Fundamentalism

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Actually instead of Reagan I should have said George H. W. Bush.

The good old days!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The faith you describe is not the faith described in the Bible, not even close, which is probably why you and Igzy are going round and round here. Faith is the fundamental “currency” of the Kingdom of God. In the Old Testament, God expected his people to exercise abject faith - in the case of Abraham, to the point of sacrificing his son. God expected the Hebrews to exercise such faith in crossing the Red Sea. They received their rewards for exercising such faith in their lifetimes. To God's latter day followers - Christians - faith is still the currency of the Kingdom, however there is a difference insomuch as the rewards we receive for exercising such faith are, for the most part, received in the age to come. As an example, I would point you to Jesus' word to “doubting Thomas” - “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”. (John 20:29) There are many, many other scriptural references to give, but this one will have to due for now, and besides this hits hard upon the main point anyway; to wit - Faith, specifically the salvific faith of the Christian Faith, of which Witness Lee claimed to be a minister and an apostle of, is one of fully imbibing in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as the words of the Living God of Heaven and Earth. Apart from the Faith that is described and attested to in these Scriptures, any definitions and/or descriptions are somewhat irrelevant to our discussions, even here on Alt Views.

Very interesting observation. I don't think Igzy or anyone else has claimed that “metaphors are meaningless”, so the rest of your claims fall flat. What you are missing here, zeek, is that many of the metaphors, at least the most important ones, are metaphors that were given directly by God himself, and not from the imaginations of mere men. Most of the relevant Old Testament metaphors were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus. To name just a few – the water from the cleft rock becomes the Living Water offered to the woman at the well. The manna given to the Children of Israel becomes The Bread of Life in the Gospel of John. “Behold the Lamb of God!” proclaimed by John the Baptist becomes the Lamb sitting upon “the throne of God and of the Lamb” in Revelation 13:8. These are not the mere metaphors of created beings, but those given by the Creator himself. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

Of course this all brings us around full circle again. To the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures. EVERYTHING starts and ends with the Bible being the words of the Living God of Heaven and Earth. And just as the title God, Father, Son and Spirit have SPECIFIC, KNOWABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE definitions within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, so does the term “Faith”.

I couldn't let Untohim's post just slip into the history of this thread. It so well defines fundamentalism that it should be the heading of this thread.

Untohim reveals what irks me about fundamentalism. And that is, fundamentalism is belief by proclamation, not evidence; by fiat, not proof. That's the very nature of the five fundamentals.

I won't go into all of them. Just the first one will do. That, "the Bible is inspired and inerrant." They can't prove either. They just proclaim it.

And that's how I was indoctrinated with it. It was proclaimed to me, and I wasn't suppose to question it.

But eventually I did. And discovered it was just proclamation without any evidence to back it up.

Why? > because they can't prove it. So they proclaim it, and everyone is suppose to just accept it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Actually instead of Reagan I should have said George H. W. Bush.

You guys and politics ... and liberals, et al.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Liberal: A liberal is a person who values personal freedom to the point of questioning traditional beliefs so that he/she can be liberated from them. Liberals prefer new ideas to old ones, mostly because they hope the new ideas will not place as much of a moral burden on them. They are always looking for ways to be morally liberated, and sympathize with "alternative" lifestyles which seek to do the same. Thus they take great relish in catching conservatives in some hypocrisy because they feel this discredits the conservative's traditional values and thus furthers their emancipation from those values. That's basically what's going on here on this alternative forum.

Where did you get that definition? It comes with a motivational hypothesis. How do you know that it applies unless you ask a person if he or she is a liberal, what that means to them and what motivates them? I don't relish catching conservatives in hypocrisy. Does that mean I might not be a liberal by your definition. The fact that you impute moral evasion to me does explain your negative attitude though.

Know: That's a tough one. Basically there are two kinds of knowing. Natural and spiritual. Both have elements of faith because both are based on first principle assumptions. An example of natural knowledge is my knowing my lawn is green. I've seen it with my own eyes, so I know for sure. But do I? Perhaps I'm dreaming, or delusional or colorblind? Can't really know for sure. But I have a certain faith that I do know. Spiritual knowing is similar yet different. We know, but there is faith involved. Basically, I think real spiritual knowing is revelation from God. We know that we know that we know. But we can't really explain how. This drives philosophers and skeptics crazy, which is some comfort.

If faith comes first then the sequence would be "We believe that we know that we know" or "We know that we believe that we know" or "We believe that we believe that we believe." Since you can't explain how you know maybe you don't.

But, that's the nature of faith, and I agree we can't function without it.

Here's a suggestion. Review our discussion and notice how many times I verbalize agreement with you and how many times you verbalize it with me. Who agrees the most? Why do you suppose that is? If you found yourself agreeing with me, a guy you have labeled as a morally evasive liberal would that be a good or bad thing?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where did you get that definition? It comes with a motivational hypothesis. How do you know that it applies unless you ask a person if he or she is a liberal, what that means to them and what motivates them? I don't relish catching conservatives in hypocrisy. Does that mean I might not be a liberal by your definition.

You asked me for MY definition. That's it. Take it or leave it.

Since you can't explain how you know maybe you don't.

Oh, I can tell you exactly how I know. I know because God showed me. But I figured you wouldn't be able to resist questioning that or trying to discredit it in some way and then that would be the end of it, so I just didn't bother.

But note, I never said I could prove it. But just because I can't prove it doesn't mean I don't know.

If you found yourself agreeing with me, a guy you have labeled as a morally evasive liberal would that be a good or bad thing?

Neither did I ever say you were all bad.

[Cal]

Here's the thing about this stuff, guys. I'm never going to be able to say anything in any kind of way that is going to be the final word to show you are wrong. Vice versa for you. There is no "proof" to be found here. None that you can give, and none that I can give. All there is is evidence. Evidence that I and others present and evidence that you present and evidence from other sources. All one can do as a seeker is take all the evidence and make informed decisions. The uncertainty of the evidence calls your character into what you decide, but don't think for a minute that the uncertainly reduces the gravity of the decision one bit.

From my vantage point, the evidence for the basic Christian message is overwhelming. When I hear objections to that message here they are based in ideas that seem much less likely than that the message is true. I can't prove that statistically, it just seems to be common sense to me. For example:

Is it likely the universe does not have a creator. No.

Is it likely we have personality but our creator doesn't? No.

Is it likely we have a moral sense but our creator doesn't. No.

Is it likely the Bible is not a divinely inspired book given:

Consistency of message when written over 1500 years by more than 35 writers.
No historical fact presented in it ever shown to be false.
Many fulfilled prophecies, especially about Jesus.
Neither the character Jesus nor his dialogue could have been concocted by the human mind.
Unrefuted resurrection of Jesus.
Style of New Testament one not of myth but historical fact. "Realistic fiction" as a writing style did not exist in its day.
Fingerprints of divine Authorship, including numerous heptadic (instances of seven) constraints impressed on the NT. One instance being that each gospel contains some unique words not used in any other gospel. In each gospel's case the number of those words is a multiple of seven. The same is true of Peter, James, Jude and Paul. Each writer's unique vocabulary is a multiple of seven.
And others.

No.

Is it likely the Bible has been significantly altered since the first versions? No.

Is it likely, given the way God, Jesus and the Bible itself are spoken of in its pages, that the Bible is only partially inspired? No.

Is it likely that formerly cowardly disciples would become lions of faith after the brutal public execution of their leader or that thousands would be willing to die for this faith early on if they hadn't seen something (i.e. the resurrected Jesus) that utterly convinced them of something extraordinary? No.

Is it likely that millions of believers since the resurrection would have experiences the Bible describes and promises (changed lives, inner peace, close relationships with God, love for brethren, living water, spiritual gifts, physical and psychological healings, answered prayers, etc) if the message in the Bible was false? No.

Is it likely there is not something special about the Christian message given the absence of such powerfully confirming evidences in other world religions and philosophies? No.


No. The overall impression from the evidence is it is highly likely that the basic Christian faith message is true.

Now, one can always come up with some "explanation" of each of these things. The most common being the claim that the Bible has been altered over the years. But there is scant evidence of such alternation. Other theories, such as writer collusion, also come with little to no evidence.

It becomes much harder to ignore all these above evidences and others when they are considered as a whole. It reaches the point that trying to explain them away just begins to look like a very concerted effort to avoid what is obvious. Ultimately it looks like the effort of people that don't like God, don't like his message, or don't like the way he chose to present himself to his creation.

This doesn't have to be rocket science, guys. All you need is a little honesty and a willingness to give up what you wish were true.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You asked me for MY definition. That's it. Take it or leave it.

You haven't supported your definition with evidence or reason. I'll leave it until you do.

Oh, I can tell you exactly how I know. I know because God showed me. But I figured you wouldn't be able to resist questioning that or trying to discredit it in some way and then that would be the end of it, so I just didn't bother.

That's one of those infinite regressions that you were trying to avoid earlier. You know God because God told you. How do you know that it was God who told you? Because God told you, ad infinitum. I don't wish to discredit it. I call it faith.

But note, I never said I could prove it. But just because I can't prove it doesn't mean I don't know.

But note , you can't/haven't supported it with evidence or argument. Again, I call that faith.

Neither did I ever say you were all bad.

So you refuse to acknowledge any areas of agreement with me and yet you refuse to say one way or another whether I am "all bad." How gracious of you! Seems you're doing what you accused me of i.e. being evasive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you define "liberal"?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Liberal: A liberal is a person who values personal freedom to the point of questioning traditional beliefs so that he/she can be liberated from them. Liberals prefer new ideas to old ones, mostly because they hope the new ideas will not place as much of a moral burden on them. They are always looking for ways to be morally liberated, and sympathize with "alternative" lifestyles which seek to do the same. Thus they take great relish in catching conservatives in some hypocrisy because they feel this discredits the conservative's traditional values and thus furthers their emancipation from those values. That's basically what's going on here on this alternative forum.

Originally Posted by zeek

Where did you get that definition?

Originally Posted by Igzy

You asked me for MY definition. That's it. Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by zeek

You haven't supported your definition with evidence or reason. I'll leave it until you do.

Don't you just love these "intelligent" conversations with liberals. Obviously he just doesn't like your answer!

Liberals just can't believe that someone thinks differently than they do. (Like your comment about that guy in NY who voted for Dukakis.) How they love to lecture the public about PC semantics.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you just love these "intelligent" conversations with liberals. Obviously he just doesn't like your answer!

True, Igzy probably doesn't like my answer. But, he may be able to explain himself. Give him a chance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

True, Igzy probably doesn't like my answer. But, he may be able to explain himself. Give him a chance.

Actually, though you may not like it, his definition is great. It matches how I have felt for a long time, especially the liberal lust to be "morally liberated" from personal accountability to God for our behavior.

[Cal]

No amount of reason or evidence is going to be enough for someone who is willfully blind.

And before you accuse me of the same, ask yourself what I have to gain by defending what I defend. I would like it if I could believe what you want to believe. I'd be free from the constraints of the Bible. Whoopee! I could stop going to church and reading the Bible and just claim to have a great "relationship with God" and tell everyone who contradicted me that they don't have any "reason or evidence" otherwise, just like you do. What a deal! Isn't life grand when it's according to what one wants to be true?!

Skeptics, on the other hand, have every short-term, self-centered reason to deny the Christian faith, which is exactly why they do it.

Now, 1...2...3 let me hear it: "You haven't shown any evidence...."

Kick! There goes the can down the road...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No amount of reason or evidence is going to be enough for someone who is willfully blind.

Reminds me of that stanza from the Moody Blues song, "I Know You're Out There Somewhere," ...

The words that I remember
From my childhood still are true
That there's none so blind
As those who will not see
And to those who lack the courage
And say it's dangerous to try
Well they just don't know
That love eternal will not be denied.

I'm sure OBW will like this.

[Cal]

C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce should be required reading for everyone. It is a short novel about a man who finds himself standing at a dreary bus stop, and proceeds to catch a bus to hell. Hell in this story is not fire and brimstone, but a dismal place where everyone leads frustrating and unsatisfying existences of self-deception.

The man meets several of the self-damned, and each exhibits in his or her own way the self-righteousness, rationalization, blame-shifting and unwillingness to repent that got them there and keeps them there.

One in particular is rather interesting. This pleasant but obsequious ghost actually claims to be seeking enlightenment, but does not believe in Hell (while actually being there). He says he has organized a "Theological Society", claiming there is "plenty of intellectual life" there, but admits it is not of great quality. He says he is developing a theory of how Jesus was a relatively young man when he died and would have outgrown his earlier views as he matured, stating:

"What a different Christianity we might have if only the Founder had reached his full stature!"

He says other things that sound just as eerily like the prattle we witness on this forum. For example:

"Exists? What does Existence mean? You will keep on implying some sort of static, ready-made reality which is, so to speak, "there", and to which our minds have simply to conform. These great mysteries cannot be approached that way. ... God, for me, is something purely spiritual."

And on and on. It could have been a couple of our posters talking and no one here would have blinked an eye.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

[zeek]

"There are people who honestly believe, with all that is within them, that the God of the Bible has granted them the right to own an object that did not exist in biblical times." Where is their faith?

http://reverbpress.com/religion/peop...ns-name-jesus/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No amount of reason or evidence is going to be enough for someone who is willfully blind.

And before you accuse me of the same, ask yourself what I have to gain by defending what I defend. I would like it if I could believe what you want to believe. I'd be free from the constraints of the Bible. Whoopee! I could stop going to church and reading the Bible and just claim to have a great "relationship with God" and tell everyone who contradicted me that they don't have any "reason or evidence" otherwise, just like you do. What a deal! Isn't life grand when it's according to what one wants to be true?!

Skeptics, on the other hand, have every short-term, self-centered reason to deny the Christian faith, which is exactly why they do it.

Now, 1...2...3 let me hear it: "You haven't shown any evidence...."

Kick! There goes the can down the road...

When have I denied the faith? I simply have maintained that what you think you know, you know by faith. And you have given me no reason to think otherwise. What's your problem with faith vs. knowledge? All your "no" judgments were on propositions with greater or lesser probability. In many the probability is 50% or less. But, you, sometime in your life leaped across the chasm of uncertainty to faith. Hallelujah, so did I. You act about faith like these NRA fans who fear someone is going to take your guns away. Only you know what you're afraid of but it seems to me you're preaching a gospel of fear. But, I don't want to hinder your faith. I made the leap myself. It is as you say a choice and a commitment. I made my commitment to Jesus and I mean to carry it out by God's grace through faith and what light I have been given. I won't let you hinder me either.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce should be required reading for everyone. It is a short novel about a man who finds himself standing at a dreary bus stop, and proceeds to catch a bus to hell. Hell in this story is not fire and brimstone, but a dismal place where everyone leads frustrating and unsatisfying existences of self-deception.

The man meets several of the self-damned, and each exhibits in his or her own way the self-righteousness, rationalization, blame-shifting and unwillingness to repent that got them there and keeps them there.

One in particular is rather interesting. This pleasant but obsequious ghost actually claims to be seeking enlightenment, but does not believe in Hell (while actually being there). He says he has organized a "Theological Society", claiming there is "plenty of intellectual life" there, but admits it is not of great quality. He says he is developing a theory of how Jesus was a relatively young man when he died and would have outgrown his earlier views as he matured, stating:

"What a different Christianity we might have if only the Founder had reached his full stature!"

He says other things that sound just as eerily like the prattle we witness on this forum. For example:

"Exists? What does Existence mean? You will keep on implying some sort of static, ready-made reality which is, so to speak, "there", and to which our minds have simply to conform. These great mysteries cannot be approached that way. ... God, for me, is something purely spiritual."

And on and on. It could have been a couple of our posters talking and no one here would have blinked an eye.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

We can't all be C.S. Lewis. In fact none of us can be. I learned that trying to be Witness Lee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

When have I denied the faith?

That wasn't my point. My point was that if your interests are short-term and selfish you have incentive to try to avoid the Christian faith because it requires short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. Most skeptics don't seem interested in the long term. My point was that I have no selfish reason to defend the Christian faith. I'm not trying to "set myself free" from some code that is constricting me. I defend it because I think it is true.

Skeptics and liberals on the other hand (not necessarily you) generally seem to be interested in setting themselves free from traditional moral constraints. They seem to believe happiness is to be found in not being subject to too many moral limitations. Defense of sexual "freedom" is a classic example. Their attitude is always that they are so much more tolerant and sophisticated that those "narrow-minded" conservatives. This seems more like bluster than assurance.

Originally Posted by zeek

What's your problem with faith vs. knowledge?

My problem is with your seeming take on the subject. Faith is not the absence of knowledge, it is the extension of it, the logical consequence of it. Faith is what you believe based on what you know, based on the evidence. Faith is not blind. Faith is eminently logical.

We all make "leaps" of faith every day about many things, common and profound, that cannot be proved. We make them because we know the probability they are correct is very high. But it isn't our faith that causes them to be real. They are real already. The reason our faith is rewarded is because what we believe is based on reality. And the reason our faith is based on reality is because of some correct knowledge, albeit partial, that we proceeded from in faith. We don't just proceed from blind guesses.

Once you believe as a Christian, your faith is confirmed by real experiences again and again. There are times when we must proceed without feeling. But most of the time we have spiritual experiences that confirm our faith. We don't just proceed blindly all the time. God gives us confirmations that we are on the right track. Those experiences add to our knowledge, which in turn adds to our faith.

All your "no" judgments were on propositions with greater or lesser probability. In many the probability is 50% or less.

Not to my thinking. To my thinking the probability for the inverse of each of those questions is quite high, or I wouldn't have stated so. You might disagree. That's your prerogative. I think if you do your judgement is suspect. But anyway we each have to make our own assessments. But, see, this is where knowledge comes in. Faith is never based in not knowing anything. There is always something you know that your faith extends from.

The reason I believe in God is because I believe it is highly likely he exists. That faith has been rewarded.

The reason I believe in Jesus is because I believe it is highly likely he is the Son of God. That faith has also been rewarded.

The reason I believe in the Bible is because I believe it is highly likely it is the word of God. That faith has been rewarded, too.

Faith is the highest form of reason, the logical consequence of all that you know.

[Cal]

I don't think God would expect us to believe anything we are not fairly certain of. He doesn't expect us to bet our lives on long shots, and he certainly doesn't view himself as a long shot. The reason he expect us to have faith is because the clues he has left us all add up to a fairly plain, singular, dependable answer.

Skeptics don't want to be fairly certain, they want to be 100% certain. In other words, they don't want to make a leap of faith. But some of them probably really don't even want 100%, undeniable, in-your-face certainty, or for that matter even believe it is possible. They just want an excuse to defer belief. 100% certainty is possible. It's just that when it comes it will be too late to decide.

The bottom line is that God loves us like children, but treats us like grown-ups. He leaves sufficient clues and expects us to make informed decisions from them. Claiming the clues overall aren't conclusive is to not respond in a mature manner, as well as to not respond with childlike faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That wasn't my point. My point was that if your interests are short-term and selfish you have incentive to try to avoid the Christian faith because it requires short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. Most skeptics don't seem interested in the long term. My point was that I have no selfish reason to defend the Christian faith. I'm not trying to "set myself free" from some code that is constricting me. I defend it because I think it is true.

You contradicted yourself in that brief paragraph. Your selfish reason for defending the Christian faith is that you suppose it will bring you "long term gains".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

You contradicted yourself in that brief paragraph. Your selfish reason for defending the Christian faith is that you suppose it will bring you "long term gains".

There is good selfishness and bad. God doesn't begrudge us for running to gain the prize. In fact, he commands us to. Short-term selfishness that sacrifices the long-term goal is what is bad. People who try to deny the Christian faith so they can indulge in sin in this life do just that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is good selfishness and bad. God doesn't begrudge us for running to gain the prize. In fact, he commands us to. Short-term selfishness that sacrifices the long-term goal is what is bad. People who try to deny the Christian faith so they can indulge in sin in this life do just that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point was that I have no selfish reason to defend the Christian faith.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is good selfishness and bad.

But, you claimed you had no selfish reason. That was an absolute statement including good or bad. You slipped.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, you claimed you had no selfish reason. That was an absolute statement including good or bad. You slipped.

I apologize if you read it that way. But I did make the point about short versus long term, which puts my point in context. I know what I meant. But I'm glad to have the opportunity to clear it up.

I'm on record on this board making the point that "selfishness" in line with God's ultimate goal is not bad. Utter selflessness, not caring about oneself in any way, shape or form, is a symptom of a very sick mind. God tells us to love our neighbor "as ourselves." How can we do that if we don't love ourselves at some level? I don't really call that selfishness. More like rational self-interest.

If you read all my posts carefully, as of course you should, you'd understand my point of view better.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you read all my posts carefully, as of course you should, you'd understand my point of view better.

We all can claim "I know what I meant" every time we post, no matter how illogical what we post.

You made a categorical statement, that you then contradicted. Write your posts more carefully and you may contradict yourself less.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

We all can claim "I know what I meant" every time we post, no matter how illogical what we post.

You made a categorical statement, that you then contradicted. Write your posts more carefully and you may contradict yourself less.

Is that all you've got today, Mr. Know-it-All?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Is that all you've got today, Mr. Know-it-All?

...said the man who claims he knows he knows he knows but can't explain it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

...said the man who claims he knows he knows he knows but can't explain it.

Whatever that means...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

...said the man who claims he knows he knows he knows but can't explain it.

Look, we disagree on a lot of things. But let's at least give each other fair credit for having points. If one of us is going to go to hell, at least he/I could do so with dignity. Okay? Let's talk about ideas.

What did you think about what I said about the connection between faith and knowledge?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Look, we disagree on a lot of things. But let's at least give each other fair credit for having points. If one of us is going to go to hell, at least he/I could do so with dignity. Okay? Let's talk about ideas.

What did you think about what I said about the connection between faith and knowledge?

You appropriated the idea that faith requires a leap that I introduced on this thread. If we agree that a leap is required, then it's down to how great a leap? You're attempting a kind of natural theology. In your estimate, God is highly probable so the leap is tiny. But, what you are calling evidence is ambiguous with respect to your assertion. It's data that requires interpretation. People interpret it differently for a wide variety of reasons. Therefore, there is wide disagreement among intelligent people on the subject. I believe you are convinced. But, I don't find your argument convincing.

To me faith is not a matter of knowledge but of trust. I trust in God. I didn't reason my way to God. If circumstances were different perhaps I wouldn't have come at all. My trust in God exists as much in spite of the "evidence" as because of it.

If you want to continue arguing for your position, take any one of your arguments for God and show how it is beyond interpretive ambiguity and greater than 50% probable.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, what you are calling evidence is ambiguous with respect to your assertion..

That's just your opinion, or your assertion. I don't think it's ambiguous at all. I think it paints a very clear picture. That's why I believe it.

Originally Posted by zeek

I believe you are convinced. But, I don't find your argument convincing.

That doesn't bother me because you don't find much of anything convincing.

To me faith is not a matter of knowledge but of trust. I trust in God.

Isn't your trust in God based on some knowledge of him? Put another way, why would you trust in God if you know nothing about him?

If you want to continue arguing for your position, take any one of your arguments for God and show how it is beyond interpretive ambiguity and greater than 50% probable.

Whose standard of what is interpretively ambiguious? Mine, or yours?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Isn't your trust in God based on some knowledge of him? Put another way, why would you trust in God if you know nothing about him?

I wouldn't say no. It's based on intuition which is a kind of knowledge. You feel it in your gut, or your heart or bones, so to speak.

Whose standard of what is interpretively ambiguous? Mine, or yours?

Well, of course you have to go by your standard and of course I may disagree. It's a tall hurdle to get over and the multitude of religious and non-religious POVs testify to that. There's no consensus. Why not just give up and admit that God is totally a matter of faith? After all the Bible says "The just shall live by faith." It doesn't say they'll live by knowledge.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I wouldn't say no. It's based on intuition which is a kind of knowledge. You feel it in your gut, or your heart or bones, so to speak.

Exactly! But don't you treat it like knowledge, for all practical purposes? That's what I meant by revelation. It's something you just know. It's first principle, self-evident stuff. At its base knowledge is just knowing. Do we need to be able to explain how we know to know we know? Is knowing contingent upon being able to prove it to someone else? Can someone else veto our knowledge because we can't convince them of it? What if they are insincere with their objection? Someone can always sneer and say, 'You can't prove how you know.' But you know what you know. The only question you have to ask yourself is "Am I being completely honest with myself." If you can say yes then shouldn't you go with it? Why let someone who doesn't understand what you see hold you back?

Why not just give up and admit that God is totally a matter of faith? After all the Bible says "The just shall live by faith." It doesn't say they'll live by knowledge.

Because knowing is involved. The Bible says eternal life is knowing God. I think you need both. Faith leads us to knowing, which leads us to love, which leads us to more knowing thus more faith and love. It's like a feedback loop. We encounter and know God, which causes us to have faith, the faith leads to more knowing, which leads to more faith, and so on. 1 Cor 13 may be implying that faith and hope will someday no longer be needed, and only love will continue. Love, and knowing.

[Cal]

Here's a question for you, zeek. Does something have to be true for you to know it?

In other words, if you think you know something, but it's false, did you really know it?

Isn't something being true or not separate from the knowing of it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Exactly! But don't you treat it like knowledge, for all practical purposes? That's what I meant by revelation. It's something you just know. It's first principle, self-evident stuff. At its base knowledge is just knowing. Do we need to be able to explain how we know to know we know? Is knowing contingent upon being able to prove it to someone else? Can someone else veto our knowledge because we can't convince them of it? What if they are insincere with their objection? Someone can always sneer and say, 'You can't prove how you know.' But you know what you know. The only question you have to ask yourself is "Am I being completely honest with myself." If you can say yes then shouldn't you go with it? Why let someone who doesn't understand what you see hold you back?

The intuition can't be conclusively verified logically or empirically. I have faith that it is true that I am "a child of God" as the intuition would make me. The intuition corresponds with what Paul says in I Cor 13...."we know in part". The same passage promises full understanding will come.

Because knowing is involved. The Bible says eternal life is knowing God. I think you need both. Faith leads us to knowing, which leads us to love, which leads us to more knowing thus more faith and love. It's like a feedback loop. We encounter and know God, which causes us to have faith, the faith leads to more knowing, which leads to more faith, and so on. 1 Cor 13 may be implying that faith and hope will someday no longer be needed, and only love will continue. Love, and knowing.

Faith substantiates the intuition. As Anselm said "And I do not seek to understand that I may believe but believe that I might understand. For this too I believe since, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's a question for you, zeek. Does something have to be true for you to know it?

That's tricky. If the thing is a proposition, I can know it even if it's false.

In other words, if you think you know something, but it's false, did you really know it?

Again, if the thing is a proposition, I can know a false proposition.

Isn't something being true or not separate from the knowing of it?

Sure. Otherwise nothing new could ever be discovered. Every unknown thing is true regardless of being unknown. Where are you going with this?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The intuition can't be conclusively verified logically or empirically. I have faith that it is true that I am "a child of God" as the intuition would make me. The intuition corresponds with what Paul says in I Cor 13...."we know in part". The same passage promises full understanding will come.

Faith substantiates the intuition. As Anselm said "And I do not seek to understand that I may believe but believe that I might understand. For this too I believe since, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."

So you are saying we will not "know in full" until it all is verified logically and empirically for us? That will be our ultimate experience? Sounds rather boring.

I think you place a little too much value on what can be shown "logically" or "empirically." In the first place, what makes you think that your sense of logic is foolproof, or even matches reality? In the second, what makes you think your ability to recognize what is truly empirical is likewise? Some kind of faith is required just to believe your ability to evaluate those things is dependable.

Regardless, I think I already have strong logical and empirical evidence. My evaluation of what I observe makes great sense to me, and my personal experience of God is confirmed every day. I have both logical and empirical demonstration that what I believe is real. It's not even close to 50-50 as far as I'm concerned. Is it 100%? Well, one can always introduce some doubt. All you have to do is ask if perhaps you are delusional. But that's true of anything, no matter how it's seemingly been logically or empirically verified.

I like the Anselm quote. It emphasizes that there is an element of faith in all knowledge--if only faith that we are able to know anything at all or evaluate reality accurately. Perhaps there will always be a need for some elementary faith. How will you ultimately know anything with 100% certainty? Because God tells you? Won't you will still need faith to believe him.

Maybe only God can have absolute certainty about anything. Maybe we will always need some kind of faith. Maybe the kind of certainty philosophers seek is not meant for us. But if God is good then that's a good thing. It means he meant us to live by faith, not certainty. So maybe we should stop looking for it or acting like the lack of it is a chink in the armor of these things we are led to believe. And maybe we should stop making such a big deal about it. Like I've always said, we need faith to believe the floor will support us when we get out of the bed in the morning. So why should the need for faith in God bother us so much?

Here's the thing: If we had absolute certainty, then life would not be a character test to us, because we would always know exactly what to do. It would be like playing a game where you knew exactly how everything will turn out. What would be the point? The fact that we have to weigh matters, consider pros and cons, keep our eyes on our goals, and monitor our honesty about our true convictions, is what makes life meaningful. It matters what we decide. But if we had certainty we wouldn't ever need to decide anything. It would all be laid out for us plain as day. No test. No game. No challenge. No fun. No point.

[Cal]

Believer: "I know that I know that I know."

Skeptic: "I don't know that I don't know that I don't know."


Bertrand Russell: “Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Maybe only God can have absolute certainty about anything. Maybe we will always need some kind of faith. Maybe the kind of certainty philosophers seek is not meant for us.

Unless we can know the future, as God alone does, we will never have the absolute certainty which the doubters demand.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are saying we will not "know in full" until it all is verified logically and empirically for us? That will be our ultimate experience? Sounds rather boring.

No. I'm saying that our intuitions regarding ultimate reality cannot be conclusively verified in this life. Paul posits ultimate reality but he understands that it cannot be known as it is in itself. Presumably God knows Himself that way. With our finite powers of logic and perception we can't. I have defined Ultimate Reality as God which is what Paul and I are talking about. I don't know why you find God boring but, suit yourself.

I think you place a little too much value on what can be shown "logically" or "empirically." In the first place, what makes you think that your sense of logic is foolproof, or even matches reality?In the second, what makes you think your ability to recognize what is truly empirical is likewise? Some kind of faith is required just to believe your ability to evaluate those things is dependable.

Experience has taught me that my logic and powers of observation match reality imperfectly. [Paul says that too: " For our knowledge is imperfect"] If they didn't somewhat match them, I wouldn't be able to adapt to the physical and human environment in order to survive. But, I make mistakes in logic and perception. And my POV is limited. So, I don't have God's POV. Even the Bible, if it is the inerrant Word of God can't give me that because I have to interpret it with my imperfect mind. I have already acknowledged that faith is involved so I don't know why you continue to argue as if I was denying that point.

Regardless, I think I already have strong logical and empirical evidence. My evaluation of what I observe makes great sense to me, and my personal experience of God is confirmed every day. I have both logical and empirical demonstration that what I believe is real. It's not even close to 50-50 as far as I'm concerned. Is it 100%? Well, one can always introduce some doubt. All you have to do is ask if perhaps you are delusional. But that's true of anything, no matter how it's seemingly been logically or empirically verified.

Well, earlier on you claimed your theology was based on knowledge. Now you admit to an element of faith is necessary. We don't agree about how much, that's all. I found your original argument unconvincing, that's all.

I like the Anselm quote. It emphasizes that there is an element of faith in all knowledge--if only faith that we are able to know anything at all or evaluate reality accurately. Perhaps there will always be a need for some elementary faith. How will you ultimately know anything with 100% certainty? Because God tells you? Won't you will still need faith to believe him. Maybe only God can have absolute certainty about anything. Maybe we will always need some kind of faith. Maybe the kind of certainty philosophers seek is not meant for us. But if God is good then that's a good thing. It means he meant us to live by faith, not certainty. So maybe we should stop looking for it or acting like the lack of it is a chink in the armor of these things we are led to believe. And maybe we should stop making such a big deal about it. Like I've always said, we need faith to believe the floor will support us when we get out of the bed in the morning. So why should the need for faith in God bother us so much?

It doesn't bother me. I accept that's the way it is. You're the one who claimed he knew; so maybe it bothered you.

Here's the thing: If we had absolute certainty, then life would not be a character test to us, because we would always know exactly what to do. It would be like playing a game where you knew exactly how everything will turn out. What would be the point? The fact that we have to weigh matters, consider pros and cons, keep our eyes on our goals, and monitor our honesty about our true convictions, is what makes life meaningful. It matters what we decide. But if we had certainty we wouldn't ever need to decide anything. It would all be laid out for us plain as day. No test. No game. No challenge. No fun. No point.

