in that case, i would say don’t become a minister
It would almost be amusing if it weren’t sooooo pathetic. The intolerant and bigoted, when confronted, scream intolerance, and proceed to climb up on their cross. Same old story over and over. (shrug)
cenns,
I can only support much of what has already been said by others. There really are only a few simple things necessary. Honesty and sincerity being the critical components. As a minister in a Christain church your beliefs will of necessity have to be that of the majority of your congregation. That your willingness to question belief both personally and as a shepherd to your flock is healthy. Matters of faith are never answered without first being questioned. Faith in any belief is a rough road to be traveled. Get a good helmet and shin guards…
Not hardly. You want to become a preacher in case Gods does exist, so that you might earn a place in heaven when you die. But this wager is loaded and deceitful. You don’t believe in God for God’s sake, or humanities for that matter…but rather to keep the fire off your ass when you die.
By the way, to save you the trouble of wondering where I stand, I am a marxist. I believe that religion is the greatest perversion that has ever struck mankind, having its origins in the history of mediation between classes, politics and economy. You, my friend, are the after effects of this disaster, both uninformed and naive.
An irony I hold dear: the religious type is the actual proof that god does not exist because God, if he did exist, could not possibly have intended the effects of religions presence here on earth.
Look around you, pal. What starts all the wars? What divides people? What causes paranoia, sense of guilt, fear before men, estrangement, etc.?
Religion.
And I add to this irony: if this is the work of “God,” who in their right mind would want to worship such a piece of shit?
yup sure yup. 
detrop on God
I think you are right on, brother. I hate my cynicism in religion and I wish I didn’t have it, but I, too, feel that organized religion is not what *God intended. Its self-righteousness, guilt and hypocrisy is exactly the opposite in building the goodness of humankind that we so desperately need to love one another.
Just listen to the intolerance and anger in this thread alone. I am off to fluff up my wings and spread some sunshine around my village. It takes a Bessy, you know.
Tata boys.
*interpret as you wish 
Hi Cenns. You said, â€I know the church inside and out and can recite 90% of the bible…
Then you must be familiar with 1 Timothy 3 which defines, at the least, some of the requirements. Do you meet these at least?
You said, â€Would I be conning people if I was “preaching” the bible but not actually believing it to be history, but rather myth/parable.â€
The Bible is laden with parabolic language (Matt. 13: 34-35). Parable and myth are not the same thing at all. You know that right? You will need to be highly skilled in understanding the parabolic language and you must be absolutely superior in skills to support your conclusions with sound Biblical hermeneutics. Finally, of course the Bible is replete with “historical†truths. If you do not believe this then you cannot possibly know the Bible as well as you say.
You said, †believe the bible has a great amount of wisdom but I dont take much of it as literal truth…â€
When Jesus turned water into wine (John 4:46) do you believe this was a literal historical truth and occurrence? When the publican smote his breast and cried out to God for mercy (Luke 18:13) was this a true literal historical occurrence? When Jesus was crucified was this a true literal historical truth and occurrence?
You said, †Anyways, it would be such and easy, great paying career for me to step into which would allow me to continue contemplating life on a daily basis. Any thoughts?â€
Your comment fails one of the tests required by 1 Timothy 3 (in verse 3). Your focus that being a pastor/minister is a “great paying career†tends to disqualify you in the Biblical sense in light of 1 Tim. 3:3 alone (and there are others too). Maybe you are better suited for a career on Wall Street? 
passion.
Alright, the post above me actually accentuates one of the points I’m going to make here.
The Christian Church, in this day and age, shouldn’t be concerned so much about the concrete aspects regarding the history of the bible, because like Passion sort of indicated to, there is no possible way to separate the historical truth from:
Personal Translation Error
Cumulative Error from Multiple Translation
Political Alteration
Institutional Alteration
Inadequate data/improvisation
etc
The fact that ‘Fundies’ as Astral so cleverly put it in his one contribution to the discussion rely solely on a literal interpretation of the written word…absolutely blows my mind. Look… Derrida’s turning over in his recent grave - but I digress…
No, in this day and age the purpose of the Church should be to, as Cenns is thinking, make people’s lives better. The bible is a brilliant conglomeration of a bunch of stories which relate to life in general. If people like Cenns are around to facilitate these positive morals in connection with a more introspective (than the past) spirituality; one that is held within the idealistic confines of the commandments, but without the obtrusive literal anchor to the ramifications within the text, then I think the world would be a lot better.
