I wouldnt expect Jews/muslims/hindus ect reading the bible to accept its authority.
But what do you mean by that? There is no shortage of such people who accept it for what it is, whatever your expectations may be.
Tragically as you point out many who consider themselves 'christian' dont agree with the bible.
That's far too bald a statement to equate to reality. How can anyone - Christian or otherwise - "agree" or "disagree" with the entire work? It may indeed be true that Christians and others appear to question and ponder over certain aspects of the Bible, but many of these do not necessarily do so for the specific purpose of "arguing" with this or that text but to consider the relevance of the whole to - and the interpretation of each text by - a present-day society in all its multi-faith, multi-ethnic, high-tech, global-village manifestations. You later state that translation is not an issue, but it is - not merely tin the sense of translation from one language to another but also in the extent to which the meanings ascribed to certain words within any one language metamorphose as time progresses - and remember that we're talking many centuries here, not just a generation or three. You cite Liszt's transcription of Schubert songs to support your theories here, yet for all that these are indeed splendid works, it is evident that Liszt deliberately approached these with respect and, it has to be said, some reserve, whereas Godowsky's equally masterly Schubert song transcriptions, although written with at least as much respect for the originals, are far more florid amd fluid in general terms and they elaborate and "depart from" Schubert's texts more than Liszt's do. So - here we have Schubert, Schubert/Liszt and Schubert/Godowsky; which of these is the "Biblical" truth? - the Schubert? (and why? - just because it came first?) - for, if so, then Liszt and Godowsky, as later interpreters / commentators, might by seen by a certain type of born-again musical fundamentalist to have perverted that truth by reinterpretation and commentary. You will need no confirmation from me that I believe no such thing, of course! Then consider, for example, Finnissy's Verdi or Strauss Waltz transcriptions - look how far these "depart" from the originals! And Finnissy happens to be a Christian! (although I don't think that this has always been the case). No - this example actually undermines, rather than supports. your argument here, it seems.
Its true not everyone shares 'God's expressed' view of judgement (its not mine - please dont attrib the mind of God to me - I am not worthy to stand in judgement He is!), as it is recorded BIBLICALLY but , Jesus taught that the path is narrow and few there be that find it (volume of support dosent change a thing).
As to God's view of judgement, I am not seeking to attribute anyone else's mind to you, but what may have originally been thought to be meant by this will inevitably have become obscured with the passage of time. Scholars will be able to help to some degree here, but let me come back at you with another musical analogy, following yours about the transcribers. Even today, our precise knowledge of how the works of J S Bach and his contemporaries may actually have sounded at the time of their premières is less than it would be had we been alive at that time to experience them; however, even this fact is arguably less significant than the one which the 20th century British composer Robert Simpson illustrated when he said that the works of Bach, however "authentically" they may be performed, can never sound today as they did when they were new, because we will all listen to them with ears accustomed to Beethoven, Stravinsky, Xenakis... The problem with your views not only on "God's judgement" but on so much else to do with the Bible and Christianity, it seems to me, is that they are simply too rigidly frozen in a certain past time - i.e. Biblical time - to the extent that they appear to seek to hold to some kind of finite and inalienable truth. I am not at all for suggesting that each generation of humans wholly overthrows everything for which the previous generation stood; far from it. That is not, in any case, how human history has progressed. What I do say, however, is that human progress has always ensured that almost everything changes, however subtly, almost all the time. Again, this statement is not made for the purpose of undermining your concept of immutable truths but to illustrate that such truths, like the rest of us, have to - and do - move with the times. As to what you describe here as a particular part of Jesus' "teaching" - which I would rather describe as one of his observations - might more realistically be taken, in more modern parlance, to be some kind of equivalent to the contention that "it's a hard life, trying to balance and deal with everything that life throws at one and, at the same time, to find one's own way and pursue it to the best of one's ability"; indeed, reflecting Shakespeare, Norman Douglas wrote of the latter part of this as "...to be true to that self when found; a worthy and ample occupation for a lifetime". And Norman Douglas was an atheist!
The 'No condemnation' isnt my claim scripture declares it 'there is therefore now No condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus'.