All true. Hooray for the way it is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Believer: "I know that I know that I know."

Skeptic: "I don't know that I don't know that I don't know."


Bertrand Russell: “Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it."

Russell was an atheist. He didn't believe in God or immortality and didn't think that Christ was the best or wisest of men. He argued against the argument from design, and favored Darwin's theories. Russell also expressed doubt over the historical existence of Jesus and questioned the morality of religion, which is, in his view, predominantly based on fear. So maybe in the above quote he was talking about radical skepticism that denies any knowledge is possible. In any case, I don't hold that position, so it's irrelevant to my position.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So maybe in the above quote he was talking about radical skepticism that denies any knowledge is possible. In any case, I don't hold that position, so it's irrelevant to my position.

That's what he was talking about. However, I don't think it's totally irrelevant because Russell's point was basically that we do know some things and we know we know. In other words, you can make the logical argument that we cannot not know, but in practically experience we do know. So any skeptic, radical or not, can easily hide behind the "we can't know" argument for things that can be known.

What is irrelevant to our discussion is Russell's stance on religion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, earlier on you claimed your theology was based on knowledge. Now you admit to an element of faith is necessary. We don't agree about how much, that's all. I found your original argument unconvincing, that's all.

It doesn't bother me. I accept that's the way it is. You're the one who claimed he knew; so maybe it bothered you.

You're recalling what I've shared in a rather roughshod way. My beliefs are based in both faith and knowledge. I believe the Bible is the word of God. But my belief that the whole book is inspired is more faith than something I can claim to know. But my belief in God is based on more than faith. I don't think it's remotely possible God doesn't exist. I've experienced God as much as I've experienced sunshine. I know the sun exists and I know God exists. The fact that I've substantiated God with my spiritual senses rather than my physical ones does not make his existence any less empirical as far as I'm concerned. You might disagree, but that doesn't bother me because I know it's a standard philosophical position that the natural senses are more reliable than spiritual ones, but that position is assumed by those who never bothered to use their spiritual senses or even don't believe they exist. I'm sure a blind man can make a "logical argument" that the moon cannot be proven to exist, because he can't see it.

So some things I feel I know, and some I need to take on faith. It's a combination. I know God exists. But the kind of God he is, that he is love and has my best interests at heart all the time, is a faith matter. Just like I know my wife exists, but take her love for me by faith, even though she demonstrates it a lot.

It doesn't bother me. I accept that's the way it is. You're the one who claimed he knew; so maybe it bothered you.

Seems to me it bothers you a lot.

Maybe you can tell me some things that you really know, and how you know them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Skeptics don't want to be fairly certain, they want to be 100% certain. In other words, they don't want to make a leap of faith. But some of them probably really don't even want 100%, undeniable, in-your-face certainty, or for that matter even believe it is possible. They just want an excuse to defer belief. 100% certainty is possible. It's just that when it comes it will be too late to decide.

That's not a very nice, or accurate, thing to say about me.

I am truly a skeptic. But not a "debunker." There is a difference.

A skeptic seeks proof. And while there is faith involved, I see proof.

However, there are many things that Christians teach that still get my skeptical side going.

And skepticism is not about 100% certainty. At least not true skepticism. It is about obtaining facts and weighing them. Ranking the uncertain from plausible to implausible. Unfortunately, we do not all agree on what is plausible.

[UntoHim]

With God all things are plausible
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's not a very nice, or accurate, thing to say about me.

I am truly a skeptic. But not a "debunker." There is a difference.

A skeptic seeks proof. And while there is faith involved, I see proof.

However, there are many things that Christians teach that still get my skeptical side going.

And skepticism is not about 100% certainty. At least not true skepticism. It is about obtaining facts and weighing them. Ranking the uncertain from plausible to implausible. Unfortunately, we do not all agree on what is plausible.

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily putting you in that category. But I have seen your arguments sort of sway over that way from time to time. We all tend to take "by faith" what we want to be true and "demand proof" for what we don't want to be true, all along hoping we don't get the proof.

I understand wanting "proof" in the casual sense of the word. But most of the time we don't get real proof for much. We do get evidence though. But sometimes even strong evidence is not enough for the person who wants to hide behind skepticism. So they keep demanding "proof," because they can always deny they have it and thus exempt themselves from the idea.

Take for example the idea that the whole Bible is, for all practical purpose, inspired by God. (I don't like the term "inerrant", though I wouldn't argue against it). To me that's a faith matter, but it's backed up by facts. Attempts to subvert the Bible are big failures. There's something pretty special about that book. And it seems any quest to pick and choose the inspired verses is doomed to failure. So why not just accept the whole thing as inspired and then use honest interpretation to put all the pieces together?

But some people can't resist trying to decide which parts are inspired. Usually because they personally don't like some parts. Those are the parts they usually decide aren't inspired, the parts they don't like. Funny how divine inspiration and personal taste just happen to line up.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Experience has taught me that my logic and powers of observation match reality imperfectly. [Paul says that too: " For our knowledge is imperfect"] If they didn't somewhat match them, I wouldn't be able to adapt to the physical and human environment in order to survive. But, I make mistakes in logic and perception. And my POV is limited. So, I don't have God's POV. Even the Bible, if it is the inerrant Word of God can't give me that because I have to interpret it with my imperfect mind. I have already acknowledged that faith is involved so I don't know why you continue to argue as if I was denying that point.

Sorry, I did not intend to do that. I guess what I'm trying to determine is... what do you know?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand wanting "proof" in the casual sense of the word. But most of the time we don't get real proof for much. We do get evidence though. But sometimes even strong evidence is not enough for the person who wants to hide behind skepticism. So they keep demanding "proof," because they can always deny they have it and thus exempt themselves from the idea.

You have claimed someone is demanding proof over and over. I challenge you to show where I have asked you to prove one thing since you have come on this thread.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, I did not intend to do that. I guess what I'm trying to determine is... what do you know?

No problem. I know how everything seems to me with absolute certainty.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

You have claimed someone is demanding proof over and over. I challenge you to show where I have asked you to prove one thing since you have come on this thread.

So you're demanding proof that you've demanded proof?

Maybe it's something you do unconsciously. But it's intertwined with your discussion style, as above.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

No problem. I know how everything seems to me with absolute certainty.

Sorry, does the above have a typo? "Seems to me with" doesn't make sense.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you're demanding proof that you've demanded proof?

Maybe it's something you do unconsciously. But it's intertwined with your discussion style, as above.

Not proof just evidence.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, does the above have a typo? "Seems to me with" doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to me.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

It makes sense to me.

Can you please rephrase it because I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Thanks.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Can you please rephrase it because I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Thanks.

If I was Igzy I might say "take it or leave it." But, since I'm not: I know with absolute certainty how everything seems to me .

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If I was Igzy I might say "take it or leave it." But, since I'm not: I know with absolute certainty how everything seems to me .

I know with uncertainty that you seem especially obnoxious today.

But Happy Halloween anyway!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I know with uncertainty that you seem especially obnoxious today.

But Happy Halloween anyway!

Thanks. Fortunately it's over.

[zeek]

November is Gratitude month. I'm thankful that I saw two beautiful fawns playing together on my way home last night. What are you thankful for?

[zeek]

Are you an annihilationist and if so why?

http://reknew.org/2008/01/are-you-an...and-if-so-why/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you an annihilationist and if so why?

http://reknew.org/2008/01/are-you-an...and-if-so-why/

Well I guess I'm an annihilationist cuz the Bible says so (if that can be trusted).

But what a disappointment. Cuz if I was headed to hell I was hopin' to meet some friends and deceased family members, and maybe even meet Mark Twain there. But now, if I'm destined that way, I'm just gonna be gone, annihilated, and kaput, and so is all the others I hoped to meet up with.

But I guess there's some comfort in knowing that I'll finally be done with this awful crappy troublesome mortal body.

Thanks for posting it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

November is Gratitude month. I'm thankful that I saw two beautiful fawns playing together on my way home last night. What are you thankful for?

Cool, fall weather.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Cool, fall weather.

Me, otoh, am thankful for this warm, fall weather, with sunshine.

And, btw, gimme a gun for all those deer in my backyard. I got some hungry friends.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily putting you in that category. But I have seen your arguments sort of sway over that way from time to time. We all tend to take "by faith" what we want to be true and "demand proof" for what we don't want to be true, all along hoping we don't get the proof.

You do know I had my tongue planted firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.

But it is true that we are all prone to look for what we want to find. On either side of any argument. Confirmation bias.

I know that I expect the evidence to either prove what I already believe, or at least not provide any reason to reject it. But sometimes it doesn't. And I fight it. I argue with it. But if I am honest, I have to deal with it and not just wipe it away with a pithy statement.

I got where I am today by being willing to change my mind. It is very different from where it was when I left the LCM (1987) and visited any of these forums (late 2005). And it is different from where I was in 2007, 2010, and even 2014. I do not expect that it will remain completely fixed now.

What is interesting is that while all those changes have gone on, I am still a strong believer in Christ and in his salvation. Little of my base theology has changed. But a lot about the periphery, and its importance, has changed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

You do know I had my tongue planted firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.

But it is true that we are all prone to look for what we want to find. On either side of any argument. Confirmation bias.

I know that I expect the evidence to either prove what I already believe, or at least not provide any reason to reject it. But sometimes it doesn't. And I fight it. I argue with it. But if I am honest, I have to deal with it and not just wipe it away with a pithy statement.

I got where I am today by being willing to change my mind. It is very different from where it was when I left the LCM (1987) and visited any of these forums (late 2005). And it is different from where I was in 2007, 2010, and even 2014. I do not expect that it will remain completely fixed now.

What is interesting is that while all those changes have gone on, I am still a strong believer in Christ and in his salvation. Little of my base theology has changed. But a lot about the periphery, and its importance, has changed.

Thanks for sharing your openness to change your mind.

My problem with such change is that I'm a recovering LCMer, which is no problem to most on this board.

But I'm also a recovering fundamentalist, which seems to be a big problem to most on this board.

Last but not least at all on this board I'm a recovering Bible addict. And it seems most out here would like to do an intervention on me over that one.

Bottom line, I've changed much since the local church ... and it hasn't been easy or painless. It hurts when we've discovered we've been wrong. And the depth of pain is dependent upon the level of investment in that wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

My problem with such change is that I'm a recovering LCMer, which is no problem to most on this board.

But I'm also a recovering fundamentalist, which seems to be a big problem to most on this board.

I don't think anyone on this board gives a flying hoot whether you are a "fundamentalist" or not.

People would like to know whether you are heretical, however.

But I don't think anyone here thinks that if you are not a fundamentalist you must be heretical. And if you think they think that then you need to lay off the Kentucky moonshine, while posting at least.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think anyone on this board gives a flying hoot whether you are a "fundamentalist" or not.

But will you love me tomorrow

Originally Posted by Igzy

People would like to know whether you are heretical, however.

Only heresiologists, or so inclined to judge. Then it depends on the so inclined to determine what they deem heresy. And everyone is a heretic to someone. Even you bro Igzy.

Personally I don't inclined to label someone a heretic. I prefer to judge whether the positions they offer stands up to actual evidence or not.

And if I should encounter a heretic, so called, I seek to love the heretic, but hate their heresy, so to speak ... you know, 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' as they say.

I would never support burning them at the stake, either literally or metaphorically.

[zeek]

Continuing with gratitude, I'm grateful that when I turn on a tap and there’s water, and when I flip a switch there’s light.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only heresiologists, or so inclined to judge. Then it depends on the so inclined to determine what they deem heresy. And everyone is a heretic to someone. Even you bro Igzy.

Then the Bible is inclined to judge, because it clearly teaches that some beliefs or lack thereof can disqualify us from the kingdom.

I don't mind a bit if someone suggests I'm a heretic. I'd like to know if someone thinks that and what their reasoning is. I hope I never get so arrogant that I label everyone who takes exception to what I believe as being "judgmental." I'd rather simply know whether they have a point or not.

This is the stance you have taken. Anyone who is not as liberal as you are is "judgmental." So you are forced to spend half your time (or more) suggesting in all sorts of ways how mean, narrow, backward, non-liberal, judgmental, stupid, hypocritical, etc, etc, all these people are who make you feel uncomfortable. Which probably makes you more judgmental than them. It's kind of a strange way to go about things.

I understand that some people can be over the top with their religions opinions. But this is a online forum. It's where we share ideas. So you have to expect that people are going to express their opinions and debate things. If the only comeback you have for people who believe your beliefs are mistaken is that those people are "judgmental" then you don't have much to go on.

"Heretic" is simply shorthand. If you don't like the word, use another. But the basic idea is valid here, and important. To say otherwise is to say beliefs aren't really important.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Continuing with gratitude, I'm grateful that when I turn on a tap and there’s water, and when I flip a switch there’s light.

Grateful for people who love me enough to put up with me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then the Bible is inclined to judge, because it clearly teaches that some beliefs or lack thereof can disqualify us from the kingdom.

Are you talking the first fundamentalist principle here? How about the belief that the Bible is inspired, but only in the sense that the wife of King Lemuel in Proverbs 31:1 (NIV) was inspired?

We all know that the Bible can't judge. Only the living can judge. What was that Paul said about the dead letter?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't mind a bit if someone suggests I'm a heretic. I'd like to know if someone thinks that and what their reasoning is.

What? You? You want to know what others think? I've never noticed.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I hope I never get so arrogant that I label everyone who takes exception to what I believe as someone who is "judgmental."

But you're getting close? right?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'd rather simply know whether they have a point or not.

Sounds pointless to me.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is the stance you have taken. [HaHa]

I love how you do that. You're gifted at it. Let me see if I can word it. You're saying, "I'm a non-judgmental judgmentalist?" And others. Like this gem: "anti-fanaticism fanatic." Or this doozy: "anti-bully bully."

I guess it's like Nietzsche said, in so many words: "When you fight demons, make sure you don't become one."

Let's move on:

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's a very defensive stance.

Defensive how?

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's not one borne of assurance, but insecurity.

I've become pretty secure with insecurity. I just leave it with God. He is sovereign, right?

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you spend half your time (or more) suggesting in all sorts of ways how mean, narrow, backward, non-liberal, judgmental, stupid, hypocritical, etc, etc, all these people are who make you feel uncomfortable.

Keeps me busy ... keeping up with all my name calling, and seeking news ones all the time. I like Mark Twain's take on it. Something like, "They're human. And that's the worst I can say about them."

And I rarely find myself uncomfortable. Maybe when I'm cutting down and up a dangerous tree. Other than that I'm pretty much devil may care. Surely you've noticed.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Which probably makes you more judgmental than them. It's kind of a strange way to go about things.

There you go again, messing with words, labels, and definitions.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand that some people can be over the top with their religions opinions. But this is a online forum. It's where we share ideas. So you have to expect that people are going to express their opinions and debate things. If the only comeback you have for people who believe your beliefs are mistaken is that those people are "judgmental" then you don't have much to go on.

You provide plenty to go on.

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Heretic" is simply shorthand. If you don't like the word, use another. But the basic idea is valid here, and important. To say otherwise is to say beliefs aren't really important.

I stopped liking believing a long time ago. I seek experience. And "heretic" is, and always has been, arbitrary ... and the Bible doesn't settle the question without interpretation ... and that's arbitrary too.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I stopped liking believing a long time ago.

Unfortunately for you reality is not based on what we like or don't like.

And if it's all the same to you, I'll take the Bible over what you "like" when there is a conflict. Nothing personal.

Originally Posted by awareness

Sounds pointless to me.

If a belief can keep you from God then I would say there is a point. The Bible clearly says that indeed our beliefs can keep us from God. So there is some "heretical" belief that does matter. The Bible is clear on the most important one, if you reject Jesus as Savior and Lord you don't have God. That's as plain as day and there is nothing arbitrary about it.

The bottom line is this: Anyone who truly has a relationship with God also has a relationship with Jesus, because Jesus is God. Anyone who has studied Jesus and rejects him doesn't know God, no matter how much they claim to. These are Jesus' own words. He said if you knew my Father you would know Me. He said no one comes to the Father but by Him. The degree to which you reject Jesus is the degree to which God will be a stranger to you.

Rejecting that idea is to embrace a very real and deadly heresy. No, it's not pointless at all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unfortunately for you reality is not based on what we like or don't like.

And if it's all the same to you, I'll take the Bible over what you "like" when there is a conflict. Nothing personal.


If a belief can keep you from God then I would say there is a point. The Bible clearly says that indeed our beliefs can keep us from God. So there is some "heretical" belief that does matter. The Bible is clear on the most important one, if you reject Jesus as Savior and Lord you don't have God. That's as plain as day and there is nothing arbitrary about it.

The bottom line is this: Anyone who truly has a relationship with God also has a relationship with Jesus, because Jesus is God. Anyone who has studied Jesus and rejects him doesn't know God, no matter how much they claim to. These are Jesus' own words. He said if you knew my Father you would know Me. He said no one comes to the Father but by Him. The degree to which you reject Jesus is the degree to which God will be a stranger to you.

Rejecting that idea is to embrace a very real and deadly heresy. No, it's not pointless at all.

You seem to enjoy making threats and pronouncing judgments. Where do get your authority?

You have already admitted that you can't prove anything. So, obviously you can't prove that you know Jesus or that someone else doesn't.

Except for your self-certainty, for all we know you are the one who doesn't know Jesus or the Father. Who says salvation depends upon accepting "an idea"? I thought it was about accepting a person.

Seems to me like your just making stuff up as you go along. Isn't your real intention to catch someone in one of your precious heresies so you can shut Alternative Views down?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then the Bible is inclined to judge, because it clearly teaches that some beliefs or lack thereof can disqualify us from the kingdom.

Quick question.

How may things are required to be believed to get into the kingdom?

The trinity as posited by the best Calvinist or Dispensationalist theologians?
Substitutionary atonement?
Calvinism? (Or Arminianism if you are raised differently?)

Or is it primarily to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of the One True God and to obey all that He commanded? (little to none of which was simply doctrinal)

Have we made this all into something so much more than what it is stated as being? For example, Paul said a lot of high theological things. But most of those were not for the purpose of assenting to, but provided as basis for acting, behaving, etc., differently than the readers were. He did not suggest they needed to know more doctrines. Knowing God was in prayer and obedience. It was not in comprehension to and belief in doctrines.

There was a song a few years back. It was sort of convoluted to sing, so I didn't really like it. But its message was really good. At one place it said something like "I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing we've made it, when it's all about you, Jesus." (Maybe called "Heart of Worship" or something like that.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You seem to enjoy making threats and pronouncing judgments. Where do get your authority?

You have already admitted that you can't prove anything. So, obviously you can't prove that you know Jesus or that someone else doesn't.

Except for your self-certainty, for all we know you are the one who doesn't know Jesus or the Father. Who says salvation depends upon accepting "an idea"? I thought it was about accepting a person.

Seems to me like your just making stuff up as you go along. Isn't your real intention to catch someone in one of your precious heresies so you can shut Alternative Views down?

I was rendered speechless at this post bro OBW. But I don't think that's accepted.

It will prolly just be seen as another of my ploys to dodge, run, and hide from God ... as bro Igzy has it so far.

Bro Igzy is right. I am dodging, running and hiding. But not from God and Jesus. I constantly relate with them, daily, and have been all my life. What I'm running from is doctrine, dogma, the priestly system -- clergy/laity --, and organized systematized religion. Cuz it's been 2000 years and hint none'a'dat ever been settled, nor ever will be.

All that can be done is what bro Igzy is doing -- and so many others down thru history have been doing -- including the Princeton boys, that founded the five fundamentals of fundamentalism -- and Witness Lee did ; and that is, decide on your doctrine, and stand on it for life, as the one and only true doctrine ... that sets apart, and by default, creates a 'we and them' system, or type of tribal identity, and don't let go of it ... and preach it to others with the authority of God. Bro Igzy, and his protégé Untohim, has got it down pat.

And that's so like the local church it creeps me out, and makes the hair on the nap of my neck stand up ; and makes me run.

Now I don't know. And I too, like Igzy, like to know, what others are thinking, and like stuff. But I'm wondering if our bro Igzy hasn't got some of that local church juice still sloshing around in there somewhere.

He hint no different than the rest of us. He just needs love.

And for the record, just because I'm not a fundamentalist doesn't mean I don't love 'em. I love my fundamentalist family members dearly. And they loves me back. We have an understanding.

Love's such a wondrous thing. Wish there was more of it in the world. Wish Jesus had been able to make a major historical paradigm love shift in humankind. But mankind didn't miss a beat, and just kept on as before Jesus. "Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven." I'd like the earth to be like heaven. But doctrine, dogma, and systematized religion isn't gonna get us there, or any closer ... or certainly hasn't so far.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

There was a song a few years back. It was sort of convoluted to sing, so I didn't really like it. But its message was really good. At one place it said something like "I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing we've made it, when it's all about you, Jesus." (Maybe called "Heart of Worship" or something like that.)

Matt Redman
The Heart of Worship

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's so like the local church it creeps me out, and makes the hair on the nap of my neck stand up ; and makes me run.

If you pay the extra 3 bucks or so, the gal at Supercuts will take care of that hair on your neck. It's probably only 2 bucks where you live.

And for the record, just because I'm not a fundamentalist doesn't mean I don't love 'em. I love my fundamentalist family members dearly. And they loves me back. We have an understanding.

Where is Igzy's and my understanding and love? I'm jealous of your fundy family members. I thought we had a good thing going too. But, I'm an old guy, I should have known...Love and understanding is a fickle thing. Oh well. Love is a many splendored thing, isn't it.

Love's such a wondrous thing.

Opps, I meant wondrous thing!

Wish Jesus had been able to make a major historical paradigm love shift in humankind.

Actually he did. It's called the Cross. It was the ultimate expression of love by God, which in reality was a major historical paradigm love shift in humankind. But since God did not create robots, God is not forcing us to believe in this paradigm love shift. We have to exercise some FAITH.

I'd like the earth to be like heaven. But doctrine, dogma, and systematized religion isn't gonna get us there, or any closer ... or certainly hasn't so far.

No, doctrine, dogma and systematized religion isn't gonna get us there or any closer. Thankfully, God does't give a hoot about any of these. In fact, when he sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, he proved that he doesn't care for any of this. This is why Jesus was opposed to, and got in the face of all those doctrinaire, dogmatic and systematic people of his day.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

How may things are required to be believed to get into the kingdom?

The Bible is pretty clear. You have to have the Son to have the Father, and you have to have the Father to be in the kingdom.

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23

I'm not sure what is so offensive about what I'm sharing. Jesus is just God coming to us to be our Savior. He's God's provision to bring us back to him. That's pure love. What's the problem? Why Harold and zeek have such a problem with that I don't know. That's all I'm preaching here.

They seem to want to think you shouldn't need Jesus to get to God. But, sorry guys, the Bible is more than plain that you do.

But I firmly believe you can have the Son without ever having heard of Jesus. Say what?! Yes. If you repent to God genuinely he will receive you and Jesus's work will apply to you. That's general revelation. Jesus isn't a shibboleth or secret pass code.

But he is a test. If you've heard of Jesus, then you should recognize him as God's provision. That's special revelation. And if you don't recognize him, the Bible is clear that you really don't know God. Your claim to be on God's side is a fake. That was the Pharisees' state.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. John 1:10-12

Zeek and Harold have heard enough about Jesus to be accountable for recognizing who he was. Any refusal to do so shows they don't know God like they'd like everyone to think they do. That's not my word, that's what the Bible plainly says. Who should I believe, it or them?

Of course, now on cue they are screaming that I'm some sort of intolerant witch burner, and comparing me to the LCMers, or worse. Egads! They are pulling out all stops!

What's kind of interesting is that I'm just sharing basic Christian teaching. There's nothing new or scandalous about it, unless you are ignorant or expect God on your terms. Love? What's loving about letting someone go off a cliff? As for being like LCMers, zeek and Harold are more that way than me. After all, basic Christian truths weren't good enough for LCMers, they had to redefine most of the orthodoxy and faith to suit themselves. Sounds like zeek and Harold to me. Sounds like the LCM "sloshing around" in you two.

And, no, zeek. Despite your paranoia, I'm not looking for an excuse to shut down Alt Views. I have no authority here. This isn't my board. I'm not a moderator. You are way off base on that one.

By the way, I'm not expecting this position to make me popular. The screaming and ripping of cloaks is to be expected. But as Shakespeare wrote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

You have already admitted that you can't prove anything. So, obviously you can't prove that you know Jesus or that someone else doesn't.

zeek, You've been claiming that you don't ask for anything to be proved. Now, before the pixels have cooled on that claim, here you are again demanding proof. Like I said, this is what you do.

Another note. Did you guys expect to have Alt Views here and just have a liberal love-in where you got to misrepresent orthodox Christians without a fight? What did you expect to happen here?

So this is what it's come down to. I'm sharing basic Christian faith, Harold is wailing that I'm a witch burner and an LCMer, and zeek is hiding in his safe house of uncertainty, demanding "proof." And, oh, how the hyperbole is flowing. Is that all you have? What's the point of this Alt Views if that's the best you can do? How about making a solid case that Jesus is not the Son of God? Yes, I know that's much harder than all the self-indulgent bellyaching and evasive generalizing, and given your tendencies probably less fun for you. But how about at least trying?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible is pretty clear. You have to have the Son to have the Father, and you have to have the Father to be in the kingdom.

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23

In other words, the requirement, while important, is not long in details. That is what I have begun to see more and more. But when you say it out loud to a lot of our Christian friends, they freak out that you did not insist on their understanding of the trinity, penal substitutionary atonement, or even the virgin birth. (I hope that most can at least accept that as possible, though I would not exclude anyone over it.)

As for the virgin birth, I believe that it is as we have been taught from our childhood. But I do not have a problem with the idea that it was not necessary. Or that it was mostly a sign for the Jews who would understand the second occurrence of Isaiah's prophecy. I don't even necessarily care whether it was meant to be a literal virgin or a "young maiden" though, as I said, I believe it was a virgin. My faith does not rest in the virgin birth. it is not destroyed if we discover that we have misunderstood it all these years.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not sure what is so offensive about what I'm sharing.

I will assume that this sentence and what follows is not directed particularly at me. It is not offensive to me. I just thought it might be worthwhile to get the otherwise vague object(s) of belief spelled-out, even if just your or my opinions on the subject. I know a lot of people who think that you have to believe one of those rather long statements of faith to be afforded membership at some church or you may not actually be a believer. And I've seen one recently that had a part on angels in terms of the current era. Not saying there are no angels. But a point of belief to specify in your doctrinal statement???? I would probably have to tell them that I have no problem with them believing it as simply true, but that I could not, but would not oppose it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will assume that this sentence and what follows is not directed particularly at me. It is not offensive to me.

Correct. I was answering your question for the benefit of our skeptics.


I understand that some so-called heresies can seem tedious. But including the need to have the Son to have the Father in that group is a major, major error.

The way I look at it is you cannot have God without having the Son because the Son is God. How can you have God if you rejected God?

I wrote a short story a few years ago. It was titled "Mr. Gates, and Bill." The story was about a guy who claimed to be a big Bill Gates fan. He would always talk about how he respected Bill Gates and how Gates was the greatest innovator and businessman. The guy claimed to know all about him.

Then one day a rather unimpressive-looking fellow moves in next door to this guy. He has unkempt hair and glasses and is kind of goofy looking. His name is Bill. He has some conversations with the guy and says things that only Gates would know, and it becomes increasingly clear to some other neighbors that he must be Bill Gates. But the guy doesn't believe it. He rejects Bill, and goes right along pretending to be a Bill Gates fan.

That's the test of the Jesus. Would you recognize God if he came to earth as a man? Those who do not receive Jesus as the Son of God do not recognize God, and so do not have him, no matter how much they claim to be for God.

That's the bottom line, and quite a fair one I would say.

If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. John 14:7

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible is pretty clear. You have to have the Son to have the Father, and you have to have the Father to be in the kingdom.

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23

I'm not sure what is so offensive about what I'm sharing. Jesus is just God coming to us to be our Savior. He's God's provision to bring us back to him. That's pure love. What's the problem? Why Harold and zeek have such a problem with that I don't know. That's all I'm preaching here.

For me believing is easy -- and God designed it that way -- even a little child can believe in God. What is difficult for us is the walk. We are commanded to walk by faith. The walk includes obedience and faithfulness to God and good works towards others, loving and serving those whom we might not even like.

One huge difference between liberal progressives and traditional conservatives is who gets to make the rules. Conservatives generally agree that God ultimately decides on the rules, while liberals disagree with this and want new rules to facilitate their liberties.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek, You've been claiming that you don't ask for anything to be proved. Now, before the pixels have cooled on that claim, here you are again demanding proof. Like I said, this is what you do.

I'm not demanding anything. Merely stating the fact that you haven't backed up your knowledge claims.

Another note. Did you guys expect to have Alt Views here and just have a liberal love-in where you got to misrepresent orthodox Christians without a fight? What did you expect to happen here?

Who misrepresented what? Be specific.

So this is what it's come down to. I'm sharing basic Christian faith, Harold is wailing that I'm a witch burner and an LCMer, and zeek is hiding in his safe house of uncertainty, demanding "proof." And, oh, how the hyperbole is flowing. Is that all you have? What's the point of this Alt Views if that's the best you can do? How about making a solid case that Jesus is not the Son of God? Yes, I know that's much harder than all the self-indulgent bellyaching and evasive generalizing, and given your tendencies probably less fun for you. But how about at least trying?

Why would I want to make a case that Jesus is not Son of God? Where did you ever get the idea I would want to do that? You're making me out to be something I'm not. I'm trying to follow Jesus, not deny him.

With you everything is a zero sum game. You want to make me out to be your enemy. But, you're actually shadow boxing.

Externalization is an unconscious defense mechanism by which an individual "projects" his or her own internal characteristics onto the outside world, particularly onto other people. I think you're externalizing your own conflicts about religion onto me. I've become your shadow self.

Defeating me would make you feel more confidant about your own position. I think that's why you have avoided acknowledging the areas of agreement between us that I have pointed out all along. Maybe we're not all that different and that bothers you.

[awareness]

Hey, bro Igzy not only has nailed zeek and Harold down, but has also nailed God down as well.

Poor God. He grants us free will but He's not allowed the same. God can only do what is prescribed, or proscribed, in books written by fallible men back in the first century.

So we aren't to be robots, but God may as well be one. According to Igzy God is scripted to a T ... and has to do it only as Igzy claims he finds in these early books.

Proof of this is left in his post below:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible is pretty clear. You have to have the Son to have the Father, and you have to have the Father to be in the kingdom.

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23

I'm not sure what is so offensive about what I'm sharing. Jesus is just God coming to us to be our Savior. He's God's provision to bring us back to him. That's pure love. What's the problem? Why Harold and zeek have such a problem with that I don't know. That's all I'm preaching here.

They seem to want to think you shouldn't need Jesus to get to God. But, sorry guys, the Bible is more than plain that you do.

But I firmly believe you can have the Son without ever having heard of Jesus. Say what?! Yes. If you repent to God genuinely he will receive you and Jesus's work will apply to you. That's general revelation. Jesus isn't a shibboleth or secret pass code.

But he is a test. If you've heard of Jesus, then you should recognize him as God's provision. That's special revelation. And if you don't recognize him, the Bible is clear that you really don't know God. Your claim to be on God's side is a fake. That was the Pharisees' state.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. John 1:10-12

Zeek and Harold have heard enough about Jesus to be accountable for recognizing who he was. Any refusal to do so shows they don't know God like they'd like everyone to think they do. That's not my word, that's what the Bible plainly says. Who should I believe, it or them?

Of course, now on cue they are screaming that I'm some sort of intolerant witch burner, and comparing me to the LCMers, or worse. Egads! They are pulling out all stops!

What's kind of interesting is that I'm just sharing basic Christian teaching. There's nothing new or scandalous about it, unless you are ignorant or expect God on your terms. Love? What's loving about letting someone go off a cliff? As for being like LCMers, zeek and Harold are more that way than me. After all, basic Christian truths weren't good enough for LCMers, they had to redefine most of the orthodoxy and faith to suit themselves. Sounds like zeek and Harold to me. Sounds like the LCM "sloshing around" in you two.

And, no, zeek. Despite your paranoia, I'm not looking for an excuse to shut down Alt Views. I have no authority here. This isn't my board. I'm not a moderator. You are way off base on that one.

By the way, I'm not expecting this position to make me popular. The screaming and ripping of cloaks is to be expected. But as Shakespeare wrote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I firmly believe you can have the Son without ever having heard of Jesus. Say what?! Yes. If you repent to God genuinely he will receive you and Jesus's work will apply to you. That's general revelation. Jesus isn't a shibboleth or secret pass code.