If I go to hell for writing that, then I doubt I’d want to be in heaven.
O_G writes:
Quite true. This is the good that the churches reflecting the various interpretations of Christendom should concentrate on. However, Christianity is something else. It will be a humanely sensitive minority that will distinguish between the two for the greater good.
Hi OldGobbo. You said, â€No, in this day and age the purpose of the Church should be to, as Cenns is thinking, make people’s lives better.â€
I hear you. I agree entirely with the idea of “making people’s lives better.†However, I feel the means to achieving this in a Christian setting can only be accomplished with the entire Biblical text as the basis. Otherwise, you have nothing more than a culture club of a congregation that would be no different than say, “the Friars Club.â€
As I see it, in order to be wholly Christian, Biblical inerrancy must be the rudder of the ship that is steered by a knowledgeable Biblical expositor. While human interpretations of Biblical intricacies are bound to be flawed from time to time (no human is perfect), straight forward exegesis backed by articulate Biblical hermeneutics is always an essential ingredient to pure Christianity. Without it, you may have a cute little congregation of zombies under the banner of Christendom, but it won’t be a Christian congregation. After all, it is the Bible that reveals every Christian truth and without the Bible we would know absolutely nothing about Christ, nothing about salvation, or nothing of anything else surrounding Christian truth. In other words, without the Bible it is by definition no longer Christian.
Lastly, I believe it may be meaningful that such a vast swath of Bible-less “make me feel good†congregations are turning up in so many places. Yet, as the Bible is increasingly relegated to a lesser and lesser standing within so many congregations, it allows for the increasingly rare Bible centered Christianity to become more instantly recognizable: you will know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16) and in a sense this is a revealing thing as it tends to separate the wheat from the chaff (Matt. 13: 18-30). However, my biggest concern with this trend is that so many in Bible-less congregations may hear those most horrible words of all: “I never knew you.†(Matt. 7:22-23). passion
i would very much like to debate this with you, either in another thread, or merely by hijacking this one if the both of us are much too lazy to start another thread.
I see what you’re saying, but once again I’d have to argue that no matter how good the person is (and this would be in the minority of the cases) they’re still not going to be able to get close to an accurate position of ‘What the bible says’, if such a thing can even be conceived.
It’s buried in the vatican, it’s lost in the sands of time… wherever the ‘gospel truth’ is, it ain’t in the public reach, and like I said even the best we can do to permeate the institutionalial/‘finalized version’ bible copies isn’t availible most of the time to some random Minister.
I don’t see how this unattainability can be the basis you talk of. There can be no ‘degree’ but yet you must conceed that there is. This isn’t my opinion so much as an objective truth. This is just one such example but Matthew was a fundamentalist nut, he censored out a bunch of things and altered others,
Yeah… no kidding.
Hi OldGobbo. Thank you again for your follow up comments. I appreciate it. You said, â€â€¦no matter how good the person is (and this would be in the minority of the cases) they’re still not going to be able to get close to an accurate position of ‘What the bible says’, if such a thing can even be conceived.â€
Humans cannot measure up to the Biblical standard. Human effort to be “good†lacks certainty. And that is precisely why Christ’s effort – rather than individual human effort is so meaningful. Human desire to be “good†fails (Rom. 3:10, Rom. 7: 18-25, 1 John 1:10). But! It is Christ’s goodness rather than human goodness that has substance. Christ’s work is perfect and his perfection is imputed to the fallible human elect (Gal. 2: 16, Eph. 2: 8-9). Therefore, the human fallibility of God’s elect is rendered meaningless. Human desire to do the good, along with the subsequent failure to do that good, is superseded by Christ’s accomplishment of doing the good for us on our behalf.