But what is "scripture"? It is - literally - a kind of written record, like a lot of others; that is not to undermine the particular Biblical scripture of which you write, but to point out that the immutable authority and rigidity that you appear to vest in it will neither be guaranteed as forever standing the test of time 100% nor attain any specific exclusivity of application and acceptance, for there are other "scriptures" too. OK, perhaps you meant that this particular aspect applies - and is intended to apply - to Christians only, in which case (albeit still subject to what we might conveniently term "the translations of time") that is a somewhat different matter.
There are many denominations but for a christian to say i'm a christian but i dont know/accept Christ is really not viable. Without the sacrifice of Christ there is No salvation. He didnt die because He thought it was a good idea but because it was necessary for our relationship to be restored with God the father.
"Not really viable"? Not only that, it would be ridiculous! - or at least where the word "accept" is concerned. It would be tantamount to saying that "I am a Scotsman, but I do not accept that Scotland exists". As to that ultimate sacrifice, however - and also to your reference to "knowing" Christ - this won't really work. We (now I'm using that first person plural! - but, in so doing, I do at least clarify at the outset that, by do soing, I mean anyone and everyone in this instance) none of us "know" Christ, nor have we ever met anyone who did; we know only what we have read about Him and his life - and even that, even after many years of probing scholarship, is fairly scant about quite a large amount of the 30-odd years He is reckoned to have spent on this planet in the human form that we customarily accept as "life". We are thus left having to "accept" and interpret what we read, to remember that there remain parts and aspects of Christ's life that are as yet insufficiently documented for us to comment on, still less "accept", with any degree of certainty and to bear in mind that any thoughts or comments that we do have or make will inevitably be from a 21st-century perspective that is mindful of all that we know has happened since the days of Christ.
bible scholasticism is good up to a point BUT you can liken it to a brilliant analyst with a prelude and fugue - they can know its working inside out but they dont play a note and have decided actually i dont want to know how it sounds. They are missing so much! A slavish studying of the score and working at the mathematical intrecacies may do a wonder of good for your brain but without having learned to play the instrument its a dead celebral activity.
I cannot agree with you more about the kind of stuffy musicologist figure you appear to have in mind here - what the poet Hugh MacDiarmid (I think) quoted Alexander Pope as writing "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read / With loads of learned lumber in his head". Indeed, there are certain people who, having resorted to the profession of musicology because they believed they may possess insufficient talent and motivation to succeed as performers or composers, end up finding (or, more often than not, being too blinkered and narrow-minded even to be able to find!) that their musical judgements have over the years become blunted by too much academic work mixed with too little raw practical contact with the music itself and its intellectual, psychological and emotional effects on listeners.
Its like this in Faith. If you dont know God and trust in Jesus - that he has done enough to free you from sin and the wages of the law(death) then you will miss everything. The beauty of the music. The intricate feel of the parts weaaving together in your fingers - they enjoyment of the hearers. I speak metaphorically here but studying the word as a Christian is totally different from studying as an unbeliever although an unbeliever can learn much about God through his word.
No - I cannot accept this bit. Whilst a Christian can of course have his/her mind affected by association with the teachings of Christ just as a listener can have his/her mind altered by listening to a piece of music, the belief aspect is a quite different matter, because of the question (which you raise here) of theism and atheism - i.e. of belief and unbelief. I think that I can put it no better than Kagel when he said that, whilst not all musicians believe in God, they all believe in J S Bach. Response to music therefore differs materially from what you are writing about here, to the extent that its acceptance and success is accordingly not amenable to, dependent upon or influenced by any kind of belief system.
I dont want to get into a catholic debate but the bible dosent support confessing to men/priests in the new covenant. It is a direct relationship. Jesus said himself that he is the only name by which there is forgiveness for sin. He being in essence Love is the only one who can discipline lovingly without anger or self-righteousness.
I'm not inviting you to. My reference here was intended merely to be illustrative of a point about confession per se, not necessarily in front of a priest in a Roman Catholic Church. In other words, God may "forgive", but even some of those who believe that he does and has forgiven them can not necessarily bring themselves to feel that they can always as easily forgive themselves for things that they may have done or omitted to do; humans - both believers and non-believers - do, after all, have human consciences.
I will not comment on the remainder of what you wrote here, as (a) I did not get involved in, nor do I especially wish to be drawn into, the homosexuality debate in this thread and (b) because the rest of your final paragraph is really no more nor less than a statement of your personal faith, to which you are, of course, as entitled as is anyone else to his/her faith or lack thereof.
Best,
Alistair
Topic: Some questions for the truly Biblical