But he is a test. If you've heard of Jesus, then you should recognize him as God's provision. That's special revelation. And if you don't recognize him, the Bible is clear that you really don't know God. Your claim to be on God's side is a fake. That was the Pharisees' state.

Zeek and Harold have heard enough about Jesus to be accountable for recognizing who he was. Any refusal to do so shows they don't know God like they'd like everyone to think they do. That's not my word, that's what the Bible plainly says. Who should I believe, it or them?

Believe IT? Really? What? Is it It, or Jesus? Or are they the same to you? I believe the latter to you.

I once easily fell for that gambit. That others knew God better than I do. I once thought Witness Lee knew God better than all of us. And I believed the elders knew God better than the rest of us locally.

What I see is a sleight of hand trick. David Koresh was able to gather true believers, willing to died for him, because he had massive amounts of the Bible memorized. Which is not only impressive in and of itself, but allowed David to sound like he was actually speaking FOR God. Does oracle of God ring a bell?

When it's not God! It's using the Bible to sound like God. It makes them sound like they know God better than the rest of us.

And now bro Igzy pulls that card out from his sleeve. Igzy uses the Bible to make it sound like he knows God better than zeek and Harold. Don't make me laugh. Or better still, do.

The irony is obvious. I think zeek and I have made it clear that we don't know God, or at least I have ; that, God is so beyond us that none of us can know Him. So any idea that bro Igzy knows God better than bro's zeek and Harold is ludicrous. He can't know God any better than the rest of us. It's a level playing field.

What can be known is the Bible (well not really, but that's another story). But that's just knowing a book, not God 'Him'self. If indeed God is a Him, that is ... we can't know things like that about God. God is beyond him, her, it ... and is so beyond us that we can't know such a exulted being. None of us can. Not even bro Igzy.

Am I dodgin' and weavin'? "Float like a butterfly. Sting like a bee."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Believe ITIgzy uses the Bible to make it sound like he knows God better than zeek and Harold.

What would you rather him use, a copy of your hero's book "Misquoting Jesus"? Of course Igzy uses the Bible, he's a Christian. Funny thing about us Christians, we prefer to use the Bible, rather than, say the Quran, or the Theravada or Mahayana Buddhist canons, or the Hindu Vedas or Upanishads. Silly us!

I think zeek and I have made it clear that we don't know God...

Glad you're the one who said this. If I said this you would probably call me something worse than creepy.

God is so beyond us that none of us can know Him.

We've already been over this my man. YOUR god may be so beyond YOU that YOU can't know him/her. But what would you expect of a wimpy, powerless, impotent, can't-even-create-an-Amoeba, is-limited-by-everything, god? Of course you can't know him/her! Heck, even IF you could know that god you wouldn't want to know him/her.

He can't know God any better than the rest of us. It's a level playing field.

Yes, it is a level playing field. We all have access to the Bible. You have Kindle, right? I have access to about 10 English versions on my iPad. Isn't that wonderful? Men and women have shed their blood so that we can have the Bible in our own language. There are, right now as I write this, men and woman in the farthest reaches of earth striving to see that people all over the world have the Bible in their language. Isn't that wonderful?

What can be known is the Bible... But that's just knowing a book, not God 'Him'self.

Wow, you're on a roll! That's two profound revelations in a row! Who here has said that just knowing a book is knowing God Himself? Not Igzy. Not me. You have been reading our posts for years and years, and neither of us have said any such thing and you know it. So what else ya got for us brother Ali? You're running out of pejoratives Muhammad...Bible crazy. Creepy. What's next?

Am I dodgin' and weavin'? "Float like a butterfly. Sting like a bee."

Maybe at one time you have floated like a butterfly....but I think you evolved into the Grinch that stole Christmas

[zeek]

One woman's testimony:

What a few days it's been for people in the church I left! They came out with new policy that denys blessings and membership to children of same-sex parents, until those children are 18 and they have moved out of their parents' home and if they renounce their parents' lifestyle. People are resigning en masse over it--including two of my kids and possibly myself. Resigning from a fundamentalist type religion is no small feat. They wipe you off the records--like when your parents go to tithing settlement and things like that and they see their kids listed, the person who resigned is not there. They tell you you are lost for eternity and you can never go to the "best heaven" and you lose your family forever and stuff like that. I have to say that kind of emotional and spiritual blackmail is very triggering when you've heard it your whole life. I wish I was born a progressive christian instead of in such an all or nothing religion. I feel like it's not fair to go through all this triggering emotional hard stuff just to have the right to be a normal person living a normal life.

Does it sound familiar?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not demanding anything. Merely stating the fact that you haven't backed up your knowledge claims.

In your case, saying I didn't "back up my knowledge claims" is the same thing as demanding proof.

Why would I want to make a case that Jesus is not Son of God? Where did you ever get the idea I would want to do that? You're making me out to be something I'm not. I'm trying to follow Jesus, not deny him.

The context of the discussion was that we can't just believe anything, that there is a certain baseline, the antithesis of which can be called "heresy." Harold doesn't like when people use the word "heresy," which is irrational but, then that's Harold... I was simply using the term as shorthand for not believing what your level of revelation requires you do believe, which in our cases is that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. Just about everyone on this board is accountable for at least that much.

You responded with your post #1570., which didn't bother to ask me what I was talking about, but simply accused me of pronouncing judgement and threats. Why not simply acquiesce to my main point, that, yes, the Bible does have a baseline, which is we need to have the Son to have the Father? That was all I was getting at. But you guys freak out when anyone draws lines (which the Bible clearly does).

Why do you get so defensive? Is it to defend Harold's sensibilities? My only point was that the Bible teaches there is a baseline for required beliefs. You just can't believe anything and expect to be saved. This idea flips Harold out. Why I don't know. He may have some kind of irrational phobia. But he doesn't need you to be his protector. The guy needs Jesus. Stop coddling him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Igzy uses the Bible to make it sound like he knows God better than zeek and Harold.

The issue isn't that I know anything better than you. The issue is that the Bible says that if you don't have the Son you don't have the Father. If you don't know Jesus, you don't know God. Note that I didn't say you have to have heard about Jesus to be saved. The point is if you have heard of him and reject him you cannot be saved nor know God. The Bible is plain on that.

Please stop trying to make this about me. I'm talking about what the Bible says. Address the Bible, not me.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them. John 3:26

I didn't write that. Someone about 2000 years ago did. The questions are, what does it mean and do you agree with it. Let's talk about that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why do you get so defensive? Is it to defend Harold's sensibilities? My only point was that the Bible teaches there is a baseline for required beliefs. You just can't believe anything and expect to be saved. This idea flips Harold out. Why I don't know. He may have some kind of irrational phobia. But he doesn't need you to be his protector. The guy needs Jesus. Stop coddling him.

In order to have an intelligent conversation, I tried to get some definition from Harold on his positions. Since he wouldn't commit to anything, I then tried to summarize his positions based on what he had already posted. He then -- predictably -- shot each of those items down.

Without some basis for communication, there is none to have. Perhaps you are having better success than I. He and zeek just can't bear with the idea that someone could base their positions on the Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In your case, saying I didn't "back up my knowledge claims" is the same thing as demanding proof.



The context of the discussion was that we can't just believe anything, that there is a certain baseline, the antithesis of which can be called "heresy." Harold doesn't like when people use the word "heresy," which is irrational but, then that's Harold... I was simply using the term as shorthand for not believing what your level of revelation requires you do believe, which in our cases is that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. Just about everyone on this board is accountable for at least that much.

You responded with your post #1570., which didn't bother to ask me what I was talking about, but simply accused me of pronouncing judgement and threats. Why not simply acquiesce to my main point, that, yes, the Bible does have a baseline, which is we need to have the Son to have the Father? That was all I was getting at. But you guys freak out when anyone draws lines (which the Bible clearly does).

Why do you get so defensive? Is it to defend Harold's sensibilities? My only point was that the Bible teaches there is a baseline for required beliefs. You just can't believe anything and expect to be saved. This idea flips Harold out. Why I don't know. He may have some kind of irrational phobia. But he doesn't need you to be his protector. The guy needs Jesus. Stop coddling him.

So I'm off the hot seat and this is just your strategy for saving Awareness? Did the Lord put this burden on your heart do ya think? Cuz you're about as subtle as the Spanish Armada. And he seems to be holding his own against your arguments pretty well. Personally you have misread my position to the point where I despair of my ability to communicate. I'm one of two head honcho liberal skeptics dodging and weaving to evade the Hound of Heaven by your reckoning. After my dialogue with you I'm surprised that I can place an order at a restaurant and the waitress get it right.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The issue isn't that I know anything better than you. The issue is that the Bible says that if you don't have the Son you don't have the Father. If you don't know Jesus, you don't know God. Note that I didn't say you have to have heard about Jesus to be saved. The point is if you have heard of him and reject him you cannot be saved nor know God. The Bible is plain on that. . . . Please stop trying to make this about me. I'm talking about what the Bible says. Address the Bible, not me.

Thanks for the response Igzy.

So okay, we've established that you are not claiming to know God better than I do.

And I think you've made clear what you claim the Bible is "plain on." But I think you are wrong. The Bible doesn't make your premise, that you can't know God without Jesus, plain. In fact it's very confusing.

Let me explain why I think so. Because it's plain in the Bible that God comes to whomever He likes. And He, in the Bible, is not as scripted as you let on Him to be. He's God of course. He's not a robot running a Bible program.

The Bible starts out with God coming to men, early on. Not just Adam and Eve, but to Cain, and on down the line from there, too many to list actually. He even came to the pagan king priest, Melchizedek. God comes to pagans? way before Jesus? How's that possible, according to your premise?

And much later on God comes to John the Baptist. Did John not have the Father before and during Baptizing Jesus? How's that possible, according to your premise?

And then even later, after Jesus, the apostle Paul tells the Athenians who the God was that they were worshiping as The Unknown God. He didn't deny The Unknown God as invalid. How's that possible?

But maybe I don't understand what you mean by "have the son." If you mean that everyone that has come to God has somehow come by a eternal mystical Jesus then okay, I can accept that. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be so presumptuous. I'll allow you to explain just what you mean by that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them. John 3:26

So okay, just to be clear, you've also made it plain that all the billions upon billions that have come to God by any other means than Jesus are to suffer God's wrath ... and will not have eternal life. You don't say that, the Bible does, you say.

If this is true then the Bible makes God out to be a big ogre. Why would anybody want such a God? Why would the Bible make God so unattractive? Jesus is drawing all men to that God? What's this say about Jesus, and his death on the cross? Where's the loving God? Is He instead just lifting the giant cosmic shoe? Does God build to smash it down, and create life to make it suffer?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't write that. Someone about 2000 years ago did. The questions are, what does it mean and do you agree with it. Let's talk about that.

I question it bro Igzy? That's all. I don't agree or disagree. I question. But it does seem to me that in the Bible God comes to whomever He likes, whenever He likes, and wherever He likes ... like it or not.

[zeek]

To the Fundamentalist the Bible is the solution to the mystery of life whereas to me it's a portal into the mystery.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In order to have an intelligent conversation, I tried to get some definition from Harold on his positions. Since he wouldn't commit to anything, I then tried to summarize his positions based on what he had already posted. He then -- predictably -- shot each of those items down.

Without some basis for communication, there is none to have. Perhaps you are having better success than I. He and zeek just can't bear with the idea that someone could base their positions on the Bible.

Everyone wants to know The Harold's positions. I personally understand those frustrations.

Every Christian I've befriended since the local church has wanted to know them. But after getting to know The Harold, and The Harold's past, all of them have told The Harold that The Harold was damaged by the local church.

So The Harold is damaged goods, they say.

I remember when it happened. It was after I left. I had taken the day off. The clock radio woke me up with, "Do You Know Where You're Goin' To" by Diana Ross:

Do you know where you're goin' to?
Do you like the things that life is showin' you
Where are you goin' to? Do you know?

Do you get what you're hopin' for
When you look behind you, there's no open doors
What are you hopin' for? Do you know?

It burned into my brain. It sat up in bed asking myself that question. And it came to me. I realized that I didn't know anything about what I had been blindly giving myself to ; the Bible and the whole shebang.

It was the beginning of me losing my positions. The local church damage was that I came out questioning everything.

I've been questioning ever since. And I can't tell you how much my questions bother my brothers in Christ. Questioning is not the Christian way. Christians don't question, they believe.

It's been a long haul, but in short, the result is that I lost all my positions, and don't know where to stand any more.

Does that help ... to understand The Harold?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

To the Fundamentalist the Bible is the solution to the mystery of life whereas to me it's a portal into the mystery.

Fascinating statement zeek. When you get some time could you please elaborate?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Everyone wants to know The Harold's positions. I personally understand those frustrations.

Every Christian I've befriended since the local church has wanted to know them. But after getting to know The Harold, and The Harold's past, all of them have told The Harold that The Harold was damaged by the local church.

So The Harold is damaged goods, they say.

I remember when it happened. It was after I left. I had taken the day off. The clock radio woke me up with, "Do You Know Where You're Goin' To" by Diana Ross:

Do you know where you're goin' to?
Do you like the things that life is showin' you
Where are you goin' to? Do you know?

Do you get what you're hopin' for
When you look behind you, there's no open doors
What are you hopin' for? Do you know?

It burned into my brain. It sat up in bed asking myself that question. And it came to me. I realized that I didn't know anything about what I had been blindly giving myself to ; the Bible and the whole shebang.

It was the beginning of me losing my positions. The local church damage was that I came out questioning everything.

I've been questioning ever since. And I can't tell you how much my questions bother my brothers in Christ. Questioning is not the Christian way. Christians don't question, they believe.

It's been a long haul, but in short, the result is that I lost all my positions, and don't know where to stand any more.

Does that help ... to understand The Harold?

Let me talk about a guy I know real well ... Rob.

Rob has been a Cowboys fan his whole life, though he never lived in Texas. He has never even been to Dallas for a game. He and all his friends are not football "fans" in the normal sense of the word, like rooting for the home team on Sunday afternoons. Actually they are all just haters. That's all they do. Their sport is trash-talkin. They feed on one another's hate. Each of his friends has their own team, none of which identify with the actual city they live in.

Rob is a genuine sports guru with a ready arsenal of hate about everyone else's team. He really knows everything about football. He calls penalties watching the game on TV before the refs even throw the flag. Seriously! He has an incredible memory for details. To Rob, no sports trivia is trivial. He really can answer every question I throw at him. Really amazing!

Rob goes to work every day just to irritate all the local fans. He loves it. Why wait for game day when you can trash-talk your colleagues every day! He once had the whole company upset with him trashing their favorite team. And he has all the facts to prove them wrong. Great fun! And especially when local fan fever really gets revved up! You have never seen a guy get so excited about work on Monday morning during football season. Like I said, he loves sports, and his favorite sport is hatin. And irritatin' the locals.

So that no one can reciprocate, Rob even hates on his own Cowboys. He can tell you all their screwups for the last 20 years, including Leon Lett's Thanksgiving Day blunder which cost them the game.

Rob is to sports what Harold is to religion.

Both are fanatics in their own right. Both know their subjects thoroughly. Both can "win" every argument. Neither of them will ever express excitement about their own team, however. As soon as either of them expresses some conviction about what they root for, then they become vulnerable. So they would never do that. Why should they when it is so much more fun hatin' on everyone else's. Why defend something when it's so much easier to attack others' positions. Why have any convictions, cause then they might have to believe and hope in something besides themselves.

[Cal]

The truth or mystery or whatever comes down to a Person. That person is God. The catch is, if you want to call it a catch, is that Jesus is God. So if you claim to know God you are claiming to know Jesus. And if you claim to know Jesus, you are claiming to know God, because they are one and the same. This is what Jesus meant when he said:

"Have I been with you so long but you still don't know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9

People who claim to know God but reject Jesus as the Son of God really don't know God. Harold said God can come to anyone he wants to. This is true, but (1) just because God comes to someone doesn't necessarily mean that person has or knows God in the personal sense, and (2) if God comes to someone then that means Jesus is coming to them, so a personal relationship with God is a personal relationship with Jesus.

Jesus said "You do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." He was saying that those who are truly his (and God's) recognize his voice. Those who are not truly God's don't recognize Jesus's voice as the voice of God.

A person can have God, but not be clear she also has Jesus. This is the true side of what Harold said. There is a story about missionaries who many years ago went to the third world somewhere (I think a Pacific island) to preach the Gospel. There they met a young woman whom they called "Mimosa." They preached the Gospel to her. She responded that she already knew the God they were talking about, but that she had never heard of Jesus. The more they taught her about Jesus the more she confirmed, that, yes, he was was the God she knew. The Person of Jesus in the Bible matched the God that lived in her heart. She did not reject Jesus, she accepted him, which confirmed that she had God.

However, if someone after learning about Jesus rejects him, then even if he claims to know God, he doesn't. People who do this really want to define God on their own terms, not as he really is. This, again, is how Jesus is a test. He showed us what God is like. And his message was clear. If you don't have Him you don't have God. Note, he didn't say if you never heard of him, but rather if you don't have him.

Jesus was God coming to us to show us what God was really like, and to die and rise for our salvation. You cannot separate God and Jesus. You can theoretically for discussion purposes, but practically you cannot. If you truly have God you have Jesus, and if you truly have Jesus you have God. So if you meet someone who claims to know God and you tell him about Jesus, that person should recognize Jesus as the God he claims to know. If he doesn't, he doesn't really know God.

So when Harold talks about God, he needs to realize he's talking about Jesus. They are one and the same. If he denies that then he really doesn't know either one of them; that is, his friend is not only invisible, he's imaginary.

The path to God always goes through Jesus, whether you realize it or not. If you've found God you've found Jesus, whether you realize it or not. If you reject Jesus you've rejected God, despite what you say to the contrary.

That's the plain message of the Bible.

[OBW]

I still think that this emphasis on "Person" is more "personal" than the scripture actually reveals. It seems to me that as much as we want to imbue God with characteristics compatible with us, it is not as simple as getting to know a person.

Getting to know a person who remains invisible, and is revealed by descriptions in words that are not always crystal-clear is not as "personal" as what we generally use the term to describe. I mean "no one has seen God." Yes, we know that many did see Jesus, who is God. But all we see are the accounts provided by those who saw him. And while God does continue to reveal himself to us in the Spirit, we do not see him with literal eyes. And when we hear some talk about what they see with "spiritual" eyes, we are sometimes very uncertain as to what they are seeing because we just don't see it.

Since He (God, Jesus) does not walk into your room wearing the garb of either turn-of-the-age or modern garb, there is always some uncertainty in what anyone claims as an account of having "met" Jesus. That does not make the claim bogus. But does it make your version (or mine, aron's, awareness', or zeek's) right or wrong, whether or not similar or different?

The answer is that we judge the claims of others based on our own experience. And there's that nefarious term. Experience. Something that could be as concrete as can be, or as uncertain as the notion, emotion, teacher, etc., that caused it to be.

I am not doubting your salvation or even belief system. But I am wondering whether you would approach everyone with this kind of dogged emphasis on things. Or is it just that you have to assume that awareness and zeek are — or at least should know enough to be — insiders and therefore already have the clarity of knowledge to be a certain as you are.

Did you ever consider that the reason that Lee, BP, and others often said that those who leave the LCM became spiritually shipwrecked was not just because they thought everything outside of the LCM was shipwrecked, but that for some, having to come to grips with the realization that such an extreme version of the Christian life and discipleship was wrong makes everything suspect. You can't just argue your way back in from there. It might take a renewed vision. And those are revealed, not argued. (And I am tending to dislike the whole apologetics version of the gospel for that very reason.)

[Cal]

OBW, I'm not sure I understand your objection to what I said. All I said was that if you know God you know Jesus. And if you reject Jesus you've rejected God. Whether we are talking about persons or trees, the meaning is the same. If you think there are two trees but actually there are one, then claiming to know one tree means you know the other.

What else could the Bible mean when it says "if you have the Son you have life, and if you don't have the Son you don't have life." assuming life is God? "Having the Son" means knowing the Son. It doesn't mean having the right teachings about him.

The reason I'm harping on this is because Harold seems to think he can have a relationship with God (have God/know God) without Jesus. The Bible is plain this is not possible. Yes, I suppose God can visit you and speak to you when you are in that position. But the Bible is clear you cannot know God in the sense of having eternal life without knowing Jesus. The way I look at it, the central logic of that is they are actually one and the same.

I'm not sure how this is foreign to the basic Bible message or how it is offensive. There is clearly a danger in thinking you are okay with God while ignoring Jesus. Harold especially seems in danger of this. zeek I'm not so sure about, but he spends more time being specific about what he thinks is wrong with others than he does being specific about his own theology.

The Bible instructs us to defend the truth, because people are in danger of judgment. I could humor alternative religions, and I suppose I've done that in some social settings, not wanting to offend. But this is not the setting to do that. If you can't defend the Gospel here you can't do it anywhere.

I'm not defending transubstantiation, or the Trinity, or the local ground, or any pretender to the faith. I'm defending the bedrock, bottom-line truth of the Bible. That Jesus is the Son of God and that if you reject that you cannot be saved.

If I don't need to defend that then I don't need to defend anything. And if I don't need to defend anything then all this is a meaningless academic exercise--amusing, but ultimately pointless. Might as well just say all roads lead to Heaven. I'd have more friends that way, too.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, I'm not sure I understand your objection to what I said. All I said was that if you know God you know Jesus. And if you reject Jesus you've rejected God. Whether we are talking about persons or trees, the meaning is the same.

I was not picking on the thrust of what you were saying. I was just picking on the edges of the idea of "person" and "personal."

Surely my salvation is personal to me. But I think that there is a tendency in the aspect of the person and it being personal that turns it from love for man to love for me. From whosoever to me.

I note that the emphasis so often, even in the mainstream of evangelicalism, is on personal activities. From significant time spent in Bible studies to my personal quiet time. But it is too often not impacting the rest of the day. Or if it is, it is because they think in an altered version of LCM dogma that it is about turning away from the things that must be done for the day and "turning to God." They see less in God with them and around them and need a fix of God in their mind, typically through some kind of stoppage of the day and "refocus."

While it is true that we can do nothing without Christ, I am wondering whether the emphasis on personal is tied to our misunderstanding of what it is to be "with" and "in" Christ. Paul did say something about praying continually. But Jesus said that the righteous do, not that the righteous pray. The righteous do, not the righteous have better quiet times.

Yet if we find ourselves driving poorly, we don't set our wills to change right now and ask for forgiveness. Instead we request that the personal God come and change us. Too often with slower results. The first response is not "without God." Unless you think you have been abandoned or lost the access to all those things that we were given for life and godliness.

And before your get too far into your dissection of what I am saying, there is a reason that I did not address you personally at the beginning of the previous post. It was not intended to be an challenge to you or what you were saying. It was tied to the word "personal" and was intended as an observation (from what I think I have been seeing lately) that there is something hiding in the popular use of the term "personal" — whether that is what you mean by it or not.

Surely God is personal. He is relational. But his relationship is mostly described in terms of with a people, not just with persons. Our typical use of the word is to reduce it down to me and God. It is unwittingly support for saying that my version of what God said (in the Bible) is the "plain message of the Bible."

Yes, you used that one recently. And I am not looking at it right now. You may have been entirely correct in saying that concerning the things you were talking about. But it is too often used as a mantra over interpretation designed (intentionally or not) to assert that my interpretation is simply the right one and put everyone else on the defensive if they understand it differently. Just like Lee saying that the plain message of the Bible is that Christ because the Holy Spirit. Out of context it may seem that way.

But his reading was personal.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Fascinating statement zeek. When you get some time could you please elaborate?

Thank you Untohim. I've been elaborating on the mystery of God since I came to LCD. To acknowledge that God is a mystery is not to deny revelation. That which is essentially mysterious remains a mystery even when it is revealed. The God who reveals himself through the divine Logos according to John 1:1, is the same God who hides Himself according to Isaiah 45:15. This remains true despite the revelation of God in Christ. If this were not so, the gospel would not still have to be preached for it would be manifest to all. Faith manifests what is hidden to the "just" who is living by it. But, how does one enter this circle of faith? It requires a leap which is a kind of miracle. And a miracle is always a mystery. Any phenomenon that can be explained is not a miracle. So, even the simplest most basic element of Christianity [in the positive sense meaning the quality of that which is genuinely Christian] is a mystery.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Surely God is personal. He is relational. But his relationship is mostly described in terms of with a people, not just with persons. Our typical use of the word is to reduce it down to me and God. It is unwittingly support for saying that my version of what God said (in the Bible) is the "plain message of the Bible."

The part I have placed in bold really rings true with my current understanding of "the central" thrust of the whole Bible. Yes, redemption, salvation and even glorification of our bodies does, at first, have an individual dynamic to be sure. But the individual always leads to the corporate. Adam was created as in individual, yet soon it was "be fruitful and multiply". Abraham was called as an individual, yet soon it was "And I will make of you a great nation". The Law was given to Moses, yet soon it was given to all of the Children of Israel. The disciples were called as individuals (albeit, some in pairs of brothers), but soon they became "the 12 disciples". Finally, the individual members of the local churches become members of the universal "Body of Christ".

How and why this all got so convoluted by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee is a long, long story, and it's the main reason why we are all here today. Amazingly enough, Nee and Lee managed to convolute all the basics (redemption, salvation and glorification), both individual and corporate. They attacked the long held baseline for what was considered orthodox teachings and understandings, and somehow convinced a sizable lot of people that they could simply skip 1900+ years of Church history and bring us all back to genuine, authentic New Testament teaching and practice.

What were we thinking?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me talk about a guy I know real well ... Rob.

Rob has been a Cowboys fan his whole life, though he never lived in Texas. He has never even been to Dallas for a game. He and all his friends are not football "fans" in the normal sense of the word, like rooting for the home team on Sunday afternoons. Actually they are all just haters. That's all they do. Their sport is trash-talkin. They feed on one another's hate. Each of his friends has their own team, none of which identify with the actual city they live in.

Rob is a genuine sports guru with a ready arsenal of hate about everyone else's team. He really knows everything about football. He calls penalties watching the game on TV before the refs even throw the flag. Seriously! He has an incredible memory for details. To Rob, no sports trivia is trivial. He really can answer every question I throw at him. Really amazing!

Rob goes to work every day just to irritate all the local fans. He loves it. Why wait for game day when you can trash-talk your colleagues every day! He once had the whole company upset with him trashing their favorite team. And he has all the facts to prove them wrong. Great fun! And especially when local fan fever really gets revved up! You have never seen a guy get so excited about work on Monday morning during football season. Like I said, he loves sports, and his favorite sport is hatin. And irritatin' the locals.

So that no one can reciprocate, Rob even hates on his own Cowboys. He can tell you all their screwups for the last 20 years, including Leon Lett's Thanksgiving Day blunder which cost them the game.

Rob is to sports what Harold is to religion.

Both are fanatics in their own right. Both know their subjects thoroughly. Both can "win" every argument. Neither of them will ever express excitement about their own team, however. As soon as either of them expresses some conviction about what they root for, then they become vulnerable. So they would never do that. Why should they when it is so much more fun hatin' on everyone else's. Why defend something when it's so much easier to attack others' positions. Why have any convictions, cause then they might have to believe and hope in something besides themselves.

I hate Rob ....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The part I have placed in bold really rings true with my current understanding of "the central" thrust of the whole Bible. Yes, redemption, salvation and even glorification of our bodies does, at first, have an individual dynamic to be sure. But the individual always leads to the corporate. Adam was created as in individual, yet soon it was "be fruitful and multiply". Abraham was called as an individual, yet soon it was "And I will make of you a great nation". The Law was given to Moses, yet soon it was given to all of the Children of Israel. The disciples were called as individuals (albeit, some in pairs of brothers), but soon they became "the 12 disciples". Finally, the individual members of the local churches become members of the universal "Body of Christ".

How and why this all got so convoluted by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee is a long, long story, and it's the main reason why we are all here today. Amazingly enough, Nee and Lee managed to convolute all the basics (redemption, salvation and glorification), both individual and corporate. They attacked the long held baseline for what was considered orthodox teachings and understandings, and somehow convinced a sizable lot of people that they could simply skip 1900+ years of Church history and bring us all back to genuine, authentic New Testament teaching and practice.

What were we thinking?

Good post Untohim. But I should point out that you've just contrived the same thing as Nee and Lee but on a much grander and broader scale; you now include all Christians in the universal body of Christ.

I tend to favor inclusivity ... over Nee's and Lee's convoluted narrowness and exclusivity.

But since Nee and Lee I'm not convinced we've worked it out any better. Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell. Maybe more time than we've got. Unless we've got eternity.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But his reading was personal.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But the individual always leads to the corporate. Adam was created as in individual, yet soon it was "be fruitful and multiply".

OBW, I think you are basically asking "is there a good selfishness"?

I think there is, but as you imply our current fallen condition is fraught with opportunities to indulge in "bad selfishness."

The Bible talks about "finding our souls." It also mentions that God will give us a new name that no one knows but us and him. Jesus died for the church. He also died for each of us. Jesus is the Good Shepherd of the flock. Yet he is willing to leave the flock to rescue one lost lamb. This seems to imply that not only group identify, but both healthy relationships with ourselves and one-on-one relationships between us and God are also intended for us.

The way I look at it is everything comes down to relationships: with each of us and God, with each other, and even with ourselves. The Trinity models an ideal instance of a group of individuals. Neither individual trumps the others. Each is fully realized, but the group is not compromised. Somehow the group and the individuals are all fully realized. This is something I believe God will bring us all into, where each of us fully find our souls, yet are fully part of the group. Fallen people never quite reach that. Either the individuals are overly selfish and the group suffers, or they are mashed into a group identity and lose something of themselves they shouldn't.

So I think there is nothing wrong with seeking a personal relationship with God for its own sake. Of course, it will affect our relationship with ourselves, which will feed into our relationship with others. But loving God means obeying his commandments, which in some cases means, as you said, just deciding to do better. But sometimes deciding to do better is just striving. It all depends.

Witness Lee (China) overemphasized the group. Harold (USA) overemphasizes the individual. Where's the balance? Heck if I know. But I do believe that each will be fully realized and fully integrated someday.

[awareness]

Concerning Ohio's friend Rob:

Of course I don't know Rob from Adam's cat. All I know about him is what bro Ohio tells, and he calls him a hater. But from what I can tell Rob is having a good time making fun of sports fanatics.

So if I take a wild stab at what made Rob the way that he is I'd say he's suffering some kind of PTCS (Post Traumatic Church Syndrome), and he's taking it out on sports fanatics because they look like the religious fanatics that he grew up in.

And if that's the case bro Ohio is right, Rob and I are alike; accept I'm not into sports. Unlike Rob, and to y'all's dismay, I'm still religious. And this is a big one: I'm not a hater ... of people that is.

Which brings me to Igzy. I love 'im. But that aside:

I'm very please that bro Igzy and I have come to some sort of understanding. I said:

"But maybe I don't understand what you mean by "have the son." If you mean that everyone that has come to God has somehow come by a eternal mystical Jesus then okay, I can accept that."

Igzy said:

"if God comes to someone then that means Jesus is coming to them ..."

And to this I say a big AMEN! What I think is irking bro Igzy is that he thinks that I think that a Buddhist meditating in a cave in the Himalaya mountains can come to God without Jesus. But I don't. As I see it it doesn't work that way. As I see it, in the Bible, it is always God that does the coming. And yes I give God the liberty to come to whomever he wants, whenever He wants, and wherever He wants. Moreover, and Igzy should be pleased, I have no problem accepting that wherever God comes, to whomever, it is Jesus that's coming. And that, if and when it ever happens, that a Buddhist comes to God, is the only way it can happens; when God comes, Jesus comes.

Next up: God is a Person.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Which brings me to Igzy. I love 'im. But that aside:

I'm very please that bro Igzy and I have come to some sort of understanding. I said:

"But maybe I don't understand what you mean by "have the son." If you mean that everyone that has come to God has somehow come by a eternal mystical Jesus then okay, I can accept that."

Igzy said:

"if God comes to someone then that means Jesus is coming to them ..."

And to this I say a big AMEN! What I think is irking bro Igzy is that he thinks that I think that a Buddhist meditating in a cave in the Himalaya mountains can come to God without Jesus. But I don't. As I see it it doesn't work that way. As I see it, in the Bible, it is always God that does the coming. And yes I give God the liberty to come to whomever he wants, whenever He wants, and wherever He wants. Moreover, and Igzy should be pleased, I have no problem accepting that wherever God comes, to whomever, it is Jesus that's coming. And that, if and when it ever happens, that a Buddhist comes to God, is the only way it can happens; when God comes, Jesus comes.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

To the Fundamentalist the Bible is the solution to the mystery of life whereas to me it's a portal into the mystery.