You said, â€It’s buried in the vatican, it’s lost in the sands of time… “
There may be many skeletons buried in the Vatican, particularly skeletons of the political and social kind, but the Bible is not among them. The Vatican does not have any unique claim to the Bible. Christians believe that the Bible was inerrantly handed down to them individually by GOD (the Vatican had nothing to do with it) and that God utilized the motion of dissemination and destiny to bring the Bible to each individual in the world in a manner and substance of His choosing.
Nevertheless, your concern is legitimate OldGobbo. Yet, like all things in this world, that which is absent of faith lacks certainty. An unbeliever cannot be certain that the Bible comes to him inerrantly, in proper order and form as the believer can. But then again, a person cannot be certain that the hamburger he ate for lunch at the restaurant did not contain the cook’s spit or the refuse from his unwashed hands. Yet, despite this lack of certainty, we all eat at the restaurant. We take leaps of faith in everything we do on a daily basis: marriage, career choices, investments, the food we eat, the things we believe, etc. For the true Christian, the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible is one of the few certainties that exist. And yes, to a large degree, it is believed by faith. Thank you again for your comments OldGobbo. I appreciate your taking the time. passion
Firstly, of course the Vatican has a claim on the bible. It’s not just some singular book (as you well know). Just because ‘the bible’ as we know it isn’t actually locked away in the Vatican doesn’t mean that they don’t have a part of it which is important.
But from this I get the impression you are saying that whatever bible, despite the alterations and institutional garbage it may contain compared to a historically accurate one, that makes it’s way into the hands of a believer is the ‘right’ one for them. If God himself is personally taking care of the ‘errors’ in some sort of case by case subjective destiny plan then I doubt I have an argument to dispute that.
I would point out however that your beliefs in the Christian God are shaped by institutionalized, edited scriptures. I find it interesting you can claim that the bible is without error (for you) when you freely admit you have never read the historically accurate bible. Granted, no one alive today has likely read ALL the text availible in the physical world pertaining to the bible, but that’s sort of my point here.
It’s circular logic. You’re basing your faith in the bible’s accuracy… in the bible?
Astral Wrote:
I’m afraid I don’t think that is true. I am a Christian like you and if we are to state it purely and simply the truths oif which you speak, which I also believe are communicated through the Bible, are that Jesus is the Son of God, that by dying on the cross he paid the price for our sins, and that we by his resurrection we can know we are able to have a personal relationship with him if we believe and repent. The trouble is that you are not saying that, you are just saying that these things are true and that others are complete idiots for saying otherwise. That is not the sensitive way to approach the issue. In my view it is perfectly acceptable for me to tell an atheist, a secular humanist, a deist, an agnostic, a Budhist, a Muslim, that I think they are wrong, but not in the aggresive tone that you do. Indeed, why not approach this thread, in recognition that cenns is not saying he will be lying to a congregation which is anyway largely liberal, and challenge the basis for his beliefs. I sometimes wonder why the liberal church has to reject so much of what I consider to be crucial teaching, and why indeed belief that the Bible is not 100% literal has to beget disbelief in those central teachings.
cenns, that is therefore my question to you, and in response to your original post, echoing some of the views already expressed by others, I would urge you to consider whether you may be actively discouraging and deflating others in faith that may be based on belief that those truths I talked of earlier are just that, truths.
Regards to all,
Jon F
Hi OldGobbo. Thank you again for the follow up. You said, †Firstly, of course the Vatican has a claim on the bible…â€
In my earlier comment, I said that the Vatican does not have a unique claim to the Bible. By this I mean that they are not the exclusive honchos concerning the Bible even though a number of them suppose they are.
You said, â€It’s not just some singular book (as you well know)…
As I see it, the Bible is one singular cohesive whole book (as each part of the Bible is dependent upon its other parts), comprised of 66 sections or parts (that are admittedly referred to as “books," sometimes “epistles,” etc), which begins with the “book†of Genesis and ends with the book of Revelation. Aside from these, there are no other “books” contained in the Bible.
You said, â€Just because ‘the bible’ as we know it isn’t actually locked away in the Vatican doesn’t mean that they don’t have a part of it which is important.
