God's will that ALL come to repentance and believe. The scripture teaches that we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord and we are saved. It also teaches that "every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" to the glory of God. So it would appear that ALL will be saved, and it will be done to show the rightousness and glory of God.
42: Probably not.
43: I believe it is the height of arrogance for me to tell God who should or should not be allowed in "heaven".
44: I wish I could say yes but the Bible is far too clear on this subject. No.
45: i don't think there's any heaven to go to.
46: No.
47: With God, all things are possible. I do think outside of Christians, most will not make it. However, I think one can still choose to be judged under the law rather than accepting Jesus. Thus, some Jewish people may be judged ok..
48: The Bible teaches that it is possible, basically by recognizing God as creator and paying worship to Him as such. As for atheists, I'm not sure.
49: No. "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6
50: no if contrary to word of God
Back to Thoughts on Christianity and God.
Last changed September 13 2026 16:30:31.
David Coppit,
david@coppit.org