For the sake of argument here, I will reluctantly take the label of "fundamentalist".

The Bible is no more (or no less) a "solution to the mystery of life" to me than oxygen is a solution to my breathing, or water is a solution to my hydration. Before I can preform any other basic function, even or especially, the "spiritual" functions, such as liking or disliking, loving or hating, I must first breath oxygen and drink water. As always (as a Christian fundamentalist.) I will refer to one of the most cogent statements of Jesus Christ "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.(John 6:63) To Christians, "the words" that Jesus spoke of here of are the Words of God - the Holy Scriptures. Coming around full-circle to what I first said, you will recall that Jesus likened the Spirit to "the air" (aka oxygen) and The Scriptures, (aka "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God") to the most basic of foodstuffs, bread.

I may be misunderstanding (UntoHim misunderstand...no way!) what you mean by "a portal" and even "the mystery", but it seems to be you are skipping past addition and subtraction and trying to go straight to geometry and calculus. I do understand, and appreciate, the fact that we are both talking about "mathematics", but I don't understand how you think that you can skip (or ignore, as it were) the basics and go straight to the advanced. This is how I see what you are doing in your statement I have quoted at the top. We all must use externals to understand and comprehend the spiritual. I use the Bible, the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures. It seems to me you are using SOME PARTS of the Bible and some parts of other externals. Please explain.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It seems to me you are using SOME PARTS of the Bible and some parts of other externals

No one uses the whole Bible. We can't get at it all. That's why it too is a mystery.

We demystify it by taking parts of it, or by doing what Lee did with his Economy of God.

The mystery requires faith. The more we explain the less faith is required. Some believers have it so worked out they don't need any faith ... and miss out on loving God by embracing the mystery.

Taste and see. The mystery is good.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

To the Fundamentalist the Bible is the solution to the mystery of life whereas to me it's a portal into the mystery.

I don't see the need to choose here. For me the Bible is both, a portal into the divine and heavenly mystery, while it also helps to provide definition along the way.

Along the same lines, the Bible is neither an end all to the mystery, nor should we continue our searching without ever finding definite assurances and shaping our convictions.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

No one uses the whole Bible. We can't get at it all. That's why it too is a mystery.

Silly rabbit, of course no one uses the whole Bible....not all at one time! For history we use the history part, for wisdom we use the "wisdom books", for the Gospel we use the Gospels, etc. Not quite as mysterious as you think my friend.

Jesus Christ is "the exact representation of his being" (Heb 1:3 NIV). The Greek word used here is χαρακτήρ charaktḗr, khar-ak-tare'; a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving ("character"), the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or representation):—express image. (from BlueLetterBible.Org)

Yes, in the Old Testament (and presumably pre O.T.) there were lots of shadows, types, allusions, etc that one could say created a lot of mystery about God, his nature, character, etc, but the apostle John, along with many others, were witness that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands concerning the Word of life" For 2,000 years we have been left with the witness of these men, and their testimony has been recorded for us in the canon of the New Testament.

I'm very sorry that you, and so many others over these past 2000 years, have chosen to listen more to the naysayers, doubters and detractors than the witnesses of the earliest apostles and disciples. So it is no mystery to me that you feel that God is such a mystery to you. You should not worry so much or be so perplexed about such mysteries being revealed. The God of the Universe is still, and always will be, inexhaustible! The apostle Paul, a man of great wisdom and the greatest pioneer and explorer of the mysterious of God, threw up his hands and proclaimed "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Rom 11:33)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Silly rabbit, of course no one uses the whole Bible....not all at one time! For history we use the history part, for wisdom we use the "wisdom books", for the Gospel we use the Gospels, etc. Not quite as mysterious as you think my friend.

Jesus Christ is "the exact representation of his being" (Heb 1:3 NIV). The Greek word used here is χαρακτήρ charaktḗr, khar-ak-tare'; a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving ("character"), the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or representation):—express image. (from BlueLetterBible.Org)

Yes, in the Old Testament (and presumably pre O.T.) there were lots of shadows, types, allusions, etc that one could say created a lot of mystery about God, his nature, character, etc, but the apostle John, along with many others, were witness that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands concerning the Word of life" For 2,000 years we have been left with the witness of these men, and their testimony has been recorded for us in the canon of the New Testament.

I'm very sorry that you, and so many others over these past 2000 years, have chosen to listen more to the naysayers, doubters and detractors than the witnesses of the earliest apostles and disciples. So it is no mystery to me that you feel that God is such a mystery to you. You should not worry so much or be so perplexed about such mysteries being revealed. The God of the Universe is still, and always will be, inexhaustible! The apostle Paul, a man of great wisdom and the greatest pioneer and explorer of the mysterious of God, threw up his hands and proclaimed "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Rom 11:33)

Jesus Christ is a graven image?

Great post Untohim.

Yes the opening chapter of Hebrews attempts to explain grand mysteries with bold and grand annunciations and proclamations.

And I say WOW! I'm slain with those mysteries, like I'm slain by theoretical physics explanation of the Big Bang events as it unfolded.

And that's because both are packed full of mysteries. Just read the first chapter of Hebrews. Okay Jesus is the exact imprint of God. If that's not a mystery then what is?

It's like saying that the whole universe Planck seconds after the Big Band was all packed into something smaller than an atom. That's all of God packed into Jesus.

And if that doesn't strike you as a grand mystery then you are absent of imagination.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's like saying that the whole universe Planck seconds after the Big Band was all packed into something smaller than an atom. That's all of God packed into Jesus.

And if that doesn't strike you as a grand mystery then you are absent of imagination.

Ahh shucks!

If I reject the Big Bang Theory, then I am absent of imagination!

Is there no hope for a guy like me?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ahh shucks!

If I reject the Big Bang Theory, then I am absent of imagination!

Is there no hope for a guy like me?

No! No! Not the big bang, and how the universe once was smaller than an atom. No, no. I was talking about, tho maybe not well, that imagination is required to picture Jesus actually being God. And I know your imagination has no problem with that ... right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

No! No! Not the big bang, and how the universe once was smaller than an atom. No, no. I was talking about, tho maybe not well, that imagination is required to picture Jesus actually being God. And I know your imagination has no problem with that ... right?

Jesus being actually God?

I knew that was true long before I actually believed in Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus being actually God?

I knew that was true long before I actually believed in Him.

How did you know that before believing in Him? Typically people that don't believe in Him don't care enough to know such things, unless told that as growing up. In which case it's only knowing by indoctrination. And that way is not trustworthy in the least ... IMHO.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

How did you know that before believing in Him? Typically people that don't believe in Him don't care enough to know such things, unless told that as growing up. In which case it's only knowing by indoctrination. And that way is not trustworthy in the least ... IMHO.

That may be your "humble opinion," but I disagree. I always knew that God was real, that He was my creator, and that He would judge me when I died. I knew that from my youth. I was never "indoctrinated" with these facts. I also knew that Jesus was God, and He died for my sins. I learned these growing up, and I believed them, but I never knew God personally until I was in college. The whole world knows about Jesus, and no indoctrination is needed for that.

Since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. -- Romans 1.19-20

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun. -- Psalms 19.1-4

These verses, and many more, make it clear that creation speaks the existence of God into our hearts. Faith, real faith, came much later to me, and then I "knew God" as promised in the New Covenant, instituted the night He was betrayed.

Unfortunately, the more people "study" about God, the more they "unlearn" what they knew as a child. Children automatically know that God created them, and will one day judge them. It takes vast amounts of indoctrination to make children unlearn God. As proof of this, checkout any liberal institution of "higher" learning.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree. I always knew that God was real, that He was my creator, and that He would judge me when I died.

Well I think you are some kind of a lucky dog of sorts. Seems to me like you were specially blessed. Not everyone always knew that God was real. In fact, I don't know for a fact -- but I know -- that that is not all that common.

So I say AMEN bro Ohio! God selected you young, and vouchsafed this knowing to you. That's way kool. That must be why you're so different ... or stand out ... er som'pen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well I think you are some kind of a lucky dog of sorts. Seems to me like you were specially blessed. Not everyone always knew that God was real. In fact, I don't know for a fact -- but I know -- that that is not all that common.

So I say AMEN bro Ohio! God selected you young, and vouchsafed this knowing to you. That's way kool. That must be why you're so different ... or stand out ... er som'pen.

Not any more specially blessed than you.

Think about how much more simple faith you had as a child.

It is my observation that it takes far more "indoctrination" to produce an atheist than it does a believer. Most need a college degree to accomplish that.

I always bemoaned the fact that I could not read literature or novels, and thus ended up in engineering which focuses on problem solving rather than reading. Today I am thankful!

[zeek]

More evidence that ISIS is Islamic fundamentalist sect with literalist apocalyptic interpretation of Koran http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-wants/384980/

[zeek]

"The Christianity of the New Testament does not exist at all. Here there is nothing to reform; it is a matter of throwing light on a Christian crime continued over the centuries and practiced by millions (more or less guilty), a crime whereby little by little, in the name of the perfecting of Christianity, a sagacious attempt has been made to trick God out of Christianity and Christianity has been turned into exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament."

Soren Kierkegaard wrote that over 160 years ago. Is the situation any better today?

[OBW]

The Christianity of the New Testament does not exist at all. Here there is nothing to reform; it is a matter of throwing light on a Christian crime continued over the centuries and practiced by millions (more or less guilty), a crime whereby little by little, in the name of the perfecting of Christianity, a sagacious attempt has been made to trick God out of Christianity and Christianity has been turned into exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament.

Originally Posted by zeek

Soren Kierkegaard wrote that over 160 years ago. Is the situation any better today?

Hard to say. The first thing that needs to be answered is whether the original quote is anything more than the opinion of someone who just didn't like Christianity.

What makes Kierkegaard's version of New Testament Christianity any more accurate than that of anyone else claiming that their version (or no version) rightly qualifies. For example, why is his version any more correct than Witness Lee's?

In other words, just because Kierkegaard said it does not make it true. Without something approaching evidence, it is little more than an opinion (and an old statement by someone that wrote enough that lasted long enough to be quoted).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Hard to say. The first thing that needs to be answered is whether the original quote is anything more than the opinion of someone who just didn't like Christianity.

What makes Kierkegaard's version of New Testament Christianity any more accurate than that of anyone else claiming that their version (or no version) rightly qualifies. For example, why is his version any more correct than Witness Lee's?

In other words, just because Kierkegaard said it does not make it true. Without something approaching evidence, it is little more than an opinion (and an old statement by someone that wrote enough that lasted long enough to be quoted).

Well is there any version of Christianity today that's up to par with New Testament Christianity? Lee claimed that it could be recovered.

But Lee didn't have anything like the Pentecost. Without that we can't be like New Testament Christianity.

New Testament Christianity was driven by a powerful out pouring and movement of God's Spirit. So concerning NT Christianity do we have that today? If not, Christianity is pathetic by comparison ... and nothing but a pantomime.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well is there any version of Christianity today that's up to par with New Testament Christianity? Lee claimed that it could be recovered.
.

What is NT Christianity? I find no two churches alike. The early church in Jerusalem was nothing like the later church in Jerusalem.

The question belies an obsession with some ideal -- the perfect church -- only found in the beginning.

I have read in church history of many churches which were as "good or better" than what I have read about in the Bible.

[OBW]

Ohio has it right. The NT church is the church of extremes. The first apostles and those that never heard of Yahweh before. Those of the promised seed and Gentiles. Some mostly one or the other. Some very mixed. Each facing both physical and spiritual/mental impediments to their participation. Each having a different background to rise above. And that continues to this day. If we were simply the cookie-cutter churches that Lee wanted, it would be nothing like the NT.

But the church as it is found today is very much like the church of the NT in the sense that it is constantly battling both outside forces and inside forces. And the inside forces are among the worst. We pray to God concerning the outside forces, but turn on each other as the result of those inside. One of the more famous occurrences is in 1 Corinthians. Another would be the split of Protestantism from the RCC. It is true that our internal history is poor. But without justifying it, it has been so from the beginning. It is in overcoming this that we change the view of the Kierkegaard's of the world.

And it is worth noting that no matter how much the bulk of Christianity is not like what Kierkegaard scorned, those who don't want to see that will focus on what is still not up to snuff (in their opinion).

[Ohio]

Some guy named Kierkegaard said the following in zeek's post ...

"The Christianity of the New Testament does not exist at all. Here there is nothing to reform; it is a matter of throwing light on a Christian crime continued over the centuries and practiced by millions (more or less guilty), a crime whereby little by little, in the name of the perfecting of Christianity, a sagacious attempt has been made to trick God out of Christianity and Christianity has been turned into exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament."

It reminded me of a few surprising comments which the Lord spoke to His disciples after getting an earful from the Pharisees ...

Mark 7.20-23 -- "And Jesus said, that which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed ... an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness; all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.

Concerning "an evil eye," the question to us is simple: What do you see?

When you see Jesus, when you see the church, when you see the Bible, when you look at the children of God throughout the millennia, what do you see? I think this is an incredibly important question in the context of this sub-forum. An "evil eye" only sees what it wants to see, and has absolutely nothing good to say about God, His word, His people, or their impact on this world. An "evil eye" only sees the faults, flaws, failings, and foolishness of the church.

Guys like Kierkegaard populate all of history, and now their writings abound on the internet. I can't say they don't have their supporting evidence, but unfortunately the Lord has told us that what proceeds out of their hearts defiles them. How sad, since they may never find that out until judgment day. It's a warning to us all. How do we see things?

One message I have always had since I began writing on this forum, is the danger we face going too far in our critiques. Witness Lee and his colleagues have hurt people, including us, so we must point that out to others, shout it from the rooftops if you will, in order to protect them. But some have gone so far as to throw out, not only Lee and the LCM, but also all Christians, all scripture, and even Jesus, our Creator and Savior. That is doubly sad.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some guy named Kierkegaard said the following in zeek's post ...

It reminded me of a few surprising comments which the Lord spoke to His disciples after getting an earful from the Pharisees ...


Concerning "an evil eye," the question to us is simple: What do you see?

When you see Jesus, when you see the church, when you see the Bible, when you look at the children of God throughout the millennia, what do you see? I think this is an incredibly important question in the context of this sub-forum. An "evil eye" only sees what it wants to see, and has absolutely nothing good to say about God, His word, His people, or their impact on this world. An "evil eye" only sees the faults, flaws, failings, and foolishness of the church.

Guys like Kierkegaard populate all of history, and now their writings abound on the internet. I can't say they don't have their supporting evidence, but unfortunately the Lord has told us that what proceeds out of their hearts defiles them. How sad, since they may never find that out until judgment day. It's a warning to us all. How do we see things?

One message I have always had since I began writing on this forum, is the danger we face going too far in our critiques. Witness Lee and his colleagues have hurt people, including us, so we must point that out to others, shout it from the rooftops if you will, in order to protect them. But some have gone so far as to throw out, not only Lee and the LCM, but also all Christians, all scripture, and even Jesus, our Creator and Savior. That is doubly sad.

According to the accounts I've read Kierkegaard was a devout Christian who is still inspiring Christians today. A person who projects evil on others based on ignorance might be said to have an evil eye. But, there's no one like that around here.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Hard to say. The first thing that needs to be answered is whether the original quote is anything more than the opinion of someone who just didn't like Christianity.

What makes Kierkegaard's version of New Testament Christianity any more accurate than that of anyone else claiming that their version (or no version) rightly qualifies. For example, why is his version any more correct than Witness Lee's?

In other words, just because Kierkegaard said it does not make it true. Without something approaching evidence, it is little more than an opinion (and an old statement by someone that wrote enough that lasted long enough to be quoted).

Kierkegaard cited as an example of what "is present everywhere in the Christianity of the New Testament :When Christianity requires for saving one's life eternally...hating one's own life in this world..." He asked"is there a single one of us whose life even in the remotest can be called even the weakest striving in this direction? " He concluded that, "If God by grace nonetheless is to assume us to be Christians, one thing still must be required, that we, by being scrupulously aware of the requirement, have a true conception of how infinitely great is the grace that is shown us."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the accounts I've read Kierkegaard was a devout Christian who is still inspiring Christians today. A person who projects evil on others based on ignorance might be said to have an evil eye. But, there's no one like that around here.

"Kierkegaard is widely considered to be the first existentialist philosopher."

This thread, however, though titled "fundamentalism," is actually "anti-fundamentalism."

Obviously existentialism is your baby, and Kierkegaard is your godfather, so why don't you start a new thread for it. Then I'll be able to stay out of your way.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Kierkegaard cited as an example of what "is present everywhere in the Christianity of the New Testament :When Christianity requires for saving one's life eternally...hating one's own life in this world..." He asked"is there a single one of us whose life even in the remotest can be called even the weakest striving in this direction? " He concluded that, "If God by grace nonetheless is to assume us to be Christians, one thing still must be required, that we, by being scrupulously aware of the requirement, have a true conception of how infinitely great is the grace that is shown us."

This statement does not seem to be consistent with the one you quoted earlier. It makes me wonder whether there is some context missing with respect to the first quote. Whether the quote is part of a larger passage in which either the nature of the church in the first century is deemed irrelevant, or the point of focus is other than what it appears when provided without context.

Otherwise, it would be an unlikely statement from a "devout Christian." Something does not connect.

Oh, I'm sure that he did not simply dismiss the nature of the NT church. But if he thought it was of utmost importance and it did not seem to exist, then I would expect . . . well, something less than a devout Christian.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Kierkegaard

"The Christianity of the New Testament does not exist at all. Here there is nothing to reform; it is a matter of throwing light on a Christian crime continued over the centuries and practiced by millions (more or less guilty), a crime whereby little by little, in the name of the perfecting of Christianity, a sagacious attempt has been made to trick God out of Christianity and Christianity has been turned into exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament."

Originally Posted by zeek

Soren Kierkegaard wrote that over 160 years ago. Is the situation any better today?

Actually, I think the situation is much better today. I think Kierkegaard was dealing with the "State church" of his day, which he no doubt considered the fundamentalist of his time. Unless any of us are familiar with mid-19th century Danish Christianity, I don't think we are in a position to challenge Kierkegaards observations. Nevertheless, I think his "turned into exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament" may have been a bit too harsh.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Kierkegaard is widely considered to be the first existentialist philosopher."

This thread, however, though titled "fundamentalism," is actually "anti-fundamentalism."

Obviously existentialism is your baby, and Kierkegaard is your godfather, so why don't you start a new thread for it. Then I'll be able to stay out of your way.

My own purpose for this thread from the beginning has been to discuss Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism claims to hold to New Testament Christianity. Kierkegaard stated that during his time New Testament Christianity did not exist. Surely even you who thanks God for your literary ignorance can appreciate the relevance of his statement here.

You stated

"I have read in church history of many churches which were as "good or better" than what I have read about in the Bible."

Is the church of which you are now a member one of those that are as good or better than the best NT churches in your opinion? By what criteria?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

This statement does not seem to be consistent with the one you quoted earlier. It makes me wonder whether there is some context missing with respect to the first quote. Whether the quote is part of a larger passage in which either the nature of the church in the first century is deemed irrelevant, or the point of focus is other than what it appears when provided without context.

Otherwise, it would be an unlikely statement from a "devout Christian." Something does not connect.

Oh, I'm sure that he did not simply dismiss the nature of the NT church. But if he thought it was of utmost importance and it did not seem to exist, then I would expect . . . well, something less than a devout Christian.

Kierkegaard wrote voluminously. His works are all easily available to anyone who wants to read them. The two quotes I cited are both in the Faedrelandet Articles which i have in The Essential Kierkegaard from Princeton University Press. I think from the two quotes I cited it is obvious that he was criticizing the "Christians" of his day [including himself] for their lack of seriousness regarding the teachings of Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually, I think the situation is much better today. I think Kierkegaard was dealing with the "State church" of his day, which he no doubt considered the fundamentalist of his time. Unless any of us are familiar with mid-19th century Danish Christianity, I don't think we are in a position to challenge Kierkegaards observations. Nevertheless, I think his "turned into exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament" may have been a bit too harsh.

I think you're right that Kierkegaard was dealing with the state church. But, please show me how the situation is better today. Where are the Christians who have enough faith to abandon their guns, "resist not evil", love their enemies and follow Jesus to the cross?

[awareness]

Because I think it's being misapplied I'd like to address the "evil-eye."

Looking at the Greek and using Strong's I get:

πονηρός
ponēros
pon-ay-ros'
From a derivative of G4192; hurtful, that is, evil (properly in effect or influence, and thus differing from G2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from G4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively calamitous; also (passively) ill, that is, diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, that is, derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners: - bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked (-ness).

So it appears that an evil eye is not seeing the negative, but as an eye looking to do harm or evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're right that Kierkegaard was dealing with the state church. But, please show me how the situation is better today. Where are the Christians who have enough faith to abandon their guns, "resist not evil", love their enemies and follow Jesus to the cross?

Are you serious? You really want to meet Christians who have no guns?

No? I didn't think so.

Just more negative stereotypes about Christians.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious? You really want to meet Christians who have no guns?

No? I didn't think so.

Once again you speak where you don't know what you are talking about. I've come to expect that from you Ohio.

Just more negative stereotypes about Christians.

It only takes one black swan to disprove the proposition that all swans are white. Show me your black swan, Ohio. Perhaps you are alluding to yourself as representative of that Christianity Kierkegaard and I were seeking and out of Christian humility you are obliged not to say so. If that's the case, I can understand your dilemma, though I confess it's not my own. But, one hopes that there are many true followers of Jesus toiling away in obscurity, unsung saints who, out of the media spotlight are letting the divine light of God shine through them. Oh I forgot, I have an evil eye, what was I doing hoping for a thing like that.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're right that Kierkegaard was dealing with the state church. But, please show me how the situation is better today. Where are the Christians who have enough faith to abandon their guns, "resist not evil", love their enemies and follow Jesus to the cross?

Again, I don't think either one of us are in a position to be comparing and contrasting today's Christianity with that of mid-19th century Danish State Church. And your "faith to abandon their guns" blast doesn't add anymore to our conversation than Obama's "clinging to religion or guns" insult did to foster understanding back in the day. Surely you understand the issues surrounding the "current situation" of the world's largest religion are more involved than the right to hold firearms, right?

Let me just quickly point out one objective proof that the situation among protestant American Christianity is better, and it involves the integrity of the leadership. Just in the past couple of years, three megachurch leaders/founders have been removed from their positions for immoral and/or unbiblical activity. Bob Coy at Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale, Mark Dricoll of Mars Hill Seattle (also removed from board of Acts 29) and Tullian Tchividjian of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale. Although all these downfalls caused a huge black eye for evangelicals, and even worse for the Name and cause of Christ, if these men were left in their respective positions, the situation would have eventually grown much worse and more damage would have ensued. I would contend that, even just 15 or 20 years ago, these situations would have been covered up, but because the Church has grown deeper into the message and meaning of the Gospel, they were exposed and removed from office.

This is just one aspect of how the situation is better today. I have much more to say in this regard but it will have to wait.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Once again you speak where you don't know what you are talking about. I've come to expect that from you Ohio.

It only takes one black swan to disprove the proposition that all swans are white. Show me your black swan.

Can you please think before you post. This makes no sense.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you please think before you post. This makes no sense.

Let me rephrase for you. If what I offered was a stereotype like you claimed, it should be easy for you to produce counterfactual evidence. You know, like UntoHim just tried to do and failed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Kierkegaard wrote voluminously. His works are all easily available to anyone who wants to read them. The two quotes I cited are both in the Faedrelandet Articles which i have in The Essential Kierkegaard from Princeton University Press. I think from the two quotes I cited it is obvious that he was criticizing the "Christians" of his day [including himself] for their lack of seriousness regarding the teachings of Jesus.

And that would be easy in almost any generation.

The problem with making reference to the NT Christian or Christianity is that from the very beginning there is evidence of the very things that there was ample reason to criticize the Christians of that day (at least a lot of them). Paul surely did.

And another problem with NT Christianity is that it tends to be a vague reference to whatever the reader wants to read into it rather than a definitive yardstick of measure.

So the it would seem that the problem is not really with what he was trying to get at in his statements, but rather the lack of clarity in the thing that he tried to point to. Or maybe he was indirectly saying the same thing I am and criticizing those who claimed a link to NT Christianity (whatever that is).

[UntoHim]

zeek, did someone by chance slip some hot sauce in your herbal tea this afternoon? Alternative views doesn't mean alternative to being civil. You've started a good line of conversation with this Kierkegaard quote. Let's keep your personal politics out and try to stir clear of ad hominems.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that would be easy in almost any generation.

The problem with making reference to the NT Christian or Christianity is that from the very beginning there is evidence of the very things that there was ample reason to criticize the Christians of that day (at least a lot of them). Paul surely did.

And another problem with NT Christianity is that it tends to be a vague reference to whatever the reader wants to read into it rather than a definitive yardstick of measure.

So the it would seem that the problem is not really with what he was trying to get at in his statements, but rather the lack of clarity in the thing that he tried to point to. Or maybe he was indirectly saying the same thing I am and criticizing those who claimed a link to NT Christianity (whatever that is).

Aren't the life and teachings of Jesus the New Testament standard? Is there a lack of clarity in Jesus as the Christ? Is the standard is so high that no one but Jesus lives it? If so, where is the problem? Surely not with God! Anyway, if we aren't living up to the standard and we know of none who are, we should at least be honest and admit it. That's all I'm looking for--a little honesty.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

zeek, did someone by chance slip some hot sauce in your herbal tea this afternoon? Alternative views doesn't mean alternative to being civil. You've started a good line of conversation with this Kierkegaard quote. Let's keep your personal politics out and try to stir clear of ad hominems.

If you re-read a previous reply to Ohio, you will see that I have scrubbed for ad homs. But, I don't see you censoring your politics. And that's understandable. Our politics seem to follow from our religion, so trying to discuss religion without revealing something of our politics is like trying to box with one arm tied.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious? You really want to meet Christians who have no guns?

No? I didn't think so.

Just more negative stereotypes about Christians.

“Fellow Christians who are serious about their faith” should “think about getting a handgun permit.” - Lt. Gov. Tennessee Ron Ramsey on Facebook

He included a link to a state government Web site instructing residents on how they can acquire such a permit.

After reading this a few weeks ago I was considering going to churches around here with a gun on my hip. Wouldn't they freak out? Wouldn't they think I'm coming to gun them down?

Would true Christian's pack guns? "let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one,"
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Fundamentalists, believing these are the very inerrant words of God, spoken by Jesus, could very well interpret this as meaning true Christians would own guns, and belong to the NRA.

I think Kierkegaard missed this in his judgement of what Christianity should be. He was perchance thinking only of the loving Jesus, not the one bringing a sword.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

[COLOR="DarkRed"] "let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one,"
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Fundamentalists, believing these are the very inerrant words of God, spoken by Jesus, could very well interpret this as meaning true Christians would own guns, and belong to the NRA.

I think Kierkegaard missed this in his judgement of what Christianity should be. He was perchance thinking only of the loving Jesus, not the one bringing a sword.

The preponderance of Christ's teaching is unambiguously anti-violence. Consider the following:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

When one of Christ's disciples mistakenly took his statement: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." [Matthew 10:34] literally Jesus told him: "Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

[Ohio]

awareness, how can you support zeek and be critical of my views, when it is you who have the guns, and not me.

Liberal verbiage gone awry! Take a look at France. No one has guns but the terrorists!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, how can you support zeek and be critical of my views, when it is you who have the guns, and not me.

Liberal verbiage gone awry! Take a look at France. No one has guns but the terrorists!

Am I supporting zeek? I didn't intend to. Zeek is like Kierkegaard. He seeks the perfect Christian, according the the clear teachings of Jesus, so called.

While I'm quoting Jesus saying that he's bringing the sword. That will prolly cause bro zeek to rent his garment in anger & anxiety. Zeek wants the peaceful and loving, lay down your life for the world, kind of Jesus. According to zeek (I'm putting words into his mouth) if we want to be true Christians, we should follow Jesus' teaching and "resist not evil." That would mean we shouldn't resist ISIS. We should love our enemy ... and give 'em a hug, just before they cut our heads off. That's what Jesus did.

Truth is, I don't know just who I'm supporting. I see Kierkegaard as a fundamentalist of his day. And you know how I feel about fundamentalism (of any kind).

Truth is, again, I don't know what I'm talking about. So if I offended you bro Ohio, or slighted you in any way, I truly apologize.

Gosh! I love both you guys, and you both know it. And I'd like to see you two love each other. We're no longer in the local church and so we don't all have to be the same. Maybe Kierkegaard's Christianity is that. That we love one another even when we differ. You know, like we do family members???

And yes I have guns. Three of them. Two 12 guages, and one 9m. I use to have more, but gave them to my son. I inherited all my guns, except the 9m. And I bought that cuz my wife's boyfriend, that's right up the road, was gunning for me. He likes to go out back in our woods shooting his guns. I answer back by shooting mine in my back yard. I'll fire off 15 rounds in the ground as fast as a automatic. I do that precisely to keep from ever being in a situation where I'm forced to decide to kill someone, in this case my wife's boyfriend (that I admit to having fantasies, that I couldn't shake out of my head, of going up the road a blowing both of their heads off). So far it's been working (knock on wood). But I had an experience where it felt like Jesus came to me and said "forgive them." Then I shook those evil fantasies. Thank you Lord ... I guess. Even Confucius had sense enough to point out: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”

I grew up with guns. They've never been a big deal to me. Growing up I hunted many of the local critters. Now I can't even shoot a deer in my back yard, from my kitchen window, while in my underwear.

And according to the Kentucky legislature "Kentuckians don't back down." So we have a stand your ground law. We can shoot down anyone that threatens us with no questions asked.

Can I do that? Prolly not. Those darn Jesus teachings -- again -- would keep me from pulling the trigger.

Please forgive me bro Ohio. I'm a mess. I'm definitely in need of a hefty dose of divine intervention. Pray for me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Am I supporting zeek? I didn't intend to. Zeek is like Kierkegaard. He seeks the perfect Christian, according the the clear teachings of Jesus, so called.

Then zeek prolly has plucked out an eye or two, and cut off a hand or two. Methinks only Jesus is a perfect Christian.

Originally Posted by awareness

Zeek wants the peaceful and loving, lay down your life for the world, kind of Jesus. According to zeek (I'm putting words into his mouth) if we want to be true Christians, we should follow Jesus' teaching and "resist not evil." That would mean we shouldn't resist ISIS. We should love our enemy ... and give 'em a hug, just before they cut our heads off. That's what Jesus did.

There have been many cases in church history where this has happened. Legalism demands others to do this, real love says I will be the first one to do this.

Originally Posted by awareness

Truth is, again, I don't know what I'm talking about. So if I offended you bro Ohio, or slighted you in any way, I truly apologize.

No, I'm not offended in the least. I am a supporter of the 2nd Amend, though I seem to use my 1st Amend rights more.

Originally Posted by awareness

And I bought that cuz my wife's boyfriend, that's right up the road, was gunning for me.

Confucius says, "better to get a divorce than to shoot her."

Originally Posted by awareness

But I had an experience where it felt like Jesus came to me and said "forgive them." Then I shook those evil fantasies. Thank you Lord ... I guess.

Thank the Lord. Jesus truly is your Shepherd. Forgiving them will help the Lord heal you.

Originally Posted by awareness

I grew up with guns. They've never been a big deal to me. Growing up I hunted many of the local critters. Now I can't even shoot a deer in my back yard, from my kitchen window, while in my underwear.

Try putting your camos on.

Originally Posted by awareness

And according to the Kentucky legislature "Kentuckians don't back down." So we have a stand your ground law. We can shoot down anyone that threatens us with no questions asked. Can I do that? Prolly not.

For me it prolly would come down to whether I was protecting myself or others.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, how can you support zeek and be critical of my views, when it is you who have the guns, and not me.

Liberal verbiage gone awry! Take a look at France. No one has guns but the terrorists!

Your looking in the wrong place. You should be looking to follow the words of the one you claim is your Lord and Savior.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your looking in the wrong place. You should be looking to follow the words of the one you claim is your Lord and Savior.

What is this a game?

Riddle me this Batzeek: What belongs to you, but is used by others?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Am I supporting zeek? I didn't intend to. Zeek is like Kierkegaard. He seeks the perfect Christian, according the the clear teachings of Jesus, so called.

Show me where I claimed that. You would rather make stuff up than answer my stated arguments.

While I'm quoting Jesus saying that he's bringing the sword. That will prolly cause bro zeek to rent his garment in anger & anxiety. Zeek wants the peaceful and loving, lay down your life for the world, kind of Jesus.

Instead of guessing what I would "prolly" do why not try and address what I actually stated. That would be a refreshing change on this forum.