The role or part that the Vatican has in the Bible is that they are only one of many in “churchdom†who sometimes use it. The Vatican is deeply committed to their voluminous ecclesiastical edicts, magesterium principles, writs and other stuff that come straight out of the hearts and minds of the mortal men in their hierarchy and are therefore NOT inerrant as the Bible is. What matters is that God saves each elect person individually, between Him and the individual, by His mercy and grace alone.
You said, †If God himself is personally taking care of the ‘errors’ in some sort of case by case subjective destiny plan then I doubt I have an argument to dispute that.â€
The opposite of that is also true OldGobbo. Without the Bible to define its own terms it would be impossible for someone like me to argue for Biblical inerrancy. Thankfully, the Bible describes God’s role of authorship (1 Pet. 1:21).
You said, †find it interesting you can claim that the bible is without error (for you) when you freely admit you have never read the historically accurate bible.â€
But I have read (studied) the historically accurate Bible - if we are defining the Bible as being comprised of 66 “books†from Genesis-Revelation. My study of the Bible does not incorporate the so-called “extra-Biblical†books because I do not consider them to be a part of the Bible.
You said, â€â€¦You’re basing your faith in the bible’s accuracy… in the bible?â€
I base my understanding of the Bible in its inerrancy. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10: 17) which is the Bible. Yet, it is Christ’s faith that matters in salvation. A believer’s faith only has meaning because Christ’s faith is accredited to each believer individually (Gal. 2: 16, Eph. 2: 8-9). Thank you again OldGobbo. I appreciate your taking the time to follow up. passion
How do you know it’s inerrant?
Am I mistaken or are you drawing that fact from the book itself?
Hi OldGobbo. Thank you for the follow up. You said, †How do you know it’s inerrant? Am I mistaken or are you drawing that fact from the book itself?â€
As I see it, if God wrote the Bible then it has to be inerrant. God’s authorship of the Bible is described in 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 10:17, and can be seen by virtue of Biblical harmony and hermeneutics (for example, Christ repeatedly quoted directly from the Scriptures and held it to be truth). Christ submitted to it (John 17:12, John 19:28, 19:36, 18:9, etc), believed the OT was authored by God (Matt. 19:4, Mark 12:26), connected the knowledge of it to wisdom and its authority to God (Matt. 22:29), etc. There is “harmony†that flows throughout the Biblical text that is absent in human authorship. So, as I see it, God wrote the Bible, “dictating†it through human “secretaries†who wrote it down. Thank you again for the follow up OldGobbo. I appreciate it. passion.
I think we’ve reached the end here.
I can’t argue against divine authors…
Cenns, the first step is to ask God what He wants you to do. Do not be tempted to put words into His mouth, as many do who want to do something so badly they convince themelves it is what God wants. God does things in His own time, He may teach you some patience first, so be patient. Listen. Starve if you have to, even live with your folks.
Second, God gave us freedom to love Him or not. It is this freedom that has led to the many problems man has fostered upon man, not God. Of course God exists, but even He says you can only know Him by faith alone. “I am that I am.” 
Lastly, there are many other ways to do Gods work. Perhaps He is showing you another way to serve Him. Charities, food banks, Habitat for Humanity for example.
Astral is harsh, but correct. Do you want to do God’s work because you love Him, or because it is a paying job. have you searched your soul? It does not sound to me like you have firm footing, and a seminary would find this out fast and put you on your way. My advice? Pray on it some more. [-o<
I would like to point out that your post was most excellent! I will mention one thing. God, not the bible reveals the truth. But a Christian without the bible as their compass is most likely a lost Christian! Confusing right? It is for some people.
to the rest
It is important for people to seek a personal relationship with God. This is more important than the Church! Next is that you do not forsake the fellowship of your brothers! This is the Church! A Church that is not riddled with doctrine but also conforms to the Law is a church worth going to. 5 of the 7 Churches in Revelations appear to be rejected by Christ. He even said He has things against all of them, but 2 of them He said that He would save for specific reasons!
Dont let this make you think you have to belong to a church, because you dont! You only need to be a servant of Christ! It is just good to have fellowship!