According to zeek (I'm putting words into his mouth) if we want to be true Christians, we should follow Jesus' teaching and "resist not evil." That would mean we shouldn't resist ISIS. We should love our enemy ... and give 'em a hug, just before they cut our heads off. That's what Jesus did.

Yes, it's called martyrdom. That's what actual followers of Jesus do when necessary to be faithful to his teachings. Like his disciples turned apostles did, for instance.

Truth is, I don't know just who I'm supporting. I see Kierkegaard as a fundamentalist of his day. And you know how I feel about fundamentalism (of any kind).

A superficial reading of Kierkegaard to be sure.

Truth is, again, I don't know what I'm talking about. So if I offended you bro Ohio, or slighted you in any way, I truly apologize. Gosh! I love both you guys, and you both know it. And I'd like to see you two love each other. We're no longer in the local church and so we don't all have to be the same. Maybe Kierkegaard's Christianity is that. That we love one another even when we differ. You know, like we do family members???

Yes that's what Jesus calls us to do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Show me where I claimed that. You would rather make stuff up than answer my stated arguments.

Instead of guessing what I would "prolly" do why not try and address what I actually stated. That would be a refreshing change on this forum.

To be honest zeek, it's not always easy to understand what you are saying.

But perhaps, since I am just a college dropout, other readers have an easier time reading you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To be honest zeek, it's not always easy to understand what you are saying.

But perhaps, since I am just a college dropout, other readers have an easier time reading you.

I can't show bro zeek, cuz I gathered that by talking to him on cells. I know it might strike both of you as incomprehenssable but I sure would like to hook you up in that way. 'cept y'all prolly scare each other too much for that. It would likely clear things up between you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To be honest zeek, it's not always easy to understand what you are saying.

But perhaps, since I am just a college dropout, other readers have an easier time reading you.

Who said everything is supposed to be easy like Easy Free TV? There are plenty of people making things easier. Witness Lee claimed he was making easier to live in the spirit. All you had to do was call O Lord Jesus and pray-read and you would be transformed! Perhaps we need someone to make things harder.

[zeek]

Both ISIS and Christian Fundamentalists have an "apocalyptic mindset".

http://www.alternet.org/paul-krugman...tendency-panic

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Both ISIS and Christian Fundamentalists have an "apocalyptic mindset".

That's like saying both tornadoes and sunshine are "weather events."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who said everything is supposed to be easy like Easy Free TV? There are plenty of people making things easier. Witness Lee claimed he was making easier to live in the spirit. All you had to do was call O Lord Jesus and pray-read and you would be transformed! Perhaps we need someone to make things harder.

This is your justification for incoherence?

I think I prefer Lee's version of "short, quick, living, and to the point."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Aren't the life and teachings of Jesus the New Testament standard? Is there a lack of clarity in Jesus as the Christ? Is the standard is so high that no one but Jesus lives it? If so, where is the problem? Surely not with God! Anyway, if we aren't living up to the standard and we know of none who are, we should at least be honest and admit it. That's all I'm looking for--a little honesty.

I would agree that the teachings of Jesus Christ are clear. But somehow it seems that people want to read the rest of the NT as if it defines the NT teachings and is the lens through which you read Jesus.

Instead, we should read Jesus, and when we run up against something that we can't seem to get our arms around, we read the commentaries provided in the epistles. But we have to read them through the lens of Jesus, not the other way around.

But since so much of the Christianity of the past 200 years or so (and likely much longer) has been reinterpreting Jesus through other lenses, including the epistles, we end out with the mess that is mostly an exercise in missing the point. We are more worried about having correct doctrine than living righteous lives. And that colors everything.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is your justification for incoherence?

I think I prefer Lee's version of "short, quick, living, and to the point."

Of course you prefer Lee. His indoctrination still has a strong hold on your mind. Your posts are typically short, quick, bigoted and snarky. But, your lack of comprehension is intermittent and self-serving. You understand me just fine when you want to.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying both tornadoes and sunshine are "weather events."

Obviously you kept to your stated policy of not reading the lined article. Like IntotheWind said yours is a willful ignorance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course you prefer Lee. His indoctrination still has a strong hold on your mind. Your posts are typically short, quick, bigoted and snarky. But, your lack of comprehension is intermittent and self-serving. You understand me just fine when you want to.

I hope you feel better now.

Where's a good moderator when you need one?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Obviously you kept to your stated policy of not reading the lined article. Like IntotheWind said yours is a willful ignorance.

Are you now commending me for my consistency? Thank you very much.

Fundamentalists, like you and Windy, always need to denigrate those who differ. I think there's more of Lee left in you than you realize. Remember, I'm from Ohio, and we got expelled for not being into Lee.

When it comes to "willful ignorance" about nonsense like evolution, I take that as a complement. Thanks again.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree that the teachings of Jesus Christ are clear. But somehow it seems that people want to read the rest of the NT as if it defines the NT teachings and is the lens through which you read Jesus.

We can't worry what others think. What is Christ saying to me as an individual?

[zeek]

The Pope nails it: “We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for war and have the cynicism to deny it,” the Argentine pontiff said, adding: “God weeps, Jesus weeps”.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/pope...-war-and-hate/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Pope nails it: “We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for war and have the cynicism to deny it,” the Argentine pontiff said, adding: “God weeps, Jesus weeps”.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/pope...-war-and-hate/

Thanks Francis. I do weep for this world. I try to close my eyes to it, cuz it's an overload, but it's unavoidable.

[zeek]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...every-last-one

"The moral imagination of the scriptures was determined by a battered refugee people. If politicians don’t like that, they shouldn’t claim the Christian mantle."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...every-last-one

"The moral imagination of the scriptures was determined by a battered refugee people. If politicians don’t like that, they shouldn’t claim the Christian mantle."

When zeek stands up first to take them into his home, then I will agree.

The article also says ...

Christian politicians won’t say it, but the Bible is clear: let the refugees in, every last one

What verse is that? Obviously a twisting of scriptures.

Once again ole zeek is faithful to dump that liberal white guilt on the forum.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I hope you feel better now.

Where's a good moderator when you need one?

Yeah, where is he? ... The MINO - Moderator In Name Only?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When zeek stands up first to take them into his home, then I will agree.

The article also says ...



What verse is that? Obviously a twisting of scriptures.

Once again ole zeek is faithful to dump that liberal white guilt on the forum.

Leviticus 19:34Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Prejudice: Knowing that whatever the basis in the Bible was, it must be a "twisting of scriptures" before you even knew what the basis was. Where does the Bible command us to be frightened xenophobic haters?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where does the Bible command us to be frightened xenophobic haters?

Don't get me started.

Great verse tho. And Hebrews says they might be angels unawares, or something like that.

[zeek]

Do not say that it is naïve to think we can love everyone, even our enemies.
It is not naïve; it is Christian.

Do not say that it is politically naïve to be forgiving of those who hurt you.
It is not naïve; it is Christian.

Do not say that it is naïve to ensure everyone’s basic needs are met, even for the least of these.
It is not naïve; it is Christian.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegoda...re-christians/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Leviticus 19:34Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Prejudice: Knowing that whatever the basis in the Bible was, it must be a "twisting of scriptures" before you even knew what the basis was. Where does the Bible command us to be frightened xenophobic haters?

Are we not also instructed to be "wise as serpents, gentle as doves?" Show me a Christian who is a "frightened xenophobic hater," and I'll show you a wise man protecting his family from danger.

You got strangers and terrorists mixed up. And btw how many "strangers" you now got in your home, and I'm not talking about cats either?

Are you now saying that America is a "Christian" country bound by the law of Moses? I thought you guys already "proved" it was not. Once again trying to have things both ways.

Why is it that the refugees who found it the hardest to find asylum in the US were the Syrian and Iraqi Christians? Why is it you never say a nice thing about Christians, and you never say an honest thing about Mooslums?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't get me started.

Great verse tho. And Hebrews says they might be angels unawares, or something like that.

That's right. Abraham hosted three travelers who turned out to be "angels unawares." He could also tell by talking to them that they did not have a sodomic or gamorric accent.

Abraham would have thrown them out!

Maybe circumcise them first.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

We can't worry what others think. What is Christ saying to me as an individual?

I would agree. But it is not a relevant response to the discussion to which my response was added.

The response I gave was linked to a discussion of Kierkegaard's statements that included a reference to NT Christianity. So what anyone thinks that (NT Christianity) means is actually relevant to that discussion.

Unless your goal is to undermine the purpose of putting the Kierkegaard statement out there in the first place.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree. But it is not a relevant response to the discussion to which my response was added.

The response I gave was linked to a discussion of Kierkegaard's statements that included a reference to NT Christianity. So what anyone thinks that (NT Christianity) means is actually relevant to that discussion.

Unless your goal is to undermine the purpose of putting the Kierkegaard statement out there in the first place.

I don't follow you. How could what Christ is saying to me be at variance with New Testament Christianity? Jesus as the Christ is the essence of Christianity. If the church or a Christian deviates from Christ that is not Christianity. It's something else.

[zeek]

Excerpt from a message from Robert Reich, Former Secretary of Labor:

Over the weekend, Donald Trump doubled down on his disgraceful, racist rhetoric.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Trump called for surveillance of Islamic mosques that, in his view, could pose terrorist threats. "I want surveillance of certain mosques,” Trump told a raucous and applauding crowd, adding “I will absolutely take [a] database on the people coming in from Syria.” He then rejected calls to resettle Syrian refuges on U.S. soil. "If we can't stop it -- but we are going to if I win -- they're going back."

When a black protester shouted “black lives matter” at the event, Trump yelled “get the hell out of here.” At least a half-dozen white Trump supporters then shoved and punched the protester, and a woman kicked him while he was on the ground. The next day, on Fox News Sunday, Trump was defiant, suggesting that "maybe he should have been roughed up."

Some commentators mistakenly view Trump’s campaign as built on entertainment, like a reality TV show. The truth is his campaign is built on fear and hate. The leading Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States is bringing out the worst in America at a time when we need the best. Like other demagogues throughout history who have used bigotry to gain power, Trump has no shame and no decency.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't follow you. How could what Christ is saying to me be at variance with New Testament Christianity? Jesus as the Christ is the essence of Christianity. If the church or a Christian deviates from Christ that is not Christianity. It's something else.

I don't disagree (yet again).

But the context was comments by someone else using a term that has as many flavors of meaning as there are truly different sects, therefore, looking back at the quote from SK, what did he mean by NT Christianity? And what did his readers think he meant?

For you and I to think we know what it is (and from my way of thinking, you have it about as good as most of us non-theologians can) is one thing. But at the same time, Christianity is the sum-total of the people that make up the visible body of Christ. That is not described by "what Christ is saying to me" but in what is seen in the world.

But even to say that is not quite right. What Christ said, and continues to say as we read it again and again, is not the sum total of it. A significant part of what he said was to do what he said. Therefore what Christ said/says is only a part of it. It is also what we do with it. And every one of us has both common and different parts. And it is in the doing, or lack thereof, that the world, or Kierkegaard, would have a basis to complain about what it often is seen to be. Don't worry about what the yardstick should be — whether some ideal parsed out of the NT, or some declaration made by some Christian guru.

Christianity is not what Christ said. It is doing what Christ said. And few will have complaint about that.

[Ohio]

Let's look at Reich's comments fairly and objectively, rather than accepting his liberal bias, calling Trump's message "disgraceful, racist rhetoric."

Over the weekend, Donald Trump doubled down on his disgraceful, racist rhetoric.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Trump called for surveillance of Islamic mosques that, in his view, could pose terrorist threats. "I want surveillance of certain mosques,” Trump told a raucous and applauding crowd, adding “I will absolutely take [a] database on the people coming in from Syria.” He then rejected calls to resettle Syrian refuges on U.S. soil. "If we can't stop it -- but we are going to if I win -- they're going back."

Last night I saw a map on the news of all the mosques currently around the US known for their radical, extremist, jihadi recruiters. There may be one near you! The FBI is already watching many of them. NYC, the liberal bastion that it is, already places undercover police in their mosques. Profiling anyone?

Then People said "yes!" to Trump, and the 4th "Reich" called them "raucous." Imagine that! If they cheer Hillary, Reich would have called them "exuberant."

A database of immigrants? Show me one country in the world that does not do this. We even got Syrians (young men. and not 3 year old orphans) crossing the border from Mexico into Texas. Nearly every day we hear reports of Jihadis arriving in the west, passing right thru our great "vetting" process. Every law enforcement official has called this "vetting" process woefully inadequate. But Reich would have all of us concerned Americans, to "take two chill pills, and get a good night sleep." "R-E-L-A-X" as one QB told us.

When a black protester shouted “black lives matter” at the event, Trump yelled “get the hell out of here.” At least a half-dozen white Trump supporters then shoved and punched the protester, and a woman kicked him while he was on the ground. The next day, on Fox News Sunday, Trump was defiant, suggesting that "maybe he should have been roughed up."

These “black lives matter” thugs care nothing for “black lives.” Read the news friend! Go online and get both sides of the story. Since when is disruptive behavior "free speech?" Did you ever see the video clips of conservatives in one of Obama's many fundraisers getting roughed up and hauled out, with formal charges filed against them? Oh, the double standard of the liberal press!

Some commentators mistakenly view Trump’s campaign as built on entertainment, like a reality TV show. The truth is his campaign is built on fear and hate. The leading Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States is bringing out the worst in America at a time when we need the best. Like other demagogues throughout history who have used bigotry to gain power, Trump has no shame and no decency.

Fear and hate? That's all the liberals have! Open your eyes buddy. Just listen to the liberal politicians when some Republican wants to cut a little pork out of their budget. Did you hear the fear and hate when Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood for selling the "un-crunched" body parts of the unborn?

The "worst" in America? Since Obama has come on the scene, we have never had so much racial tension. But the PC speech gestapo out there demand that we shut our brains off and drink the flavored liberal Kool-aid. Drink up! Obama has mixed a fresh batch!

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, enough politics on this thread. Back to Fundamentalism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the context was comments by someone else using a term that has as many flavors of meaning as there are truly different sects, therefore, looking back at the quote from SK, what did he mean by NT Christianity? And what did his readers think he meant?

Kierkegaard had a lot to say about Christianity and Christendom. I think it impossible to capture his POV in a sentence or two. Nevertheless, he did say that Christianity is Absolute or at least teaches that something Absolute exists. It demands that a Christian's life must express the existence of something Absolute. He observed that he had never known a Christian because he had never known a person who's life expressed something absolute. The professing Christians he knew were exactly like the "heathen". Far from being absolute, their lives were nothing but relativities.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The professing Christians he [Kierkegaard] knew were exactly like the "heathen".

While in the local church I was oblivious to what was really going on. I was too heavenly minded to be any earthly good. It was only after I left that I discovered some pretty awful things about bothers and sisters that were standing in the meetings giving burning testimonies (like sisters with Philip Lee -- and worse).

My point is that we don't need a great mind like SK to see that Christians aren't much different than heathens. I suppose that's why we read on car bumpers: “Christian's aren't perfect, just forgiven."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It was only after I left that I discovered some pretty awful things about bothers and sisters that were standing in the meetings giving burning testimonies (like sisters with Philip Lee -- and worse).

There's a Freudian slip in there that's bothering me.

[zeek]

Ohio: Don't take this personally:In a press conference on Monday, Pope Francis called fundamentalism a disease that exists in all religions. http://www.episcopalcafe.com/the-pop...all-religions/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ohio: Don't take this personally:In a press conference on Monday, Pope Francis called fundamentalism a disease that exists in all religions. http://www.episcopalcafe.com/the-pop...all-religions/

He admits, even in his own religion.

And why would bro Ohio take this personal? He left the mother church a long time ago. And the local church. I don't even think he identifies as a fundamentalist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

He admits, even in his own religion.

And why would bro Ohio take this personal? He left the mother church a long time ago. And the local church. I don't even think he identifies as a fundamentalist.

I thought zeek's "take it personal" comment was a little strange.

I don't listen to the Pope, nor do I often read the web links on this site.

But I do read awareness' posts, though they are troubling at times.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought zeek's "take it personal" comment was a little strange.

I don't listen to the Pope, nor do I often read the web links on this site.

But I do read awareness' posts, though they are troubling at times.

And I read yours too. But maybe less troubling than mine to you ... as I can understand. From my fundy days I'm really out there ... and from my LC days as well. That one knocked me loopy. According to my fundy family I hint been right in de head since. I got waaaay toooo much book learin .....

[awareness]

I can't even imagine what would have happened out here if zeek, Dave, or I said that fundamentalism is a disease.

But I don't agree that the Pope is speaking from an 'evil-eye' in seeing the evil of fundamentalism. I think he's speaking from an honest-eye.

So let us be honest with what everybody can clearly see: fundamentalism is a disease. Pope or not, anti-Christ or not, whore of Babylon or not, AMEN FRANCIS!!!.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't even imagine what would have happened out here if zeek, Dave, or I said that fundamentalism is a disease.

But I don't agree that the Pope is speaking from an 'evil-eye' in seeing the evil of fundamentalism. I think he's speaking from an honest-eye.

So let us be honest with what everybody can clearly see: fundamentalism is a disease. Pope or not, anti-Christ or not, whore of Babylon or not, AMEN FRANCIS!!!.

Huh!

We face radical Islamic extremists every day almost killing people horrribly, and you say fundamentalism is a disease?!?

So ... let me get this straight, any one who considers themselves serious or devoted, and believes in the Bible, or the Koran, or atheism, or secular humanism, or whatever ... they have a disease.

Here's one for you -- liberalism is a mental disorder!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh!

We face radical Islamic extremists every day almost killing people horrribly, and you say fundamentalism is a disease?!?

So ... let me get this straight, any one who considers themselves serious or devoted, and believes in the Bible, or the Koran, or atheism, or secular humanism, or whatever ... they have a disease.

Here's one for you -- liberalism is a mental disorder!

So you have no interest in the Pope, but Ann Coulter is right on?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't even imagine what would have happened out here if zeek, Dave, or I said that fundamentalism is a disease.

Question for the AltVers, do you feel that "fundamentalism" is a problem that varies by degree according to religion, or a problem that is equal across the board?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you have no interest in the Pope, but Ann Coulter is right on?

The Pope says nothing for the Lord neither to expound His word. The Pope is just another politician from the wealthy little country of the Vatican. Put a suit on the goon, and I might listen to him.

Ann Coulter? How did she get into this discussion? The few times I have heard her, I liked the way she shut down liberal stupidity.

[awareness]

Duplicate post ... sorry

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Question for the AltVers, do you feel that "fundamentalism" is a problem that varies by degree according to religion, or a problem that is equal across the board?

Good point Freedom. Of course it's obvious what provoked this outburst from the Pope. It's obvious to all that Muslim fundamentalism is violent, irrational, and crazy.

But what about the more mild cases of fundamentalism? Christian fundamentalism doesn't seem to be as extreme. I guess I grew up in Christian fundamentalism light. And I suppose Lee's Recovery falls into the same category. My experience in both proved to me that fundamentalism light is not all the loving. In fact it's proven to be quite hateful; ugly actually.

But is fundamentalism light a disease? I don't know if I can go that far.

Ann Coulter goes that far toward liberalism. Too far in my estimation. She calls it a mental illness, and demonic.

So yes we can go too far in our judgement & consideration of groups that different from us.

That to me, even if secular, as in Coulter's case, is a form of fundamentalism. It's the certitude.

So fundamentalism is a mental condition, that in extreme is a disease, but not very pretty in any form.

But perhaps that's just me. Some love fundamentalism. As is evident.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But what about the more mild cases of fundamentalism? Christian fundamentalism doesn't seem to be as extreme.

Can you be a bit more definitive here? What exactly are we talking about?

Those who stand up for the rights of the unborn?

Those who want to protect their families from suicide bombers?

Those who warn unbelievers and believers alike of God's judgments?

Those who happen to believe in our Lord's virgin birth?

Those who believe the Bible is truth?

It seems to me that you often lump terrorists with every other breathing human being into one category called "fundamentalists." Can you define what characteristics you would use to define a "non-fundamentalist," or are there none?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you be a bit more definitive here? What exactly are we talking about?

Those who stand up for the rights of the unborn?

Those who want to protect their families from suicide bombers?

Those who warn unbelievers and believers alike of God's judgments?

Those who happen to believe in our Lord's virgin birth?

Those who believe the Bible is truth?

It seems to me that you often lump terrorists with every other breathing human being into one category called "fundamentalists." Can you define what characteristics you would use to define a "non-fundamentalist," or are there none?

Goodness bro Ohio didn't I call Christian fundamentalism mild and not extreme? Isn't that true?

I know that Pope Frank said that fundamentalism a disease, even claiming it is a disease in his own mother church.

But I said I couldn't go that far concerning Christian fundamentalism. I was cutting them some slack. At least give me a little bit of credit for that. I disagreed with the vicar of Christ for gosh sake.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point Freedom. Of course it's obvious what provoked this outburst from the Pope. It's obvious to all that Muslim fundamentalism is violent, irrational, and crazy.

But what about the more mild cases of fundamentalism? Christian fundamentalism doesn't seem to be as extreme. I guess I grew up in Christian fundamentalism light. And I suppose Lee's Recovery falls into the same category. My experience in both proved to me that fundamentalism light is not all the loving. In fact it's proven to be quite hateful; ugly actually.

But is fundamentalism light a disease? I don't know if I can go that far.

That is what I was getting at with the question that I posed, even though I didn’t provide a context to my question. I live in the SoCal area, so the attacks of last week were a bit too close to home. Of course, there are problems associated with the extreme adherents of all religions, but when there is an issue like terrorism in the limelight, it seems to me that other issues seem to pale by comparison.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not here to disparage Muslims. I am aware also of the criticisms of Christian fundamentalism. Probably the LC is one of the more “extreme” groups. Families have been broken, people have had mental breakdowns, I have even heard of several suicides. None of these things should be taken lightly. I tend to view such issues, however, as being group specific. It's not like broken families, mental breakdowns and suicide don't happen to non-religious people as well.

What the Pope says is interesting, this is what caught my attention:

"In the Catholic church we have some -- many -- who believe they possess the absolute truth and they go on sullying others through slander and defamation and this is wrong. Religious fundamentalism must be combated. It is not religious, God is lacking, it is idolatrous."

When I read that statement, I couldn’t help but notice how reminiscent it is of the LC. Those in the LC believe they possess absolute truth, and sully others through slander and defamation. Maybe the Pope was onto something in his own critique of Catholics, having possible application for other groups too. But my agreement with what he says stops there.

I couldn’t help but notice his idea of absolutes. The insistence on certain beliefs generally doesn’t hurt anyone, expect maybe hurt people’s feelings. It’s only a problem when things get taken too far. But I don’t think that’s a problem that can be blamed on religion itself, it’s up to religious leaders to ensure that doesn’t happen.

And outside religion, people are already polarized by absolutes: Ford vs Chevy, Democrat vs Republican, etc, etc. Even Richard Dawkins believes an absolute, that is, that God is a delusion. So I believe the Pope has misattributed a problem.

[zeek]

No one perpetrating violence on an innocent person is a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYjGaxYhDuQ

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No one perpetrating violence on an innocent person is a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYjGaxYhDuQ

I think you ought to study Islam and its beginnings under Moohammed, and you will learn that true Islam is spread by violence. Why is it that not one single Mooslim country can operate without dictatorship?

There indeed may be many peaceful Mooslims, but Islam is not a religion of peace. And there is no such thing as an "innocent" person, rather they are all infidels who must die.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

No one perpetrating violence on an innocent person is a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYjGaxYhDuQ

Does this mean there are no Christians, Muslims or Jews? People have been fighting over the building seen below for quite some time. History would indicate that all three religions have blood on their hands. But most everyone was just caught in the middle, like the soldiers who fought in the crusades. They just did what they were told.... whatever each Pope wanted. And that involved killing people.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think you ought to study Islam and its beginnings under Moohammed, and you will learn that true Islam is spread by violence. Why is it that not one single Mooslim country can operate without dictatorship

Was the violence against innocents? Was it self defense? Were there any non-violent ones?

There indeed may be many peaceful Mooslims, but Islam is not a religion of peace. And there is no such thing as an "innocent" person, rather they are all infidels who must die.

I have read otherwise. Christians and Muslims have lived together peacefully at times. You seem to be a Muslim hater. Why? Did a Muslim hurt you? Jesus teaches us to forgive.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Does this mean there are no Christians, Muslims or Jews? People have been fighting over the building seen below for quite some time. History would indicate that all three religions have blood on their hands. But most everyone was just caught in the middle, like the soldiers who fought in the crusades. They just did what they were told.... whatever each Pope wanted. And that involved killing people.

Have all been fighting all of the time? Those with blood on their hands, at the moment that they inflicted violence violated the spirit and ideal of their respective religion. The aberration of the ideal does not negate the ideal. There have likely always been some who lived their lives in pursuit of the ideal even if none achieved it completely.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

The aberration of the ideal does not negate the ideal. There have likely always been some who lived their lives in pursuit of the ideal even if none achieved it completely.

Good point.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Was the violence against innocents? Was it self defense? Were there any non-violent ones?

I have read otherwise. Christians and Muslims have lived together peacefully at times. You seem to be a Muslim hater. Why? Did a Muslim hurt you? Jesus teaches us to forgive.

Violence spread their religion starting in the seventh century. All the victims were innocents who decided not to "convert" as the Islamic cavalry rode into town with swords drawn. Sure some tried to defend themselves, so does that make them guilty of a crime? Tell me who is "non-violent" when the sword cuts thru newborns? You questions are typical liberal willful ignorance.

I love Muslims, but hate the evil darkness called Islam.

Of course, there are peaceful Mooslims, but that doesn't change the facts of history nor of the present. Look at the recent terrorist attacks in CA. Two kind, loving, peaceful, model citizens and newlywed parents with a newborn have a bomb-making factory in their garage after a sudden return to "their religion."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Two kind, loving, peaceful, model citizens and newlywed parents with a newborn have a bomb-making factory in their garage after a sudden return to "their religion."

This is probably what has most people troubled. Simultaneously becoming devout followers of their religion, along with a radicalization.

If what zeek calls an "aberration of an ideal" becomes a disturbing trend, then it leads to the inevitable question of whether or not there are certain tendencies, even if most followers of that religion doesn't pick up on it.

The word 'jihad' is known by most all people, and for one reason, because terrorists have done things in the name of Allah. I bet when asked, most people couldn't name the Five Pillars of Islam, but most everyone could provide their own take on jihad.

Again, I'm not out to implicate Muslims. It's just the larger question of how can people like these two terrorists coexist in a religious environment, attending local Mosques, and simultaneously be planning their mayhem?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Have all been fighting all of the time? Those with blood on their hands, at the moment that they inflicted violence violated the spirit and ideal of their respective religion. The aberration of the ideal does not negate the ideal. There have likely always been some who lived their lives in pursuit of the ideal even if none achieved it completely.

Humans? They give everything a bad name.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Violence spread their religion starting in the seventh century. All the victims were innocents who decided not to "convert" as the Islamic cavalry rode into town with swords drawn. Sure some tried to defend themselves, so does that make them guilty of a crime? Tell me who is "non-violent" when the sword cuts thru newborns? You questions are typical liberal willful ignorance.

"All the victims were innocent" is a truism. Were there no "Christian" aggressors? Your view of history is like an old TV western with Christians wearing white hats and Muslims wearing black. It's seldom that simple. Personally I don't find much that I hear about Islam very attractive. It seems like a step backwards as far as civilization is concerned. But then, so is fundamentalist Christianity in many respects. That's why I don't subscribe to either ideology.

Of course, there are peaceful Mooslims, but that doesn't change the facts of history nor of the present. Look at the recent terrorist attacks in CA. Two kind, loving, peaceful, model citizens and newlywed parents with a newborn have a bomb-making factory in their garage after a sudden return to "their religion."

According to my aphorism they were not true Muslims. Many Muslims agree with me on this point and condemn terrorism in the name of Islam.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Humans? They give everything a bad name.

"They?" What are you?

[Freedom]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tashfeen...tan-1449512518

"Tashfeen Malik, who went on a deadly shooting spree in California with her husband last week, studied after college at a conservative Islamic religious school here that attracts relatively well-educated and affluent women.

Officials at the Al-Huda International school said Ms. Malik took classes on the Quran for about a year until May 2014—two months before she moved to the U.S. and married a Pakistani-American man, Syed Rizwan Farook."

The inevitable question that arises here (at least for me) is why do some prospective terrorists see conservative Islam as the pathway to carry out what they want to do? Of course, just because extremists use Islam as a basis to their agenda, that doesn't indict Islam, but again, it raises the question of why they see that as the correct path.

Presumably, most Muslim leaders aren't preaching hate. Presumably, most Muslim leaders know some of the views regarding Muslims and seek to reverse that perception. In spite of this, Syed Farook is said to have attended local Mosques, even for daily prayer. Some local Muslim leaders remembered him. Assuming that the message at these Mosques was nothing radical, why would he still see that as being empowering? Why would the devotion of this couple to their religion be to them a necessary step as part of their eventual act of terror?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your view of history is like an old TV western with Christians wearing white hats and Muslims wearing black. It's seldom that simple. Personally I don't find much that I hear about Islam very attractive. It seems like a step backwards as far as civilization is concerned. But then, so is fundamentalist Christianity in many respects. That's why I don't subscribe to either ideology.

Perhaps I am the only one who studied history. Back in University I took a few courses, and have furthered my reading for decades.

What has changed significantly since the days of Muhammed, firstly is cheap oil. The world's growing demands for crude has provided enormous wealth for Mooslims. Their religion demands dictators, but now those nomadic tribal leaders of old have become wealthy beyond measure, ruling millions, who unfortunately can be living in abject poverty. As long as this world demands crude, the mooslem world will benefit.

Notice that not one Mooslim country is not a dictatorship. There may be some benevolent dictatorships like Dubai, but no country can have a western-style democratic government for one simple reason: their secular and religious leader must be the same person. It has always been this way, and this will never change.

Nearly all Mooslims consider jihad as critical to their faith. Shia Mooslems consider jihad to be obligatory as one of the ten ancillaries of their faith. Saudi Arabia supposedly is an American ally, yet they are the hugest supporter of ultra-conservative Sunni Wahhabism. They are funding and exporting terrorist ideology on a daily basis. Their students are indoctrinated from childhood that infidels (primarily Christians and Jews) need to be eliminated to really be pleasing to Allah.

The missing ingredients to explode terrorism on the rest of the world were open travel and communication. Communication has arrived with cell phones, internet, and social media now in every language. Open travel gives them access to all their unsuspecting victims. That's why Europe and the US are most vulnerable. Close the borders, and we all are a little safer.

For you to compare today's terrorism upon innocent civilians with the Crusades sponsored by the Catholic Church during the dark ages to stop the spread of Muhammadism and to restore the Holy Lands is most disingenuous and egregious. But, of course, completely expected by today's liberals.

[awareness]

Personally I think the Pope got it wrong. It's not fundamentalism that's the disease. It's religion. Including and especially his own.

But enough of that. No sense in pissing off everyone.

But I think these Dutch pranksters exposed a prejudice that speaks to our topic at the moment:

Pranksters film people's shocked reactions at reading violent passages from the Bible - after being told they are from the Koran


"Two Dutch filmmakers have recorded people’s horrified reactions to being read gruesome verses from the Bible - disguised as the Koran."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...old-Koran.html

[zeek]

"After every terrorist attack at home and abroad, the refrain rises, 'Where is the Muslim condemnation?' American Muslims have spoken out -- and done much more. A Duke University study found more terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. government investigations. And a Pew survey found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims say their religious leaders aren't speaking out enough against Islamic extremism." http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/mus...inkId=19402032

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Notice that not one Mooslim country is not a dictatorship... It has always been this way, and this will never change.

The top three most populous Muslim-majority countries in the world, nations (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh) are all democracies. The predominately Muslim nations of Turkey, Lebanon and Malaysia are also democracies.

[awareness]

My question is: Do we want to follow the present mass hysteria or God?

[zeek]

I cannot understand people who claim to be Christians and yet justify their use of guns or other weapons. Where is their faith in God? How can they say they are following Christ?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cannot understand people who claim to be Christians and yet justify their use of guns or other weapons. Where is their faith in God? How can they say they are following Christ?

Me neither. Perhaps they are hungry.

The Bible says we should walk by faith and also live by faith. I can't understand Christians who feel they have to work for a living. Where is their faith in God? How can they say they are really following Christ?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Me neither. Perhaps they are hungry.

The Bible says we should walk by faith and also live by faith. I can't understand Christians who feel they have to work for a living. Where is their faith in God? How can they say they are really following Christ?

I don't know. Jesus said "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food." They don't take him seriously.

They seem to think that when Jesus said "resist not evil" and "love your enemies" he was just kidding. They claim they believe they are "going to a better place" when they die, but they are willing to kill others to keep from being dispatched there.

The Bible says that when they stoned Stephen to death he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” If he were one of these so-called Christians of today he would have grabbed a sword and spear and defended himself to the death.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know. Jesus said "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food." They don't take him seriously.

They seem to think that when Jesus said "resist not evil" and "love your enemies" he was just kidding. They claim they believe they are "going to a better place" when they die, but they are willing to kill others to keep from being dispatched there.

The Bible says that when they stoned Stephen to death he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” If he were one of these so-called Christians of today he would have grabbed a sword and spear and defended himself to the death.

Jesus also said "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

But you already knew that. So it seems Jesus was neither pro-sword or anti-sword.

I don't own a gun, but I would have no problem owning one. I am not eager to own one. So what is the big deal? None of the gun-owning Christians I've known have ever used theirs for anything but target practice.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus also said "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

But you already knew that. So it seems Jesus was neither pro-sword or anti-sword.

I don't own a gun, but I would have no problem owning one. I am not eager to own one. So what is the big deal? None of the gun-owning Christians I've known have ever used theirs for anything but target practice.

I know lots of Christians who shoot guns, all kinds of guns, and they shoot them at all kinds of living creatures. The guy I bought my house from had a bullet-making factory in the basement. The neighbor told me he would shoot in the back yard, which is totally illegal here.

The Waldensian Christian communities during the 12th (?) century took King David as their pattern. They refused to allow the papal thugs to come in and rape their women and burn their homes -- while they watched, and then killed them too. Their stories are heroic. Who are we to say that the Lord was not with them?

I don't own a gun either, but I am a strong supporter of 2nd Amend. rights. Show me one NRA member involved in these mass murders. I'm tired of these liberal politicians going on their NRA witch hunts every time bad news hits.

[awareness]

What do Christians have to fear?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What do Christians have to fear?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. -- Proverbs 1.7

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. -- Matthew 10.28

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. -- Proverbs 1.7

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. -- Matthew 10.28

The first verse is uplifting. The second is scary. I mean, "destroy the soul?" Who would want that? However, mass shooters don't kill the soul, so Christians have nothing to fear from them ... and therefore have no need of guns .... like you bro Ohio. You don't have a gun. You don't need one.

[awareness]

Here's an example of Christian women who have no problem using assault weapons:

The Christian women who have left behind their jobs, studies and children to take up Kalashnikovs in the fight against ISIS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inst-ISIS.html

Do we consider them real Christians?

[awareness]

Or is this a real Christian??? :

CHRISLAM’S RICK WARREN PARTNERING WITH MOSQUES TO TEACH THAT GOD AND ALLAH ARE THE SAME

The Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and one of America’s most influential Christian leaders, has embarked on an effort to heal divisions between evangelical Christians and Muslims by partnering with Southern California mosques and proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/chris...-are-the-same/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus also said "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

But you already knew that. So it seems Jesus was neither pro-sword or anti-sword.

No. You jumped to a conclusion by making an inference that Jesus explicitly refutes on the same occasion according to Mathew 26:

51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

I don't own a gun, but I would have no problem owning one. I am not eager to own one. So what is the big deal? None of the gun-owning Christians I've known have ever used theirs for anything but target practice.

My question isn't about owning a gun. It's about following the Lord? Isn't that supposed to be a "big deal" for a Christian? Jesus explicitly taught that we should not resist evil, that we should love our enemies, that we should turn the other cheek when struck and so on. If a person doesn't do those kind of things, how can he or she claim they are following Jesus?

[Ohio]

zeek, first you say that ...

I cannot understand people who claim to be Christians and yet justify their use of guns or other weapons. Where is their faith in God? How can they say they are following Christ?

To which I replied that they Christians may use their weapons to protect loved ones or hunt for food, and that none of these mass shootings in the news involve well-respected Christians or those who happen to be members of NRA. Now you have apparently have changed your thinking, and are asking something different ...

Originally Posted by zeek

My question isn't about owning a gun. It's about following the Lord? Isn't that supposed to be a "big deal" for a Christian? Jesus explicitly taught that we should not resist evil, that we should love our enemies, that we should turn the other cheek when struck and so on. If a person doesn't do those kind of things, how can he or she claim they are following Jesus?

You do have valid points here, but not sure what you mean when you say we should "not resist evil." This seems at variance to James' command to "resist the Devil."

I would include these other items -- i.e. "love our enemies, turn the other cheek when struck, and so on" -- as part of what the N.T. collectively calls "good works." James says, "faith without works is dead," and Paul says we should be "zealous of good works."

I agree with you that without these, it's hard to claim we are truly following Jesus.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. You jumped to a conclusion by making an inference that Jesus explicitly refutes on the same occasion according to Mathew 26:

"All who take the sword will perish by the sword." is a statement that I would characterize as a good guideline, not a rule. Was Jesus really concerned that Peter was carrying a sword? That doesn't seem to be the concern at all. It seems it was mainly the fact that Peter was interfering with what was going on, and maybe also the fact that drawing the sword was his instinctive reaction.

Originally Posted by zeek

My question isn't about owning a gun. It's about following the Lord? Isn't that supposed to be a "big deal" for a Christian? Jesus explicitly taught that we should not resist evil, that we should love our enemies, that we should turn the other cheek when struck and so on. If a person doesn't do those kind of things, how can he or she claim they are following Jesus?

Of course following the Lord is a big deal for Christians, and you do have a point about non-violence. I wouldn't go so far to say that Christians need to let people walk over them, especially if it's not involving any kind of religious persecution. Yes, Christians should be willing to die for their faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

zeek, first you say that ...
To which I replied that they Christians may use their weapons to protect loved ones or hunt for food, and that none of these mass shootings in the news involve well-respected Christians or those who happen to be members of NRA. Now you have apparently have changed your thinking, and are asking something different ...

You do have valid points here, but not sure what you mean when you say we should "not resist evil." This seems at variance to James' command to "resist the Devil."

I would include these other items -- i.e. "love our enemies, turn the other cheek when struck, and so on" -- as part of what the N.T. collectively calls "good works." James says, "faith without works is dead," and Paul says we should be "zealous of good works."

I agree with you that without these, it's hard to claim we are truly following Jesus.

"Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Of course following the Lord is a big deal for Christians, and you do have a point about non-violence. I wouldn't go so far to say that Christians need to let people walk over them, especially if it's not involving any kind of religious persecution. Yes, Christians should be willing to die for their faith.

Of course we shouldn't let people walk all over us. And even if we let them walk all over us we shouldn't let them crucify us on a cross or anything drastic like that. But, if we don't then we shouldn't claim we are following Jesus, because that's what he did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

I feel like i just got slapped in the face, and now i know what to do.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course we shouldn't let people walk all over us. And even if we let them walk all over us we shouldn't let them crucify us on a cross or anything drastic like that. But, if we don't then we shouldn't claim we are following Jesus, because that's what he did.

Jesus' crucifixion was not the first time he faced death, and in fact, he intentionally escaped/avoided being stoned more than once:
John 8:59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
John 10:39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

So what do you make of all this? You say that we should be willing to be crucified like Jesus, but even Jesus didn't let that happen right away.

Maybe your claim needs a bit more context.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus' crucifixion was not the first time he faced death, and in fact, he intentionally escaped/avoided being stoned more than once:
John 8:59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
John 10:39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

So what do you make of all this? You say that we should be willing to be crucified like Jesus, but even Jesus didn't let that happen right away.

Maybe your claim needs a bit more context.

Notice that he didn't throw stones back at them or pick up any weapons to defend himself. Clearly those that do aren't following Jesus' example or his teaching. Apparently Jesus' way includes avoiding violence when possible. But, it doesn't include fighting violence with violence. Under some circumstances not fighting back can lead to martyrdom.

Islamic terrorists are willing to strap bombs on themselves and die for their faith. Of course killing others is wrong. But why are so many professing Christians like this guy http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us...mits.html?_r=0 unwilling to follow Jesus teaching and die rather than to defend themselves?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus' crucifixion was not the first time he faced death, and in fact, he intentionally escaped/avoided being stoned more than once:
John 8:59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
John 10:39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

So what do you make of all this? You say that we should be willing to be crucified like Jesus, but even Jesus didn't let that happen right away.

Maybe your claim needs a bit more context.

Great points. Let me add to it.

At the very beginning of His ministry, visiting the home town crowd for the first time after a brief trip to the river and the wilderness, Jesus happened to mention God's care for some old Gentile guy, and all His neighbors got so p.o.'d that they tried to throw Him off the cliff. (Lk 4.29) That was no way to treat an old friend, in fact, not even granting him a decent Jewish stoning.

It was just not the right time, was it?

Come to think of it, it was never the right time. So Jesus had to do something desperate to get their attention, and raise ole Lazarus from the dead. Now that really upset their apple cart. That might even get them in trouble with the Romans. (Jn 11.48) The Pharisees could never allow that!

You see it's all in our Father's time. That's why we call it "Father Time." And He is how we understand the scriptures -- by the Spirit, and not by our natural understanding. (I Cor 2.14) Otherwise we might all be dead by now, or at least be one-handed and one-eyed. (Matt 5.29-30)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Otherwise we might all be dead by now, or at least be one-handed and one-eyed. (Matt 5.29-30)

If I didn't know what a serious Christian you are, I would think you were trying to use the apparent figurative meaning of Matthew 5.29-30 as a basis for abrogating the plain teachings of Jesus. But, of course, no one has ever claimed that they understood the scriptures by the Spirit and not by their natural understanding unless they really did, so you must have true spiritual understanding.

[awareness]

Okay, bro zeek keeps pounding this drum, that, to be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus.

But that's not what I see from very serious Christians today, like the fundamentalists. What I see is that, to be a Christian means, to be a follower of the Bible. That's what I see going on.

And that creates a problem. Cuz to be a follower of Jesus means to follow the Jesus found in the gospels. And to be a follower of the Bible means you can embrace the Jesus found in the last book of the testament, the book of Rev. And there Jesus is not the love your neighbor, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, resist not evil, like what is found in the gospels. There Jesus is pouring out the wrath of God on "the neighbors," and "the enemy," not loving, and definitely resisting evil. In Revelations even Jesus can't be a follower of Jesus found in the gospels. There he taught us to practice something that in Revelations even he can't keep.

So which is it to be a Christian? To follow Jesus in the gospels, or to follow the Jesus found in the whole Bible? ; and, therefore to, resist evil, hate your neighbor, smite him even, and such the like, like we see from Jesus according to John of Patmos???

Which is it to be a Christian? Is it self sacrificing love, or hate? Jesus in the whole Bible seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that creates a problem. Cuz to be a follower of Jesus means to follow the Jesus found in the gospels. And to be a follower of the Bible means you can embrace the Jesus found in the last book of the testament, the book of Rev.

Please elaborate... The same Jesus found in Revelation can also be found in Matthew:
Matt 10:34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Rev 19:15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations.

Originally Posted by awareness

And there Jesus is not the love your neighbor, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, resist not evil, like what is found in the gospels. There Jesus is pouring out the wrath of God on "the neighbors," and "the enemy," not loving, and definitely resisting evil. In Revelations even Jesus can't be a follower of Jesus found in the gospels. There he taught us to practice something that in Revelations even he can't keep.

Who is to say what Jesus is doing in Revelation is incompatible with his ministry in the gospels? Jesus spoke of the judgement day before his death. So how is this incompatible with everything else he said?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Notice that he didn't throw stones back at them or pick up any weapons to defend himself. Clearly those that do aren't following Jesus' example or his teaching. Apparently Jesus' way includes avoiding violence when possible. But, it doesn't include fighting violence with violence. Under some circumstances not fighting back can lead to martyrdom.

Jesus was a pacifist, I think we can agree. But he also said some very controversial things like: "before Abraham was, I am" And that people reacted violently to that. So he wasn't out to avoid potentially violent situations.

Originally Posted by zeek

But why are so many professing Christians like this guy http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us...mits.html?_r=0 unwilling to follow Jesus teaching and die rather than to defend themselves?

What this guy is doing is not my concern and I don't speak for him. He can speak for himself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Please elaborate... The same Jesus found in Revelation can also be found in Matthew:
Matt 10:34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Rev 19:15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations.

Thanks for the reply Freedom. And good points.

So taking the whole Jesus, not just the Jesus found in the gospels, allows me, us, to not love the nations Jesus is coming to strike with the sword of his mouth?

And it's likely that Jesus will use his mouth sword against the nations of Islam, and prolly the Hindu's too, and Buddhists, and Wiccans especially, so forth and so on.

Do you get what I'm driving at? The whole Biblical Jesus allows us to hate & kill.

[Intothewind]

My unfortunate conclusion is that Christianity is forced to backpedal and minimize a lot of the Bible. The biblical god is consistent in his inconsistency and the dividing of the Old and New Testament only somewhat solves the bipolar nature of his dealings with man.

But we will freely excise portions of the Quran and with great delight proclaim it as a hateful religion.

I'm sure many/all the benefits of religion/spirituality can be had in a much lighterhearted way...no need to drag the weighty burden of explaining old scripture in a modern world. I think pastafarians are onto something.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Do you get what I'm driving at?

No

Originally Posted by awareness

The whole Biblical Jesus allows us to hate & kill.

Sorry bro, but you got a different Jesus, and that's the bad one Paul warned us about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry bro, but you got a different Jesus, and that's the bad one Paul warned us about.

Well I'll be darn if we haven't stumbled upon the reason the Jesus found in the book of Revelation is the opposite of the Jesus found in the gospels.

Revelation came out about 40 to 50 yrs after Paul. And that, if what we've bumped into is correct, is the different Jesus Paul warned of.

It may be why considerations of putting the book of Rev. into the canon was so contentious early on, from the 2nd c. on. Before the advent of the printing press the book of Rev. was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. Many thought it would cause nothing but confusion. And judge a tree by its fruits it has.

So in our earliest writings of the canonical NT books, those of Paul, and possibly his loyalists, we are warned of an apostasy, or falling away, from the original message and ministry of Jesus.

And Jesus found in the book of Rev., that Paul warned of, if what we're onto is right, is that apostasy.

Thanks bro Ohio.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well I'll be darn if we haven't stumbled upon the reason the Jesus found in the book of Revelation is the opposite of the Jesus found in the gospels.

Harold, Harold Harold. If you would just listen to and read the works of real Christian theologians you wouldn't have such a twisted view of Jesus, the Gospel or the Bible. Shame on you! The Internet does have many other things besides junk you know? Jesus was the Lamb of God AND the Lion of Judah during his earthly ministry, and he will be BOTH at the end, as described in Revelation. And guess what? Man was just as sinful, evil and idol worshiping in his days on earth as they are going to be towards the very end, as described in Revelation. You see, Jesus Christ, who was God in the flesh, is not like the god you apparently have talked yourself into believing - He is the Creator and Lord of Heaven and Earth and HE HAS THE POWER TO JUDGE. Yes, he IS Judge, Jury and Executioner. The good news is he is also the Savior, the Lamb of God. He was the Lamb of God, "slain before the foundation of the world", he was the Lamb of God for Israel and the nations, and he will be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, even in the heady times described in Revelation. But of course you knew that already.

It may be why considerations of putting the book of Rev. into the canon was so contentious early on, from the 2nd c. on. Before the advent of the printing press the book of Rev. was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. Many thought it would cause nothing but confusion. And judge a tree by its fruits it has.

No, Revelation was NOT in and out of the cannon like a yo-yo, you yo-yo. You keep saying this but you NEVER back it up with facts. Please quote your scholarly/authoritative sources that say such a thing. You won't find any, cause it just ain't so. Revelation has only caused confusion for people who are decidedly ignorant about how it fits into the total "revelation" of the Bible. It is like EVERY part of the Bible - it has a context, it has particular genre, a particular language, and when ignorant folks (Like Witness Lee) get a hold of it, yes, it can cause confusion. But you are just adding to the confusion with your silly declarations.

So in our earliest writings of the canonical NT books, those of Paul, and possibly his loyalists, we are warned of an apostasy, or falling away, from the original message and ministry of Jesus. And Jesus found in the book of Rev., that Paul warned of, if what we're onto is right, is that apostasy.

Wow, and I thought my State was the only one with legalized wacky tobacky ???

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, bro zeek keeps pounding this drum, that, to be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus.

But that's not what I see from very serious Christians today, like the fundamentalists. What I see is that, to be a Christian means, to be a follower of the Bible. That's what I see going on.

And that creates a problem. Cuz to be a follower of Jesus means to follow the Jesus found in the gospels. And to be a follower of the Bible means you can embrace the Jesus found in the last book of the testament, the book of Rev. And there Jesus is not the love your neighbor, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, resist not evil, like what is found in the gospels. There Jesus is pouring out the wrath of God on "the neighbors," and "the enemy," not loving, and definitely resisting evil. In Revelations even Jesus can't be a follower of Jesus found in the gospels. There he taught us to practice something that in Revelations even he can't keep.

So which is it to be a Christian? To follow Jesus in the gospels, or to follow the Jesus found in the whole Bible? ; and, therefore to, resist evil, hate your neighbor, smite him even, and such the like, like we see from Jesus according to John of Patmos???

Which is it to be a Christian? Is it self sacrificing love, or hate? Jesus in the whole Bible seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

There seems to be at least an historical core to the gospels. Revelation is obviously allegorical. Whether it has historic validity in any sense is an open question for the Christian. Unfortunately, we have lost the decoder ring for deciphering it. Of course, Christians claim the Spirit guided them to the one true interpretation. But, there is no consensus among them about which one that is. How does one decide? In any case, it seems ludicrous to overthrow the clear non-violent teaching and example of the Jesus of the gospels for an allegorical symbol of indeterminate meaning.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I'm sure many/all the benefits of religion/spirituality can be had in a much lighterhearted way...no need to drag the weighty burden of explaining old scripture in a modern world.

So there's no place for Jesus in your worldview?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

There seems to be at least an historical core to the gospels. Revelation is obviously allegorical. Whether it has historic validity in any sense is an open question for the Christian. Unfortunately, we have lost the decoder ring for deciphering it. Of course, Christians claim the Spirit guided them to the one true interpretation. But, there is no consensus among them about which one that is. How does one decide? In any case, it seems ludicrous to overthrow the clear non-violent teaching and example of the Jesus of the gospels for an allegorical symbol of indeterminate meaning.

Very good. Especially the lost decoder ring portion. I cannot say that I dismiss Revelation. But I find little evidence to take it in the way that so much of the funny-mental wing of Christianity (of which I actually am sort-of a part) wants to take it. I can accept it as something designed to cause people to be a little "scared straight." But I just can't start selling my house and moving to any mountaintop over it. It's a little too fuzzy for that.

But I am willing to believe I should walk the straight-and-narrow. And like most of us, I do not always to that which I would prefer, but rather what I think I should not.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

There seems to be at least an historical core to the gospels. Revelation is obviously allegorical. Whether it has historic validity in any sense is an open question for the Christian. Unfortunately, we have lost the decoder ring for deciphering it. Of course, Christians claim the Spirit guided them to the one true interpretation. But, there is no consensus among them about which one that is. How does one decide? In any case, it seems ludicrous to overthrow the clear non-violent teaching and example of the Jesus of the gospels for an allegorical symbol of indeterminate meaning.

If the whole Bible is the very word of God then Jesus in the gospels stands equally with the Jesus in Revelation. Neither of which we really and clearly understand ; aka Freedom's post concerning the swords, found in both.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

If the whole Bible is the very word of God then Jesus in the gospels stands equally with the Jesus in Revelation.

Equal in what sense? Importance? Are you going to show how every word in the Bible is of equal importance to every other word? I don't think you can.

Neither of which we really and clearly understand ; aka Freedom's post concerning the swords, found in both.

aka? also known as? To take the sword in those verses literally is silly. In both cases, the sword is obviously symbolic. It very likely refers to the "sword of the Spirit, which is God's word." [Ephesians 6:17]

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No, Revelation was NOT in and out of the cannon like a yo-yo, you yo-yo. You keep saying this but you NEVER back it up with facts. Please quote your scholarly/authoritative sources that say such a thing.

It's not hard to back up:

Revelation was the last book to be accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and even at the present day some Nestorian churches reject it.[Wall, Robert W. (2011). Revelation. Baker Books.] It was tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship.[Pattemore, Stephen (2004). The People of God in the Apocalypse. Cambridge University Press.] It was not included in the canon until 419.

Doubts resurfaced during the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther called it "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and it was the only New Testament book on which John Calvin did not write a commentary.[Hoekema, Anthony A (1979). The Bible and the future. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3516-1.] Even today, it is the only New Testament work not read in the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it is included in Catholic and Protestant liturgies.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

If the whole Bible is the very word of God then Jesus in the gospels stands equally with the Jesus in Revelation. Neither of which we really and clearly understand ; aka Freedom's post concerning the swords, found in both.

I don't fully understand Jesus, nor do I presume to. I also don't fully understand the 'swords', however, I think it can be established that it represents a duality, that is, Jesus as both a Savior and Judge.

Even if the book Revelation had been excluded, people would still have to reconcile what Jesus spoke about coming to "bring a sword" and also the Judgement day. Who are the sheep and goats? Do you see the issue that exists irrespective of the inclusion of Revelation in the canon?

[awareness]

I couldn't disrespect bro Untohim and not just respond back to him.

Originally Posted by Untohim

No, Revelation was NOT in and out of the cannon like a yo-yo, you yo-yo. You keep saying this but you NEVER back it up with facts. Please quote your scholarly/authoritative sources that say such a thing.

I'm not sure who is the bigger yo-yo, you or me. You know better than to question me. So I conclude you're just pulling my leg. Cuz if you don't know about the ongoing dispute over canonizing Rev., it's easy enough for you to find out without me.

But I'll humor you somewhat. I'll throw ya few bones:

Look up:

• Montanus & millennialism (2nd c.) & heresy - Synod of Iconium in 230 CE - Revelation
  
• Origen - Eusebius - antilegomena -
  http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/A/antilegomena.html
  
• And an easy one - Wiki on The Book of Revelation
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_o...onical_history

This is a handy chart for all the books that were considered for the canon - Rev on far right:

Testament canons through the ages
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm

[UntoHim]

Being the last book excepted into the canon is a far, far cry from "in and out like a yo-yo." None of the references provided show that Revelation was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. This thread is entitled "Fundamentalism", so if you're going to make an argument against something or someone, you need to at least represent the position(s) fairly. Again, the fact that SOME of the earliest Church fathers and scholars, or Luther or Calvin had different views, or that this book of Revelation has been misused or misinterpreted over the centuries, does not take away from the FACT that Revelation has been a solid inclusion in the NT canon for 1600 plus years.

Luther called James "an epistle of straw", and Witness Lee called James "devoid of the divine revelation". SO? SO WHAT? Luther was about 1100 years too late, and Lee was about 1600 years too late. Thankfully neither one, accept for a handful of blind followers, consider the commentary of either man above the Word of God. James is considered as part of the Word of God, the very divine revelation from God, by the VAST majority of Christians (and has been since the canon was formed) Revelation is also considered as part of the Word of God by the VAST majority of Christians.

Now if you want to go round and round about all the kooky and wild interpretations of some crackpot, wanabe theologians over the years, well then I suggest you start a new thread, cause these strange and minority interpretations are not accepted by the vast majority of "fundamentalists".

[awareness]

Okay, okay, okay, Untohim, Untohim, Untohim, ya got me pinned to the mat. My statement that, Revelation has been in and out of the canon like a yo-yo is hyperbole.

But the chart shows it being "A" accepted and "R" rejected down thru the ages. And I think I proved that since Montanas in the 2nd c. there's been much contention around including it in the canon. So my yo-yo metaphor holds. Thank you very much.

And thank you also for making my case. Yes, in spite of a few wacky theologians, like our first early Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea (he called it "antilegomena"), John Calvin, Martin Luther, and the pseudo-theologian Witness Lee, to the vast Christian masses, the book of Revelation is included in the canon because it's the very Words of God.

But even as close as Witness Lee in our history the book has resulted in contention. And why not? It's like an ancient version of our comic books ; with super hero's, super villains, and cartoon type symbolism. And no one can figure it out. What's that say about God if we hold that He inspired it?

I say it was code, written by some devote Christian guy back then, speaking to other devote Christians, in symbolism that didn't require a decoder ring, but only to be living the Christian life back then. They understood that coded book.

Anyway, my point has been made. Today the book is soundly believed to be in the canon and therefore the Word of God. So the Jesus found in the book of Revelation stands equally with the Jesus found in the gospels.

And Jesus, then, as it turns out, is as mysterious to us as is the book of Revelation.

But I still prefer: "Love God, love neighbors, turn the other cheek, resist not evil," and "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Amen!!!


***********
Untohim original post purposefully left below:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Being the last book excepted into the canon is a far, far cry from "in and out like a yo-yo." None of the references provided show that Revelation was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. This thread is entitled "Fundamentalism", so if you're going to make an argument against something or someone, you need to at least represent the position(s) fairly. Again, the fact that SOME of the earliest Church fathers and scholars, or Luther or Calvin had different views, or that this book of Revelation has been misused or misinterpreted over the centuries, does not take away from the FACT that Revelation has been a solid inclusion in the NT canon for 1600 plus years.

Luther called James "an epistle of straw", and Witness Lee called James "devoid of the divine revelation". SO? SO WHAT? Luther was about 1100 years too late, and Lee was about 1600 years too late. Thankfully neither one, accept for a handful of blind followers, consider the commentary of either man above the Word of God. James is considered as part of the Word of God, the very divine revelation from God, by the VAST majority of Christians (and has been since the canon was formed) Revelation is also considered as part of the Word of God by the VAST majority of Christians.

Now if you want to go round and round about all the kooky and wild interpretations of some crackpot, wanabe theologians over the years, well then I suggest you start a new thread, cause these strange and minority interpretations are not accepted by the vast majority of "fundamentalists".

[Intothewind]

Re: James: That always struck me as odd that it was no considered as "high" of gospel as the rest. Then why is it summarily included in with the rest of the approved books? Is seeing James in the way Luther and Lee did atypical of most Christians?

I do think the thought of the interpretation of Jesus bringing the sword to perhaps imply the word of God is one that does have some merit(which, I suppose, would be him bringing discernment and not -immediate- judgement).

zeek: at this point not really. I'm sure he existed as a human bean, but that's about it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So there's no place for Jesus in your worldview?

rothflmao -- prolly a smart(?)phone blooper. If not, very sardonic.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Re: James: That always struck me as odd that it was no considered as "high" of gospel as the rest. Then why is it summarily included in with the rest of the approved books? Is seeing James in the way Luther and Lee did atypical of most Christians?

I don't think that most people outside the LC would view the book of James negatively.

I also think that WL talked a lot more about Luther than most people normally do, mainly because what Luther did supported his idea of "recovery" and the recovery "lineage" than ended with none other than WL. I might be wrong, but I think that WL can be quoted as calling Luther the 1st MOTA. Since Luther called James a "book of straw" that was convenient for WL to reference because it allowed him to provide "credibility" for his own viewpoint, and in the low information world of the LC, if more than one person says something, it must be true.

[awareness]

Martin Luther kinda-sorta agrees with bro zeek, and maybe his pal Kierkegaard too, about the plain teachings of Jesus in the gospels.

In speaking about the book of Revelation Luther, in his "Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)" writes:

"Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

And it blows my "whole Jesus of both the gospels & the book of Rev." theory clean out of the water.

Cuz Luther doesn't consider there to be any Jesus in the book of Rev. And that means the whole Christ is found in the gospels, and the book of Rev. shouldn't be allowed to confuse what the Jesus in the gospels was/is all about.

And Jesus is a minister of nonviolence, peace, and love, in the gospels.

If Luther erred, he erred on the side of grace and love. No wonder unto this day many consider him to be a great Christian thinker and leader.

And hey, he kicked off The Recovery.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Martin Luther kinda-sorta agrees with bro zeek, and maybe his pal Kierkegaard too, about the plain teachings of Jesus in the gospels.

In speaking about the book of Revelation Luther, in his "Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)" writes:

"Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

And it blows my "whole Jesus of both the gospels & the book of Rev." theory clean out of the water.

Cuz Luther doesn't consider there to be any Jesus in the book of Rev. And that means the whole Christ is found in the gospels, and the book of Rev. shouldn't be allowed to confuse what the Jesus in the gospels was/is all about.

And Jesus is a minister of nonviolence, peace, and love, in the gospels.
If Luther erred, he erred on the side of grace and love. No wonder unto this day many consider him to be a great Christian thinker and leader.

I know that I might sound like a broke record here, but I am still confused as to what ‘Jesus’ is found in Revelation that isn’t found in the gospels. It couldn’t be the notion of Jesus as a judge, neither could it be a ‘harsher’ Jesus, because both can be found in the gospels:

Matt 25:41-43
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

Matt 21:19
And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away.

John 2:15
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

[zeek]

Revelation is addressed to specific Christian communities in Asia Minor in the first century. What basis do we have for supposing that the text was meant not to be a message to them, but to us over 1900 years later? The first sentence begins, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Two verses later, he says, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.” Why would John claim that events that were going to occur thousands of years in the future were going to happen soon to the communities to which he wrote when the visions did not really pertain to them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Revelation is addressed to specific Christian communities in Asia Minor in the first century. What basis do we have for supposing that the text was meant not to be a message to them, but to us over 1900 years later? The first sentence begins, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Two verses later, he says, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.” Why would John claim that events that were going to occur thousands of years in the future were going to happen soon to the communities to which he wrote when the visions did not really pertain to them?

All of Paul's and Peter's epistles were "addressed to specific Christian communities in the first century. What basis do we have for supposing that the text was meant not to be a message to them, but to us over 1900 years later."

Oh brother ...

................

Merry Christmas to all.

Or is saying this also against the rules of this sub-forum?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I know that I might sound like a broke record here, but I am still confused as to what ‘Jesus’ is found in Revelation that isn’t found in the gospels. It couldn’t be the notion of Jesus as a judge, neither could it be a ‘harsher’ Jesus, because both can be found in the gospels:

Matt 25:41-43
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

Matt 21:19
And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away.

John 2:15
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

Good verses Freedom. Point taken.

Yes judgment is in the gospels. The following math may not be accurate but:

In the gospels we have say 90% love and 10% judgment. But in Rev. we have 90% judgment and maybe, maybe not, 10% love.

What happened to the Jesus that walked the earth, and his message of love? In the gospels He died for the world. In Rev. he comes to destroy it. What's up with that? Did his death make him angry? so he went from love to anger?

Last night I watched the new Star Wars. Then after that I watch "The Apocalypse - The Book of Revelation -Christian Bible Movie." To be honest I got confused which I was watching. They both seemed like Star Wars to me. And the force was with John on Patmos. But it seemed like the dark side ... destroying "The Death Star."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

What happened to the Jesus that walked the earth, and his message of love? In the gospels He died for the world. In Rev. he comes to destroy it. What's up with that? Did his death make him angry? so he went from love to anger?

So if the coming judgement day is foretold by Jesus, with him as the judge, then it wouldn't be out of character if at some point in the future he acts primarily as a judge, right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All of Paul's and Peter's epistles were "addressed to specific Christian communities in the first century. What basis do we have for supposing that the text was meant not to be a message to them, but to us over 1900 years later."

Oh brother ...

................

Merry Christmas to all.

Good question.

And:

Merry Christmas to all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So if the coming judgement day is foretold by Jesus, with him as the judge, then it wouldn't be out of character if at some point in the future he acts primarily as a judge, right?

You mean the:

Mat_7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luk_6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Jesus? That one?

[awareness]

Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

[zeek]

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT

Merry Christmas!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

You mean the:

Mat_7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luk_6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Jesus? That one?

Look at what Jesus says in the very next verse in Matthew: "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."

I takes this to be a warning against hypocrisy (as many people also would). The point isn't not judging, because he does clearly say that "you will be judged". I see it as a matter of not holding a double standard.

Lets face it, we all judge other people more or less. And Christians have often gained a bad reputation for this. At the same time, I would hate to live in a world where there were no intention to judge good and evil, to determine right and wrong.

[zeek]

There seems to be no limit to the absurdities fundamentalists will go to to maintain their dogma. According to this guy God purposely put apparent contradictions in the Bible to weed out atheists. Why would a God who loves people create obstacles to salvation? http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/crea...-the-atheists/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

There seems to be no limit to the absurdities fundamentalists will go to to maintain their dogma. According to this guy God purposely put apparent contradictions in the Bible to weed out atheists. Why would a God who loves people create obstacles to salvation? http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/crea...-the-atheists/

Maybe it's just that God played hookie from His writing classes.

[awareness]

Okay y'all know I'm not particularly fond of fundamentalism. But even I can't just stand by and let's zeek's -- God put contradictions in the Bible just so unbeliever's can use them against believing in God -- guy, even come close to implying that this guy typifies fundamentalism. Just cuz this guy is a little off his rocker doesn't mean all fundamentalists are.

Yet I'd hope that we can see in this guy a lesson. That sometimes we can go so far in trying to stick up for the Bible that the testimony becomes a shame to to the Bible. This guy makes God look stupid way more than the contradictions pointed out (compare Acts 9:3-7 with Acts 22:6-9 and Acts 26:13-16).

Thus my stupid crack about God missing His writing classes.

I'd say that most fundamentalists have way more sense than this clown.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay y'all know I'm not particularly fond of fundamentalism. But even I can't just stand by and let's zeek's -- God put contradictions in the Bible just so unbeliever's can use them against believing in God -- guy, even come close to implying that this guy typifies fundamentalism. Just cuz this guy is a little off his rocker doesn't mean all fundamentalists are.

Yet I'd hope that we can see in this guy a lesson. That sometimes we can go so far in trying to stick up for the Bible that the testimony becomes a shame to to the Bible. This guy makes God look stupid way more than the contradictions pointed out (compare Acts 9:3-7 with Acts 22:6-9 and Acts 26:13-16).

Thus my stupid crack about God missing His writing classes.

I'd say that most fundamentalists have way more sense than this clown.

Yeah that guy's argument is absurd. If the evangelicals here don't speak up and refute him, I will take their silence to mean that they tacitly agree with him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah that guy's argument is absurd. If the evangelicals here don't speak up and refute him, I will take their silence to mean that they tacitly agree with him.

I have a standing disclaimer on everything posted on this sub-forum.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah that guy's argument is absurd. If the evangelicals here don't speak up and refute him, I will take their silence to mean that they tacitly agree with him.

I let the indirect reference in the previous post go by. I read too infrequently to follow all of the nonsense that closely.

But that one was a doozey. For me, the very idea that something is included as contradictory to weed out atheists is just proof that idiots can have blogs and even go to seminaries.

The problem is that if it is in the Bible, then the inerrant crowd will have a hard time explaining stuff thrown in to exclude people from the club. And idiots who say things like that guy did are almost always inerrantists (thanks to Warren G Harding for the ability to just make up words on the fly). Once you accept that, their arguments collapse in a morass of circular reasoning.

The Bible is inerrant
The Bible has contradictions.
The contradictions are just to keep people who wouldn't believe contradictions out of the club.
But if there are contradictions, then it can't be inerrant.
Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!!!

[OBW]

And I know what is coming next.

"If there are no contradictions, then what about all that mean stuff in the OT and all the love in the NT?"

And the answer is that I do not know the answer. But I suspect that from the standpoint of consistency or contradiction the answer is in context.

I could attempt several different romps through the stuff (or "tip-toes through the tulips") but they would be opinions without much more than bootstrapping supposition after supposition. Seems that's what got a lot of us into the LCM in the first place . . . listening to supposition after supposition and taking it as gospel truth.

I'm comfortable with the idea that God has the right to judge. And that love, despite our preference, is not an overriding trait that tramples his justice. So discovering that God has judged some without giving them the chance to die first is not exactly a red flag to me. And it does not negate that my job is to love, not judge, the world. Yet, at the same time, there is a level of judgment that I am called to exercise in this life. It just isn't about terminating the life of others. (Not getting into questions of self defense or participation in war as a soldier. I have a lot of contradictory thoughts there. Perfect for a post on contradictions.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have a standing disclaimer on everything posted on this sub-forum.

Everything???

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have a standing disclaimer on everything posted on this sub-forum.

You have stated that you usually don't look at linked sites. Did you even watch the video in question?

[awareness]

Great the hear from you OBW.

Originally Posted by OBW

It just isn't about terminating the life of others. (Not getting into questions of self defense or participation in war as a soldier. I have a lot of contradictory thoughts there. Perfect for a post on contradictions.)

To me contradictory thoughts are itches that have to be scratched. Sometimes I do a lot of scratching.

The issue of following Jesus and resorting to guns is just such an itch to me. I scratch it and scratch it and it just won't stop itching.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

The issue of following Jesus and resorting to guns is just such an itch to me. I scratch it and scratch it and it just won't stop itching.

What was the "gun" for? Travelling through an area where the threats were not entirely all human. Are we going to insist that there should be no protection?

It doesn't say to use it on other people. So it is in the presumptions that any contradiction is found — not actually in the scripture.

Could it mean something else? Yes. But does it? Unsure. Just like Lee insisted on his (now) ridiculous renderings, are we just doing the same thing in a different way?

[OBW]

Awareness,

I was reading your overloaded signature and note that the first verse you quote is Job 25:6. I hope you are not presuming that "son of man" has to be Christ? It is fairly certain that this particular verse is referring to humans, not God. To a man and then to the son of such a man.

Bildad was not a prophet, but one of the "friends" whose statements were summarily dismissed by God.

But given some of your other statements at times, I can also read your signature as suggesting that you, and the rest of us, are not much more than worms.

And I would agree.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Awareness,

I was reading your overloaded signature and note that the first verse you quote is Job 25:6. I hope you are not presuming that "son of man" has to be Christ? It is fairly certain that this particular verse is referring to humans, not God. To a man and then to the son of such a man.

Bildad was not a prophet, but one of the "friends" whose statements were summarily dismissed by God.

But given some of your other statements at times, I can also read your signature as suggesting that you, and the rest of us, are not much more than worms.

And I would agree.

You got it. In one of my favorite books Grandma tells her nephew : "Remember you are a pimple on the ass end of creation, and have a sense of humor about it."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You have stated that you usually don't look at linked sites. Did you even watch the video in question?

I don't think so. Who is questioning some video?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think so. Who is questioning some video?

Never mind. You can go back to sleep now.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

There seems to be no limit to the absurdities fundamentalists will go to to maintain their dogma. According to this guy God purposely put apparent contradictions in the Bible to weed out atheists.

Why would a God who loves people create obstacles to salvation?

Originally Posted by zeek

Never mind. You can go back to sleep now.

You could sleep too if you would stop asking stupid questions while banging your head up against a brick wall.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You could sleep too if you would stop asking stupid questions while banging your head up against a brick wall.

Trolling is your everything!

[zeek]

An excellent debate between conservative and liberal Christians on the question, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"

https://youtu.be/OU1h0tk2Pss

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trolling is your everything!

I have to disagree with this statement. Ohio's presence on LCD, and thebereans, reveals that bro Ohio does not act as a troll in the least. Maybe it appears so on AltVs, but that is no where close to being true if all of bro Ohio's presentations are taken into consideration.

I say this out of fairness and honesty toward brother Ohio ... who has made considerable contributions on these forums.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have to disagree with this statement. Ohio's presence on LCD, and thebereans, reveals that bro Ohio does not act as a troll in the least. Maybe it appears so on AltVs, but that is no where close to being true if all of bro Ohio's presentations are taken into consideration.

I say this out of fairness and honesty toward brother Ohio ... who has made considerable contributions on these forums.

According to your signature line, if he's a man he's a maggot.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to your signature line, if he's a man he's a maggot.

As are we all. And we should have a good sense of humor about it. Which I hope bro Ohio has.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

As are we all. And we should have a good sense of humor about it. Which I hope bro Ohio has.

Maggots-R-Us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maggots-R-Us.

So why does God bother? I mean in just the scope of the present known universe, we're less than specks. By comparison we're less than the size of atoms compared to us ; even when compared to just the size of the solar system.

At one time it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe ; and that it wasn't factual was a hard sell. The devoutly religious -- The Church -- resisted it fiercely, tightly hanging unto the narcissism that WE'RE the CENTER of the universe.

We didn't learn anything since then, by that lesson. We still think we're the center of the universe. Only now it's us -- humans -- and not the earth, that's the center ... and it's God not the universe that's the bigness.

Except for a few stands-outs -- like the mystics -- we still all in all consider OURSELVES the center of God's universe. Sadly, in the end, the condition of our human collective is, chronically narcissistic ; we think we're IT, and EVERYTHING. Seems, it's the way our human brain works ; we don't know how to think in any other way.

Reminds me of that tired old shop-worn trope: We're fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

Basically, as the story handed down to me goes, thinking in these terms : this great big -- bigger then the universe, infinity bigger -- God, entered into a speck, let's say it like Job's friend -- into a maggot -- to die as a substitute for a bunch of undeserving little specks, that think they are everything important to, and, the center of, God's universe.

Does anyone see how funny this sounds, without adding even a ton of the minutia that follows, that there's something very wrong with this thinking? Does any real Christian spirituality even allow such giant egos? Was Jesus big on us having such egos? Did he teach such matters, as the way to the kingdom, as the way to salvation?

[zeek]

America's greatest philosopher nailed the issue of Biblical inerrancy and the spiritual value of the Bible 114 years ago:

...if our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess it, must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands. But if, on the other hand, our theory should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of their fate, then the verdict would be much more favorable.

James, William (2009-10-04). Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 2). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

[zeek]

David Brooks weighs in on Evangelicalism and Ted Cruz:

Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

So why does God bother? I mean in just the scope of the present known universe, we're less than specks. By comparison we're less than the size of atoms compared to us ; even when compared to just the size of the solar system.

At one time it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe ; and that it wasn't factual was a hard sell. The devoutly religious -- The Church -- resisted it fiercely, tightly hanging unto the narcissism that WE'RE the CENTER of the universe.

We didn't learn anything since then, by that lesson. We still think we're the center of the universe. Only now it's us -- humans -- and not the earth, that's the center ... and it's God not the universe that's the bigness.

Except for a few stands-outs -- like the mystics -- we still all in all consider OURSELVES the center of God's universe. Sadly, in the end, the condition of our human collective is, chronically narcissistic ; we think we're IT, and EVERYTHING. Seems, it's the way our human brain works ; we don't know how to think in any other way.

Reminds me of that tired old shop-worn trope: We're fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

Basically, as the story handed down to me goes, thinking in these terms : this great big -- bigger then the universe, infinity bigger -- God, entered into a speck, let's say it like Job's friend -- into a maggot -- to die as a substitute for a bunch of undeserving little specks, that think they are everything important to, and, the center of, God's universe.

Does anyone see how funny this sounds, without adding even a ton of the minutia that follows, that there's something very wrong with this thinking? Does any real Christian spirituality even allow such giant egos? Was Jesus big on us having such egos? Did he teach such matters, as the way to the kingdom, as the way to salvation?

I thought I would stop by and see how you all are doing. I can see that you are still tackling the great questions of truth and the universe. Good stuff!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by William James

...if our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess it, must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands. But if, on the other hand, our theory should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of their fate, then the verdict would be much more favorable.

Good old William James. He sure did nail it. He expresses the reason I still love the Bible ; even if it is errant. The Bible has soul. It doesn't have to be inerrant. The fundy's seem only concerned with it on the surface. Or maybe they are just in bad need of the certitude of declaring it factual. They defeat their own arguments about it by that need ... and bring it down.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good old William James. He sure did nail it. He expresses the reason I still love the Bible ; even if it is errant. The Bible has soul. It doesn't have to be inerrant. The fundy's seem only concerned with it on the surface. Or maybe they are just in bad need of the certitude of declaring it factual. They defeat their own arguments about it by that need ... and bring it down.

I have to agree with you and zeek on this. The scripture is inspired by, but not dictated by God. It is profitable, but not simply perfect. The discussions about inerrancy in "original autographs" is an overstatement relative to its own claims.

[zeek]

Controversy surrounds Noah's Ark in Kentucky. No...really.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/noah...saurs-and-all/

[zeek]

Inerrancy is merely a way of saying that wherever there is a truth claim, in fact God's words are true.
Don Carson

...which implies that the "truth claims" included by men in the Bible are God's which is "merely" an extraordinary claim! To claim that every word Paul wrote is the inerrant word of God is not a claim that Paul makes, and yet, it is made for him by those who claim an inerrant Bible. In fact, the Bible does not claim to be inerrant itself! It can't because the writers of the Bible don't tell us that they expect their writings to be included in the Bible. The inerrancy claim appears to be a polemical tactic to coerce people into uncritically accepting the "truth claims" of the Bible as unassailable and thus to prevent people from giving rational consideration to the "truth claims" on their own merits.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

...which implies that the "truth claims" included by men in the Bible are God's which is "merely" an extraordinary claim! To claim that every word Paul wrote is the inerrant word of God is not a claim that Paul makes, and yet, it is made for him by those who claim an inerrant Bible. In fact, the Bible does not claim to be inerrant itself! It can't because the writers of the Bible don't tell us that they expect their writings to be included in the Bible. The inerrancy claim appears to be a polemical tactic to coerce people into uncritically accepting the "truth claims" of the Bible as unassailable and thus to prevent people from giving rational consideration to the "truth claims" on their own merits.

1825, January 23: Adams to Jefferson_____________

We think ourselves possessed or at least we boast that we are so of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment, in all cases and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack or the wheel: in England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red hot poker: in America it is not much better, even in our Massachusetts which I believe upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States. A law was made in the latter end of the last century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new. Now what free inquiry when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for
investigation into the divine authority of those books?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

1825, January 23: Adams to Jefferson_____________

There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations.

It's a law that is in effect on the main forum of LCD which is why I don't post there. I find the political correctness there stifling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a law that is in effect on the main forum of LCD which is why I don't post there. I find the political correctness there stifling.

It seems so fitting that you would employ the godless immoralities and political correctness of 21st century America to justify the drivel here on AltViews.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems so fitting that you would employ the godless immoralities and political correctness of 21st century America to justify the drivel here on AltViews.

You were so well churched. On the main forum your religious cliches conform seamlessly to UntoHim's standard of political correctness. Here all you can do is cast stones. Without sin you are Luke Skywalker.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You were so well churched. On the main forum your religious cliches conform seamlessly to UntoHim's standard of political correctness. Here all you can do is cast stones. Without sin you are Luke Skywalker.

Combining political correctness with scriptural viewpoints is like conflating sugar and anthrax because they are both white powders.

Thanks for comparing me with UntoHim, I take that to be complementary.

As far as the Luke Skywalker comment is concerned, there are prolly 7 movies I need to watch in order to discern the implications. Considering the source of the referral, that's not the kind of investment I am willing to make.

I'll let the readers judge who "casts stones."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems so fitting that you would employ the godless immoralities and political correctness of 21st century America to justify the drivel here on AltViews.

Obviously you have a problem with 21st century America. How fitting that like the Islamic Fundamentalists your political correctness is of different century and a different country.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As far as the Luke Skywalker comment is concerned, there are prolly 7 movies I need to watch in order to discern the implications. Considering the source of the referral, that's not the kind of investment I am willing to make.

Doh! That's right! How could I forget! The Local Church leadership declared that Star Wars was demonic when it came out back in the 70s. Stay pure Ohio!

[awareness]

Alright. Everybody put down the stones. On 3. 1 ... 2 ... 3!!!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Obviously you have a problem with 21st century America. How fitting that like the Islamic Fundamentalists your political correctness is of different century and a different country.

Thank You Very Much!

For my citizenship is in the Heavens, from which I eagerly await the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. -- Philippians 3.20

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thank You Very Much!

For my citizenship is in the Heavens, from which I eagerly await the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. -- Philippians 3.20

Yeah, Pie in the sky.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, Pie in the sky.

But in what century?

[zeek]

Just a fragment from here http://www.worksofmacdonald.com/the-...-adolph-hitler

According to George MacDonald, God’s attributes are not at odds with each other, but indistinguishable. In my book, I explain how the prevalent doctrine of postmortem judgement is not formed around God’s immutable and mutually inclusive attributes. Rather it reforms his attributes around its conception of justice.

Jonathan Edwards, the author of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, formed his sermon around the prevalent perception of God’s justice. From that presuppositions onwards, he attempted to evangelize the uncommitted with the most unChrist-like tactic that I have ever seen. Today, Christians carry on with similar evangelistic schemes, but few have carried out their belief in the doctrine of Endless Conscious Torments (ECT) as far as Jonathan Edwards. Many who believe similarly admit that his sermon is difficult to read/hear, all the while affirming that he “told it like it is.”

Did he? If so, why do so few follow in his footsteps? I would wager that many who condone his tactics have not read his sermon in full, if at all. About a month ago, I finally decided to read his sermon. By the time I was finished, my stomach was in knots and my soul was in anguish; not because I feared for the eternal fate of anyone’s soul, but because of the horrendous image that he painted of the Lover of mine. Needless to say, I did not sleep well that night.

In The Inferno Dante taught that in the Ninth Circle of Hell the torment would be eternal itching.

But wait, there's more:

According to Edwards:

“There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.”

That may not seem like much on the surface, but as the sermon progresses he increasingly mentions the “arbitrary” will of God and associates it with his pleasure. Scripture plainly states that God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. [citation needed] Yet, Edwards’ sermon repeatedly states just the opposite- that God finds GREAT pleasure in their demise and even more pleasure in the following:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyed than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten-thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell."

[awareness]

According to George MacDonald, God’s attributes are not at odds with each other, but indistinguishable. In my book, I explain how the prevalent doctrine of postmortem judgement is not formed around God’s immutable and mutually inclusive attributes. Rather it reforms his attributes around its conception of justice.

Jonathan Edwards, the author of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, formed his sermon around the prevalent perception of God’s justice. From that presuppositions onwards, he attempted to evangelize the uncommitted with the most unChrist-like tactic that I have ever seen. Today, Christians carry on with similar evangelistic schemes, but few have carried out their belief in the doctrine of Endless Conscious Torments (ECT) as far as Jonathan Edwards. Many who believe similarly admit that his sermon is difficult to read/hear, all the while affirming that he “told it like it is.”

Did he? If so, why do so few follow in his footsteps? I would wager that many who condone his tactics have not read his sermon in full, if at all. About a month ago, I finally decided to read his sermon. By the time I was finished, my stomach was in knots and my soul was in anguish; not because I feared for the eternal fate of anyone’s soul, but because of the horrendous image that he painted of the Lover of mine. Needless to say, I did not sleep well that night.

“There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.”

That may not seem like much on the surface, but as the sermon progresses he increasingly mentions the “arbitrary” will of God and associates it with his pleasure. Scripture plainly states that God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. [citation needed] Yet, Edwards’ sermon repeatedly states just the opposite- that God finds GREAT pleasure in their demise and even more pleasure in the following:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyed than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten-thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell."

Had to repeat all that Jonathan Edwards crap. Edwards needed Prozac. That would maybe have taken the fire out of his brimstone. And maybe he would have got a peek at God's love attribute.

Look, I get why we resort to God's justice attribute, and consider it His highest attribute. There's no other way to explain all of the stomach turning atrocities attributed to God in the OT and book of Revelation in the NT.

It's not enough, for most out here, for me to say that God's Love is His highest and most ultimate attribute. But I think I've got Biblical support for it. Just 1st John will do it: "God is love." It doesn't say God is justice. It says God is love. And then there's Paul's testimony in 1st Corinth 13.

And as much as I love a good fire and brimstone sermon, as much as anybody, and prolly do deserve it, I don't think even as a human I could tell my son I love you and then kill him.

A real God, not the one we find in the Bible, but a real one, if such a one exists, would have as his highest attribute Love. And love would trump justice hands down. Who could resist such a love?

A little Prozac and Jonathan Edwards would have been fine. Then he would have put his obvious great oratory skills toward preaching about God's love.

[OBW]

Not sure that it is easy to define a primary attribute, or controlling attribute. Rather, I think that there are many attributes, and if any one of them is given free reign without a fully conscious decision to act according to that way v another, or some moderated middle ground, everything would be chaos.

If only the love was evident, God would simply love everyone and evil would be rampant and unchecked. And we would complain that he didn't love me enough to keep other people from harming me. There would be no such thing as justice outside of what man decided to exert on his own.

Similarly, if it was all about righteousness and justice, then we would all be piles of ashes. There is no one size fits all analysis. But it is clear that Love is a factor because without the restraint on judgment that it provides, we would all perish. And without some amount of judgment, we would all run amok.

Just looking at two aspects.

I think that this kind of view is the answer to the old philosophical question about how a holy and righteous God could allow evil. The answer is that if it were simply about righteousness, he wouldn't. But it is also about a desire for uncontrolled beings to choose rather than be forced. So there is restraint. And in this we see love at work.

In effect, the old philosophical good v evil question is a false paradox. And we repeat it in less severe terms when we question why God might judge some severely but not others. Or seem to change his ways over time. We ignore that the question is not a binary issue with only one choice to be made for all time and all things.

And if God is all-knowing, we question his vast knowledge with our paltry few facts (or presumed facts).

And an analogy about loving your son but killing him (or not being able to) does not answer the question. It just presumes that our considerations are as good as there is. Or that the situation is truly similar (may not be).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure that it is easy to define a primary attribute, or controlling attribute. Rather, I think that there are many attributes, and if any one of them is given free reign without a fully conscious decision to act according to that way v another, or some moderated middle ground, everything would be chaos.

If only the love was evident, God would simply love everyone and evil would be rampant and unchecked. And we would complain that he didn't love me enough to keep other people from harming me. There would be no such thing as justice outside of what man decided to exert on his own.

Similarly, if it was all about righteousness and justice, then we would all be piles of ashes. There is no one size fits all analysis. But it is clear that Love is a factor because without the restraint on judgment that it provides, we would all perish. And without some amount of judgment, we would all run amok.

Just looking at two aspects.

I think that this kind of view is the answer to the old philosophical question about how a holy and righteous God could allow evil. The answer is that if it were simply about righteousness, he wouldn't. But it is also about a desire for uncontrolled beings to choose rather than be forced. So there is restraint. And in this we see love at work.

In effect, the old philosophical good v evil question is a false paradox. And we repeat it in less severe terms when we question why God might judge some severely but not others. Or seem to change his ways over time. We ignore that the question is not a binary issue with only one choice to be made for all time and all things.

And if God is all-knowing, we question his vast knowledge with our paltry few facts (or presumed facts).

And an analogy about loving your son but killing him (or not being able to) does not answer the question. It just presumes that our considerations are as good as there is. Or that the situation is truly similar (may not be).

If God created us then to question is to use our God-given intelligence. [A talent that Witness Lee suppressed.] ]Why wouldn't a God that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, create a world of beings that are both free and good?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

If God created us then to question is to use our God-given intelligence. [A talent that Witness Lee suppressed.] ]Why wouldn't a God that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, create a world of beings that are both free and good?

I have no quibble with you position. And I don't engage it to beat you down. Just to provide the perspective of what goes on in my mind on the subject.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have no quibble with you position. And I don't engage it to beat you down. Just to provide the perspective of what goes on in my mind on the subject.

I appreciate your perspective. Dialogue enlarges mine.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I appreciate your perspective. Dialogue enlarges mine.

As it does mine.

[OBW]

A moment of levity.

I note this in awareness' signature:

power of love overcomes the love of power the world

That reminded me of the following progression of expression:

To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do Be Do Be Do - Sinatra
Scooby Dooby Do - Scooby Do
Yaba Daba Doo - Fred Flintstone

[zeek]

"Cruz’s approach to politics is inseparable from this theology. His goal is to lead a Christian occupation of the culture and then wait for the Second Coming of Christ."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrent...s-dominionism/

[OBW]

Interesting article. While I am not always convinced at the extremes that some people presume upon many of these kinds of theology, it is clear that is well beyond what I understand to be biblically sound.

The problem with most of these kinds of tactics (on the side of those opposing that theology) is that in the political arena, it will take not only such a "dominionist" to rise to power as president, but also a Congress that will legislate as they want. It has been noted over the years that very often the balance of power has been effected through a congress that is not entirely in line with the President. Sometimes they get what they want for a couple of years, but eventually it bogs down when the populace moderates the Congressional power, or the president, such that things don't go the way either really wants. We complain about a do-nothing Congress because they just bicker among themselves about not letting those other guys have their way. With the possible exception of Obamacare, and his willingness to simply dictate that he is going to do things since Congress won't act in his way, there has never been any real chance that things would go to either extreme.

What we need is someone right of Hillary and left of most of the Republican front-runners who doesn't do and say really stupid things. And that person will be neither a Dominionist nor the second coming of Marx.

(BTW, I saw a "Bernie 2016" bumper sticker this morning.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

What we need is someone right of Hillary and left of most of the Republican front-runners who doesn't do and say really stupid things. And that person will be neither a Dominionist nor the second coming of Marx.

You're setting the bar too low. There are a lot of total nincompoops and scoundrels who meet those specifications.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're setting the bar too low. There are a lot of total nincompoops and scoundrels who meet those specifications.

Sorry if I seemed to open it up to anyone who came along with those qualifications. Fact is I fit the bill. And I have no business even thinking I could do better.

Some of us are better as part of the collective of arm-chair quarterbacks. As are a number of those who are trying to get the job.

Vote? Yes!

Speak their mind on issues? Sure

Hold Office? No!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Vote? Yes!

Speak their mind on issues? Sure

Hold Office? No!

I have no problem with Christians running for office and holding political office. Yes, politics is ugly business, and liars seem to prosper in it, but politics is not inherently sinful, like running a dude ranch in Nevada.

One of the Republican candidates was from my area. Another married a classmate of two of my neighbors. These are just a couple of the Christians running for office with an upright character and whose word actually means something, in complete contrast to the most of the bozos in office who have zero integrity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have no problem with Christians running for office and holding political office. Yes, politics is ugly business, and liars seem to prosper in it, but politics is not inherently sinful, like running a dude ranch in Nevada.

One of the Republican candidates was from my area. Another married a classmate of two of my neighbors. These are just a couple of the Christians running for office with an upright character and whose word actually means something, in complete contrast to the most of the bozos in office who have zero integrity.

I agree with you fully. My comment "Hold Office? No!" related to what zeek pretty aptly referred to as the "total nincompoops and scoundrels" category. And no matter how you look at it, there are a few of those in there. We may not all agree on which they are, but they are there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have no problem with Christians running for office and holding political office.

Jimmy Carter did. How'd that turn out?

Over the years, I've learned generally to not trust Christians, sorry to say. And I trust politicians even less. I don't think a real Christian would even want to run for office. And any one claiming to be Christian that does run for office can't be trusted any more than all the other politicians running for office.

My cynicism runneth over.

[zeek]

WWJD......

“What would Jesus do?” It is too easy to use this question to spiritually intimidate our enemies, which is why the question is so frightening. The question should be turned first to ourselves so as to put ourselves in question—“in the accusative,” as Levinas would say—instead of being used as a beam, as in a two-by-four, to slam others. The question is tricky, not a magic bullet, because everybody left or right wants Jesus on their side (instead of the other way around).
John D. Caputo

[zeek]

The gospel is not a way to get people to heaven; it is a way to get people to God. It's a way of overcoming every obstacle to everlasting joy in God. If we don't want God above all things, we have not been converted by the gospel.
John Piper

Yes, because if God is the basis and reality of all divine things, then God is the essence of heaven. Heaven is a God-symbol. Since both are invisible to us, they disappear into each other, except for faith which sees the Unseen.

[zeek]

Frank has a unique POV given his background as the son of Francis Schaeffer.

https://youtu.be/iqTKcxuz5f0

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, because if God is the basis and reality of all divine things, then God is the essence of heaven. Heaven is a God-symbol. Since both are invisible to us, they disappear into each other, except for faith which sees the Unseen.

I think it says faith is the "evidence" of things not seen, whatever that means.

And God and heaven may be invisible to us, but we have an imagination, that we can imagine God and heaven with. Maybe the imagination sees the unseen. But I don't have a verse to prove it. So I guess it doesn't count.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think it says faith is the "evidence" of things not seen, whatever that means.

That you argue against the Bible being the Word of God with others but then presuppose it yourself as you have here is self-contradictory. There would have been an author, in this case an anonymous one of that definition. Do you also presuppose here that every other author anthologized in the Bible uses precisely that definition? But, of course, it's the Word of God!

And God and heaven may be invisible to us, but we have an imagination, that we can imagine God and heaven with. Maybe the imagination sees the unseen. But I don't have a verse to prove it. So I guess it doesn't count.

The imagination always sees the unseen. The definition of the word implies that. Why do you need a Bible verse? It's self evident.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That you argue against the Bible being the Word of God with others but then presuppose it yourself as you have here is self-contradictory. There would have been an author, in this case an anonymous one of that definition. Do you also presuppose here that every other author anthologized in the Bible uses precisely that definition? But, of course, it's the Word of God!

Well you got it then, even tho you don't get me. I'm still able to grab that old shop-worn fundamentalist hat and put it on. And there are triggers that bring it out. So I guess your mention that faith sees the unseen was one of those triggers, and I couldn't help holding to Hebrews 11:1.

Originally Posted by zeek

The imagination always sees the unseen. The definition of the word implies that. Why do you need a Bible verse? It's self evident.

Having shape-shifted into my fundamentalist persona I realized that my imagination claim was outside Biblical proof, and backing.

And as far as your conclusion that imagination is self evident, I must point out that many believers would not own up to how central their imagination is to their beliefs. It's appears, more often than not, as I've seen anyway, and experienced, that imagination is a kind of dissociative disorder ...

[zeek]

Why Do Evangelicals Support Donald Trump? A Pastor Explains http://www.npr.org/2016/02/25/468149...astor-explains

Of course, the Evangelical Christians are "embracing" Donald Trump. Nothing speaks to them like a dominant male who at once stokes and promises to relieve their fears. Witness Lee was just one of many throughout history who taught us that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And as far as your conclusion that imagination is self evident, I must point out that many believers would not own up to how central their imagination is to their beliefs. It's appears, more often than not, as I've seen anyway, and experienced, that imagination is a kind of dissociative disorder ...

The problem is not the imagination. It's the lack of empirical evidence for propositions they think they must support to be saved. Great imagination is a crucial trait of humanity's highest specimens: it greatest thinkers, artists and saints and lovers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why Do Evangelicals Support Donald Trump? A Pastor Explains http://www.npr.org/2016/02/25/468149...astor-explains

Of course, the Evangelical Christians are "embracing" Donald Trump. Nothing speaks to them like a dominant male who at once stokes and promises to relieve their fears. Witness Lee was just one of many throughout history who taught us that.

I can't explain it that easily. Evangelicals supporting Trump. Unless it is not about morality.

And they also seem to support Cruz a lot. Especially those at the Fundamental end of the spectrum. There it really is about morality and "God's chosen people."

Both seem to be ready to start an Armageddon against IRIS. I don't like ISIS either. But the rhetoric seems wrong in both cases.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why Do Evangelicals Support Donald Trump

Because they don't want Muslim's in this country.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because they don't want Muslim's in this country.

Like I said Trump projects a strong man who relieves their fears.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Like I said Trump projects a strong man who relieves their fears.

He scares the #3!! out of me. Someone who is declared persona non grata by a major foreign country (even if they would ultimately relent if he was actually president) I cannot find someone with the audacity to say the things he does as a reasonable candidate for president, even if I otherwise like his positions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why Do Evangelicals Support Donald Trump?

It's like this. When a Christian couple perceives that their house is burning down around them, that's not the time to tell their kids bedtime bible stories nor question whether the fireman is pro-life or not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

He scares the #3!! out of me. Someone who is declared persona non grata by a major foreign country (even if they would ultimately relent if he was actually president) I cannot find someone with the audacity to say the things he does as a reasonable candidate for president, even if I otherwise like his positions.

Last night after debate Trump was grilled, "why are your taxes being audited." Trump responds, "I don't know, maybe because I am a strong Christian."

Classic.

Trump is a unprincipled bully. He is a populist, who plays on fears. But isn't that what every politician does?

[awareness]

ha ha lol TRUMP! And bro Ohio too.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Last night after debate Trump was grilled, "why are your taxes being audited." Trump responds, "I don't know, maybe because I am a strong Christian."

Classic.

Trump is a unprincipled bully. He is a populist, who plays on fears. But isn't that what every politician does?

At some level you are correct. In today's environment, you have to wonder about anyone who actually wants the office of president.

Of course, I guess there actually are some people who have a burning desire to serve. But it seems unfortunate that there are too many that have a burning desire to rule. To create America according to their personal vision, and at the expense of everyone else.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Last night after debate Trump was grilled, "why are your taxes being audited." Trump responds, "I don't know, maybe because I am a strong Christian."

Classic.

Trump is a unprincipled bully. He is a populist, who plays on fears. But isn't that what every politician does?

The conservative ones that you accept all do. Those that don't you reject because they threaten your world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The conservative ones that you accept all do. Those that don't you reject because they threaten your world.

This makes no sense.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This makes no sense.

The conservative politicians that you accept all preach fear. Those that don't preach fear you reject as too liberal because they threaten your little worldview. If that makes no sense to you, perhaps it's because you have become senseless. You were desensitized by your circa 30 years in the Local Church. Ohio, come back to your senses, if you are able.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The conservative politicians that you accept all preach fear. Those that don't preach fear you reject as too liberal because they threaten your little worldview. If that makes no sense to you, perhaps it's because you have become senseless. You were desensitized by your circa 30 years in the Local Church. Ohio, come back to your senses, if you are able.

All politicians preach fear. Period.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All politicians preach fear. Period.

I don't know, Bernie doesn't seem big on fear. He speaks of Revolution. Is that fear, or courage?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know, Bernie doesn't seem big on fear. He speaks of Revolution. Is that fear, or courage?

It's not courage, it's the politics of fear and hatred.

Fear and hatred of them rich people who don't pay enough taxes.
Fear and hatred of them wall street people.
Fear and hatred of them big industrial polluters who give us jobs.
Fear and hatred of them conservative, back to the dark ages, moral people.
Fear and hatred of them people with actual jobs.
Fear and hatred of them people with private health insurance.
Fear and hatred of them people with big gas guzzling cars.
Fear and hatred of them universities that expect you to pay for tuition.
Fear and hatred of them people who don't believe in climate change and global warming.
Fear and hatred of them people who take away their right to kill the unborn.
Fear and hatred of them white "racists."
Fear and hatred of them police.
Fear and hatred of them who want a balanced budget.

Go listen to Bernie yourself, after you turn your brain on.

He's just like listening to Obama's "hope and change" message the last two elections. I used to turn my brain off and listen ... ooh ahh, it all sounded so good!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's not courage, it's the politics of fear and hatred.

Fear and hatred of them rich people who don't pay enough taxes.
Fear and hatred of them wall street people.
Fear and hatred of them big industrial polluters who give us jobs.
Fear and hatred of them conservative, back to the dark ages, moral people.
Fear and hatred of them people with actual jobs.
Fear and hatred of them people with private health insurance.
Fear and hatred of them people with big gas guzzling cars.
Fear and hatred of them universities that expect you to pay for tuition.
Fear and hatred of them people who don't believe in climate change and global warming.
Fear and hatred of them people who take away their right to kill the unborn.
Fear and hatred of them white "racists."
Fear and hatred of them police.
Fear and hatred of them who want a balanced budget.

Go listen to Bernie yourself, after you turn your brain on.

He's just like listening to Obama's "hope and change" message the last two elections. I used to turn my brain off and listen ... ooh ahh, it all sounded so good!

Goodness bro Ohio, Bernie is scarier than a fire and brimstone preacher.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness bro Ohio, Bernie is scarier than a fire and brimstone preacher.

Yeah, at least they promise the forgiveness of sins and a future in heaven, and God can deliver on that promise!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, at least they promise the forgiveness of sins and a future in heaven, and God can deliver on that promise!

Moved to "Politics and the Church" ...

[zeek]

When I was in the the Publix supermarket yesterday I came across this book http://www.amazon.com/Three-Heavens-...rds=john+hagee . I was astonished to see that John Hagee devotes an entire chapter to the proposition that demons are invading society and another chapter to how demons are invading the church! It brought back memories of the demonology I learned in the LCM. In my entire life I have never experienced anything that required believing in actual disembodied evil spirits. Then it occurred to me that some of my ex-local church friends might still believe that we live in a world filled with literal demons like Mr. Hagee does. Do you? If so, why?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

When I was in the the Publix supermarket yesterday I came across this book http://www.amazon.com/Three-Heavens-...rds=john+hagee . I was astonished to see that John Hagee devotes an entire chapter to the proposition that demons are invading society and another chapter to how demons are invading the church! It brought back memories of the demonology I learned in the LCM. In my entire life I have never experienced anything that required believing actual disembodied spirits like Mr. Hagee describes. Then it occurred to me, that some of my ex-local church friends might still believe that we live in a world filled with literal demons like Mr. Hagee does. Do you? If so, why?

I will confess that I do not know how to respond to this question. It could be a little like asking "do you believe there is a Satan?"

If we are going to take every reference to something called a demon in the gospels as symbolic of psychological problems or some other issue that is not about negative beings of the spirit world, I am not necessarily opposed to it. But I am equally not sold that it is entirely that simple. I mean we are otherwise discussing things about a God who can simply speak your psychological problems into health in an instant and yet are unwilling to consider that God is not the only being operating in that realm. Not sure that is a truly coherent position. (And not saying that is your position.)

I believe that there is something beyond what we know, but whether it is what Hagee is selling is something else. But at the same time I cannot simply dismiss it as from the lunatic fringe since the very idea of God would therefore be relegated to that fringe. While we cannot see God, I believe that we see the evidence of his existence even if we search with all our might to define it away. So unless God is simply a personification of an "X" factor that is as of today undefined and not understood, I will stick with the idea that there is God, and that the one described in the Bible best exemplifies what seems to fit the missing piece.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

If we are going to take every reference to something called a demon in the gospels as symbolic of psychological problems or some other issue that is not about negative beings of the spirit world, I am not necessarily opposed to it.

I've read from more than one source that they believed epilepsy was demon possession. If you've ever seen a seizure that's easy to understand. and accept, especially back in those days ... long before science and modern medicine. Now we know better. Given how superstitious and ignorant they were back then prolly lots of mental conditions, that we now treat as heath problems, were seen as demon possession.

Originally Posted by OBW

]I believe that there is something beyond what we know

That's a given.

Originally Posted by OBW

but whether it is what Hagee is selling is something else.

I've got all kinds of question marks about Hagee. Sure he's got a megachurch (in Texas) and a worldwide ministry, but he's pretty twisted with Jerusalem syndrome. I saw a video of him standing at the edge of Megiddo saying, this is where the blood will be up to the bridles of the horses. Then there his book on the 4 blood moons. He's pretty whacked. I'd say even as big as he may be he's on the lunatic fringe.

Originally Posted by OBW

So unless God is simply a personification of an "X" factor that is as of today undefined and not understood, I will stick with the idea that there is God, and that the one described in the Bible best exemplifies what seems to fit the missing piece.

Well I don't know if believing in demons is necessary to believe in God, but maybe.

My question is, given superstition wasn't new in those days, why does it appear in the Bible that demons suddenly take center stage in the New Testament? Was it Hellenic influence?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will confess that I do not know how to respond to this question. It could be a little like asking "do you believe there is a Satan?"

Very much like it. And, if someone does believe there is a Satan, what do they believe about him? Belief in Satan opens the whole question of dualism versus monotheism. If Satan is the "God of this world", what is the God of Jesus God of? The next world? The coming kingdom? The biblical text?

If we are going to take every reference to something called a demon in the gospels as symbolic of psychological problems or some other issue that is not about negative beings of the spirit world, I am not necessarily opposed to it. But I am equally not sold that it is entirely that simple. I mean we are otherwise discussing things about a God who can simply speak your psychological problems into health in an instant and yet are unwilling to consider that God is not the only being operating in that realm. Not sure that is a truly coherent position. (And not saying that is your position.)

So, it seems that for you there's no way to question the existence of demons without questioning the existence of God? If that's true then questioning God seems unavoidable, unless there are phenomenon that are best explained by demons which science has so far been unable to detect.

I believe that there is something beyond what we know, but whether it is what Hagee is selling is something else. But at the same time I cannot simply dismiss it as from the lunatic fringe since the very idea of God would therefore be relegated to that fringe. While we cannot see God, I believe that we see the evidence of his existence even if we search with all our might to define it away. So unless God is simply a personification of an "X" factor that is as of today undefined and not understood, I will stick with the idea that there is God, and that the one described in the Bible best exemplifies what seems to fit the missing piece.

Since we don't know everything, there is undoubtedly something beyond what we know. Whether the unknown includes disembodied evil spirits that are flying around looking for bodies to invade is the issue. Unless we encounter first hand a phenomenon that is best explained that way, it's nomore than an unsupported claim that some third party is making.

That we are spiritual beings is self evident if by "spiritual" we mean conscious. Since we ourselves seem to be more than merely physical, to suppose that reality is more than merely physical including some kind of concept of a first or highest or ultimate consciousness that corresponds to what people call God makes sense to me.

But I haven't seen persuasive evidence for pernicious disembodied consciousness[es]. Maybe I'm just lucky. From what I have heard and read from others, the accounts are unconvincing much like ghost stories. Scientific studies Hagee's are no different.

But, the "demonic" still has meaning to me as a metaphor for anything that people let take over their lives to the point that they lose touch with their centered selves. By that definition, TV and video games and addictive drugs and material commodities can become demonic. If Hagee were talking about demonic in that sense, he'd have more of a basis for arguing that the demonic is taking control of society and the church. That's a real problem in the world today. I see evidence of it everyday as people lose touch with the world around them to interact with their cell phones or kill virtual people on their video games for hour upon hour or just lose themselves in the boob tube. Mass murderers and terrorists seem to have such demonic quality about them in the sense that these people have allowed themselves to be taken over by hate or pseudo-religious impulses that deprive them of their innate humanity. In that sense, the demonic is a real threat that surrounds us.

[awareness]

This might help define what Hagee means by demons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAXJQplgw2E

[awareness]

Mat 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
Mat 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well I don't know if believing in demons is necessary to believe in God, but maybe.

My question is, given superstition wasn't new in those days, why does it appear in the Bible that demons suddenly take center stage in the New Testament? Was it Hellenic influence?

My thought is that believing in actual demons is not a requirement for believing in God. But not believing in them is not a requirement for being a person of sound mind.

As for where the idea of them came from, that is probably an effort in futility. It has been said by people who truly believe in them that there was little reference to such things before or after the NT times, but that it was somewhat of a epidemic (possibly even beyond the Jewish people) from shortly before to shortly after.

Almost makes it seem like either an allowance for the purpose of a venue for the demonstration of the power of Jesus (a position that would be despised by some) or an effort from the "fallen" side of the heavenly realm to create havoc for the coming of the Messiah (unfortunately for them, not very successful).


Exorcism may be pointless, but faith in Christ to heal someone plagued by some of the worst psychological, physiological, and psycho-physiological problems is not. Since we really don't know what causes so much of these things, it probably does not matter what people think is the cause when they pray concerning its effects. The need is real even if the cause is misunderstood.

I don't get into debates about the rationality of demons, Heaven, Hell, or even God. All are part of faith. And faith in God is the only part that really matters (assuming that we are right and God really is — and I do assume that).

[OBW]

While we are talking at the issue differently, I will respond to only this one.

Originally Posted by zeek

So, it seems that for you there's no way to question the existence of demons without questioning the existence of God? If that's true then questioning God seems unavoidable, unless there are phenomenon that are best explained by demons which science has so far been unable to detect.

Not what I was saying. But there is no way to question them and get an answer. So the question remains unanswered.

Yet virtually everyone questions God at one time or another. Even the ones who claim to have virtually always believed. The level of questioning may be vastly different. And where we take it as well.

One can firmly believe in God and be very unsure about whether the references to demons are concerning actual evil beings of the spirit world or are metaphorical constructs to stand in place of an accurate diagnosis of psychological or physiological problems that manifest in the manner described in most of the references to demon possession. The two are not inseparable.

And the ability of the writers to describe the symptoms more clearly than they have leaves the underlying problem graphically described in one sense as awful, yet poorly described in terms of the actual causes. Even if there are actual demons, what they truly are and how they operate is not really described. Just the symptoms in certain cases.

That is the reason that I mentioned to awareness that I really prefer not to get into debates about the reality of demons, and even God, since there is an aspect of faith involved in either and there is no concrete proof on either other than what you find in your faith. I will debate faith on things that are intended to be "Christian" that run cross-hairs with what we can read on whatever subject in the Bible. But even in that, the adage of "in all things, charity" should prevail.

[OBW]

Further to my past post, I see where you got the idea that I thought that questioning demons meant I had to question God. I said "I cannot simply dismiss it as from the lunatic fringe since the very idea of God would therefore be relegated to that fringe." But the statement was concerning simple dismissal as irrational. If we simply dismiss what seems irrational, then it would be difficult to not simply dismiss God as irrational.

Now I realize that the apologetics side of the arguments will declare that there is a rational aspect to God even if you can't find a rational aspect for demons. And at some level, I agree. But even with that rationality, it falls short of absolute proof, therefore the need for faith. Faith overcomes the aspects that are not proved in a modern/scientific sense.

And the forms of rationality for God, whether acknowledged by all or not, are not the same as whatever might be offered with respect to demons. So the answer with respect to the two can easily be different. But there are people who accept all kinds of spiritual powers and beings and really don't accept God, or relegate him to being a god among the throng of such beings. And alternately, there are plenty who have convinced themselves that there is no such thing as actual demons yet strongly believe in God.

But if anything not fully explained in a way that is sound and rational (and even scientific) is dismissed, then both God and demons would get the heave-ho. And many do this.

Yes, you could think of the two (God and demons) as of the same nature and feel compelled to either accept both of dismiss both. But it is not necessarily so. The Bible gives much reason to accept God, but little proof that demons are other than the manner in which the people of the times understood the issues observed. Of course, that does not explain the case where demons are attributed with speaking to some wanabe exorcists with "Jesus we know, and Paul we know, but you we do not know." And I will not try to either.

[awareness]

I'd say that John Hagee is a case of it takes one to know one ; that Hagee is another case of Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard, or, like them, he's preaching to himself. It's certainly evident, by his size, and the affair that ended his first marriage that, he has some demons of his own.

But then it would imply that Jesus too is a case of it takes one to know one, and that doesn't wash.

If you watched the Hagee video you've learned there are over 70 references to demons in the NT. And they're not painted as psychological disorders that are instantly miraculously cured. They are depicted as disembodied entities, that can go into and out of people and even swine ... and can somehow be seen. They are spoken of as evil spirits.

God is a spirit, and demons are spirits. If we take the Bible as the inerrant inspired word of God then believing in God leads to believing in demons ; real spiritual beings that are evil and can possess people, and can be cast out by us ... or those that do greater things than Jesus.

Maybe the demons only showed up to fight Jesus, and we today aren't plagued by them. But Hagee says not ... that they are in the world and even in the churches, sitting in the pews.

If so, don't they need to be cast out? I've never done that. Maybe I need to bone up on casting out ... but I fear : "Jesus I know, Paul I know, but who are you."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you watched the Hagee video you've learned there are over 70 references to demons in the NT. And they're not painted as psychological disorders that are instantly miraculously cured. They are depicted as disembodied entities, that can go into and out of people and even swine ... and can somehow be seen. They are spoken of as evil spirits.

God is a spirit, and demons are spirits. If we take the Bible as the inerrant inspired word of God then believing in God leads to believing in demons ; real spiritual beings that are evil and can possess people, and can be cast out by us ... or those that do greater things than Jesus.

And despite my general dislike of Hagee and his kind of drivel in general, you are correct. Whether the manner of description of the demonic beings was intended as about what actually was, or as a way to describe what was observed but not understood at the time is unclear.

For example, the bit about casting out a demon but not getting the freed person reengaged in reality so the demons come back stronger? Sounds sort of like what happens to people who suddenly just quit Prozac. More likely to commit suicide than if they had never taken it.

But at the same time, we don't know it all, and you are right that God is spirit and that world is not just God.

I am sometimes just as skeptical about some claims concerning angels. Not that I don't believe in them, but that some people throw angels around like "God sightings." Everything is ordained and either God or the angels direct how things happen. And put up Star Wars or Star Trek-like shields to protect against the coming storm, accident, train wreck, etc.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe the demons only showed up to fight Jesus, and we today aren't plagued by them. But Hagee says not ... that they are in the world and even in the churches, sitting in the pews.

There are some things that are not easily explained without resorting beyond what we know. Well maybe to statistics which would state that the outcome was possible even if improbable. But if it is what we don't know, then how do we know what it actually is by attributing it to demons?

There are better ways to occupy my mind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

While we are talking at the issue differently, I will respond to only this one.Not what I was saying. But there is no way to question them and get an answer. So the question remains unanswered.

An unanswered question is itself a kind of answer.

Yet virtually everyone questions God at one time or another. Even the ones who claim to have virtually always believed. The level of questioning may be vastly different. And where we take it as well.

But, you suggested that the question of the existence of demons leads to the question of the existence of God. It wasn't my idea to go there, but you've got a point. Or at least you do if you think of both God and demons as disembodied spirits. I don't care if we pursue the matter or not. I was asking about the phenomenon of demons only when I started this thread.

One can firmly believe in God and be very unsure about whether the references to demons are concerning actual evil beings of the spirit world or are metaphorical constructs to stand in place of an accurate diagnosis of psychological or physiological problems that manifest in the manner described in most of the references to demon possession. The two are not inseparable.

I don't necessarily think the authors of the Bible thought of demons as metaphorical constructs in the first place, although when Jesus speaks about demons in the passage Awareness cited in post #1851 it's a parable that requires metaphorical interpretation. But, it's a question not of what the authors intended only but of what we can believe. Personally I have never experienced anything like the demoniacs in the Bible and the pictures the stories suggest seem fantastical to me. For that matter, John Hagee's description of his encounter with a demon-possessed woman seems just as fantastical to me. Am I supposed to accept that at face value? He's getting a lot of mileage out of that strange tale by selling books and videos. If I were to do that I would just have to be good at making up stories. I worked for six years as a crisis intervention counselor and I saw some pretty strange stuff. Perhaps if I exaggerate I could rival Hagee. But, I want clarifications. For example, when he says the woman's face contorted until she looked like a cat, did he mean she had a cat like expression on her human face, or that her face became furry, with whiskers and cat fangs? Such details would help us to determine whether what he is claiming can be explained psychologically or if the supernatural must be evoked.

And the ability of the writers to describe the symptoms more clearly than they have leaves the underlying problem graphically described in one sense as awful, yet poorly described in terms of the actual causes. Even if there are actual demons, what they truly are and how they operate is not really described. Just the symptoms in certain cases.

Clinically, symptoms are what the patient reports not what the doctor observes. The latter are clinical signs. So whenever you have a third party report as for example when the demon leaves the demoniac and enters the herd of swine that runs into the water and drowns, we're not talking about symptoms. But, it's funny, in most of these accounts, I can't tell if the demon was visible or not and there is never a description of what it looked like. So it seems like a demon is inferred from the observation of a strange talking human, strange acting pigs and so forth. I've marveled at those stories for years, and I still don't know exactly what to make of them. Yes seeing is believing but apparently believing is seeing too. How far the phenomenon of psychological projection can take us toward explaining the experience of demons is another question.

That is the reason that I mentioned to awareness that I really prefer not to get into debates about the reality of demons, and even God, since there is an aspect of faith involved in either and there is no concrete proof on either other than what you find in your faith. I will debate faith on things that are intended to be "Christian" that run cross-hairs with what we can read on whatever subject in the Bible. But even in that, the adage of "in all things, charity" should prevail.

Well I am always intending dialogue not debate on LCD. This thread is no exception.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Further to my past post, I see where you got the idea that I thought that questioning demons meant I had to question God. I said "I cannot simply dismiss it as from the lunatic fringe since the very idea of God would therefore be relegated to that fringe." But the statement was concerning simple dismissal as irrational. If we simply dismiss what seems irrational, then it would be difficult to not simply dismiss God as irrational.

Perhaps we should differentiate irrational from non-rational. The idea of God is non-rational in the sense that it appears as a result of revelation or tradition rather than as an idea that we reason to. But, the idea of God is not irrational in the sense that there are no reasons or arguments for believing in it.

Now I realize that the apologetics side of the arguments will declare that there is a rational aspect to God even if you can't find a rational aspect for demons. And at some level, I agree. But even with that rationality, it falls short of absolute proof, therefore the need for faith. Faith overcomes the aspects that are not proved in a modern/scientific sense.

That isn't the way I view faith but I get your point.

The Bible gives much reason to accept God, but little proof that demons are other than the manner in which the people of the times understood the issues observed. Of course, that does not explain the case where demons are attributed with speaking to some wanabe exorcists with "Jesus we know, and Paul we know, but you we do not know." And I will not try to either.

That's another case like I mentioned in my last post where those are apparently the words of the "demoniac" and the presence of a demon inhabiting him is inferred by the writer. How do we know that the demoniac did not simply believe himself to be possessed a demon rather then that he actually was? We don't, because the author presents the demon as real. So, from my POV, we are stuck with a situation where psychologizing the story must be conjectural, but a literal interpretation is fantastically beyond experience and hence nonsensical.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Or at least you do if you think of both God and demons as disembodied spirits.

I'll let the rest go for now (and probably forever).

"Disembodied spirits" infers that they had bodies and lost them somehow. My understanding is that what we refer to as demons comes from the spirit world in which there are no bodies (as we know them) to lose. Fallen angels are the primary explanation given.

I am not saying that questioning demons necessarily requires a questioning of God, but it could. That would depend on what it is that base of the question. If it is the spirit world altogether, then the existence of God is in question. If the question is whether demons are metaphorical constructs or actual spirit beings, then the spirit world is at least likely assumed, therefore God is not necessarily in question.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

There are better ways to occupy my mind.

I think I get it OBW. I'm pretty much agnostic when it comes to angels and demons. That's because I've never met one nor even seen one. I wouldn't even know one if I saw one. I don't know what they look like.

And the Bible doesn't help. It says people saw Jesus cast out demons, but how did they see the demon(s)? They saw pigs run into the water, but how did they see that demons caused it? Demons, as far as I know, are invisible.

So these demon claims seems a little hokey to me. It's like the claims of seeing ghosts, and UFO's. I've never seen either one.

To me, seeing is believing, not believing is seeing. So I'm agnostic to all of it.

You are right. Why busy our brains with such nonsense?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll let the rest go for now (and probably forever).

Yeah enough about demons. Like you said about Hagee it's just drivel.

"Disembodied spirits" infers that they had bodies and lost them somehow. My understanding is that what we refer to as demons comes from the spirit world in which there are no bodies (as we know them) to lose. Fallen angels are the primary explanation given.

Right, God isn't strictly disembodied unless He had a body and has one no more. Some have theorized that the material universe is God's body. Who knows.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah enough about demons. Like you said about Hagee it's just drivel.

But doesn't that dismiss the Bible, and Jesus?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But doesn't that dismiss the Bible, and Jesus?

No. It dismisses a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible and Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. It dismisses a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible and Jesus.

Pre-modern? Is that like before the internet?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. It dismisses a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible and Jesus.

So you are saying Hagee is stuck in a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible and Jesus ... and so is/are the demons he's casting out, and angels that saved his life? ; that the whole bunch of them is/are pre-modern?

I have a question. Isn't the whole Bible pre-modern?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Pre-modern? Is that like before the internet?

It was before the modern era which brought us the scientific method, constitutional government, and the industrial revolution. Before that, people were ruled by superstition, authoritarianism, and blind faith. Fundamentalism is a regression to those times.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you are saying Hagee is stuck in a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible and Jesus ... and so is/are the demons he's casting out, and angels that saved his life? ; that the whole bunch of them is/are pre-modern?

I have a question. Isn't the whole Bible pre-modern?

Hagee is not necessarily stuck. He's profiting from persuading sheep to think like primitives. Of course the Bible is pre-modern. But, it doesn't have to be interpreted that way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hagee is not necessarily stuck. He's profiting from persuading sheep to think like primitives. Of course the Bible is pre-modern. But, it doesn't have to be interpreted that way.

So you are suggesting that modern interpreters interpret the Bible considering the 'primitive thinking' back then, and summarily just dismiss demons and angels, considering them just the result of primitive superstition?

But that does dismiss the stories about Jesus casting out demons, and angels like Gabriel paying visits to Mary and others ; resulting, in the end, in distrusting Biblical accounts ... and therefore, one thing leads to another, dismissing the Bible, as from primitive per-modern thinking.

And, btw, lots of modern thinking people like angels. Hagee is just playing to the dark side of such Biblical conceptions ; in other words, if angels exist so must demons.

And you might have one, or seven ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you are suggesting that modern interpreters interpret the Bible considering the 'primitive thinking' back then, and summarily just dismiss demons and angels, considering them just the result of primitive superstition?

But that does dismiss the stories about Jesus casting out demons, and angels like Gabriel paying visits to Mary and others ; resulting, in the end, in distrusting Biblical accounts ... and therefore, one thing leads to another, dismissing the Bible, as from primitive per-modern thinking.

And, btw, lots of modern thinking people like angels. Hagee is just playing to the dark side of such Biblical conceptions ; in other words, if angels exist so must demons.

I think you are presuming a false dichotomy. Modern thinking rejects the spirit world altogether and pre-modern thinking accepts it all.

It is not so simple. In fact, it is arguable that modern thinking complicates the process. It does not necessarily reject every notion of evil spirits, but also sees biblical examples which would appear to parallel psychological diagnoses for which something more than "snap out of it!" would be required to effect real change.

Could there be demons? I have to admit that I cannot rule them out. But that does not mean that the stories in the NT cause me to fear being captured by one just because I do something sinful (or whatever).

There was someone I knew back in the 70s who said he had been skeptical of demons but went to some seminar put on by people trying to make people aware of a real demonic spirit world. I figure a lot of it was superstition even now, but the story, though anecdotal, is something to consider. He tells that in one part, they began to make reference to some of the names of demons that they had learn in their "studies." As some of the names were spoken, this guy said that he suddenly had a feeling as if a dark oppressive force had entered the room. He got up and left at that point.

Yeah. Maybe he was not as "unsold" by that time and just had the idea and it began to bother him. And maybe there was actually something to it. I cannot say.

And it is the "I cannot say" part that causes me to be uncertain. Yet I do not fear such a thing. Maybe a little cognitive dissonance. Maybe I just figure that those already on the "right" side are immune. Or maybe they are primarily at work where people are not easily distracted from God by the world around them. (That is a reasoning I have heard from some who acknowledge that they have heard of nothing that seemed to them to be demonic possession in a land of 400M+ people.)

Going back to your first sentence, surely primitive thinking will give causes that may not be true. But that does not mean that modern thinking simply rejects because it is not scientific (though surely there are some who take that route).

I find it interesting that a culture that thinks less and less of God is more an more enamored with TV and movies concerning angels, witches, demons, ghosts, miracles, near-death experiences . . . . The science around them would reject much of it, and they claim to not believe in a "higher power" outside of themselves, or man in general, yet flock after such things. Somehow modern man is not so thoroughly modern.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It was before the modern era which brought us the scientific method, constitutional government, and the industrial revolution. Before that, people were ruled by superstition, authoritarianism, and blind faith. Fundamentalism is a regression to those times.

We are now seeing the end of constitutional government replaced by executive orders, and the industrial revolution with jobs replaced by overseas factories. Since the 2016 election cycle has returned us to the days of "superstition, authoritarianism, and blind faith," it sounds like fundamentalism is very progressive, even the new "black."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you are suggesting that modern interpreters interpret the Bible considering the 'primitive thinking' back then, and summarily just dismiss demons and angels, considering them just the result of primitive superstition?

More or less. They present these events as if external non-material entities frequently invaded people. Movies and television present such images all the time. But, it's outside of most peoples actual experience today. So if the Bible is to have relevance, most of us need to interpret it metaphorically. Even Hagee does that later on in his sermon. Like I said below, a demon is anything that can take you over and cause you to lose your true self. You know, like demon Rum.

But that does dismiss the stories about Jesus casting out demons, and angels like Gabriel paying visits to Mary and others ; resulting, in the end, in distrusting Biblical accounts ... and therefore, one thing leads to another, dismissing the Bible, as from primitive pre-modern thinking.

It judges them historically improbable. It doesn't necessarily dismiss them as meaningful metaphorical stories. For example, angels represent divine intuition. That most pre-moderns thought differently then most moderns is historically evident. It doesn't follow from that fact that the Bible must be dismissed. Rather it must re-interpreted to be relevant to the 21st century perspective.

And, btw, lots of modern thinking people like angels. Hagee is just playing to the dark side of such Biblical conceptions ; in other words, if angels exist so must demons.

My granddaughter likes winged horses. That doesn't make them real.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We are now seeing the end of constitutional government replaced by executive orders, and the industrial revolution with jobs replaced by overseas factories. Since the 2016 election cycle has returned us to the days of "superstition, authoritarianism, and blind faith," it sounds like fundamentalism is very progressive, even the new "black."

Modernity has never worked perfectly, cured all ills, or solved every problem. It requires that people think rationally, consider the evidence of experience, admit the limitations of their knowledge and listen and consider other points of view. It's not a cure-all that is above criticism. No human product is. The present broken political situation is seriously testing the US system. That doesn't make fundamentalism look better. In fact, its pre-modern authoritarian POV is a big part of the problem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Modernity has never worked perfectly, cured all ills, or solved every problem. It requires that people think rationally, consider the evidence of experience, admit the limitations of their knowledge and listen and consider other points of view. It's not a cure-all that is above criticism. No human product is. The present broken political situation is seriously testing the US system. That doesn't make fundamentalism look better. In fact, its pre-modern authoritarian POV is a big part of the problem.

Fundamentalism thrives on an unchanging standard, whether it be a gold standard, the Bible, or the Constitution. They resist all change which disconnects life from its roots, its standard reference. I don't see human nature evolving from pre-modern to industrial age to post-modern. Technology changes, but human nature does not. That is why the book of Genesis and the book of John are both so relevant to the child of God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Fundamentalism thrives on an unchanging standard, whether it be a gold standard, the Bible, or the Constitution. They resist all change which disconnects life from its roots, its standard reference. I don't see human nature evolving from pre-modern to industrial age to post-modern. Technology changes, but human nature does not. That is why the book of Genesis and the book of John are both so relevant to the child of God.

The Bible is pre-modern; the Constitution, modern, influenced as it is by the political philosophy of John Locke, Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers. The gold standard is a human social construct as is the whole concept of money. The Bible has changed plenty as the various manuscripts show. The US Constitution has changed every time it's been amended not to mention the differences in the interpretation of the judges. The idea that any of these don't change is manifestly wrong. Changes in human nature as DNA shows are usually small enough to go unnoticed. Cultural evolution from the first century until now is much more obvious and doesn't depend on genetic changes. For example, in OT Israel women could be bought and sold legally, whereas in the US such practice is illegal and abhorrent to normal people.

Exodus 21:7-9Contemporary English Version (CEV)
7 A young woman who was sold by her father doesn’t gain her freedom in the same way that a man does. 8 If she doesn’t please the man who bought her to be his wife, he must let her be bought back.

[OBW]

Fundamentalism thrives on an unchanging standard, whether it be a gold standard, the Bible, or the Constitution. They resist all change which disconnects life from its roots, its standard reference.

While there is truth in this, each example of fundamentalism is thriving on an "unchanging standard" that is a change from the one before it. The various Christian fundamentalists are tied to a standard that they determined to be "the standard" within the last 200 years.

Same can be said for the Constitution.

Whether we want to call them unchanging or not, they start as a change from something else. Even Christian fundamentalism is most focused on emphasis on doctrinal positions that at some level did not exist before the reformation, if not even some time since then. While there are examples of crisis turns to become a believer in Christ in the NT, the bulk of the teaching and preaching was of telling of the truth of God in Christ, and showing it in the nature of the people who claimed it as theirs. Hell-fire sermons followed by a few verses of "Just As I Am," as the preacher asks for a "show of hands" or to walk down the aisle is not an unchanging thing. It is relatively new. Dispensational theology is not an unchanging thing. It is rather new.

Actually, the idea that we do nothing to gain salvation is not an unchanging thing. It is rather new. And partly erroneous. The whole idea that you cannot have anything to do with it is ludicrous since that would mean you don't even have to think about it to be a believer. You just are one. Or are not.

And the Christian Nation was not unchanging. It did not exist in anyone's thoughts until after the end of the 1700s. And from it came wonderful doctrines like Manifest Destiny. I can hear the song now . . .

This land is ours
God gave this land to us . . . .

The constitution did not exist until the 1780s. It was drafted and worked on, then amended, then ratified. And has been amended since, not just to add new things, but to change things previously dictated differently. It was so different from most of what had gone before that it is impossible to refer to it as unchanging. It was born in flux. It will not survive unless it is able to bend to the will of the people just as it did as it was created by some who found that they did not yet entirely reflect the will of the people at that time. That real change requires either a constitutional convention or a revolution was the founders' curse on us to be stuck with their latest and greatest theory that now has ideas that are also-rans.

Understand that I believe that more restraint in dealing with the constitution should be taken than is often seen in court rulings, both the lower courts and the Supreme Court. But anyone who thinks that their interpretation of what it means is the only way to read it is seriously mistaken. It is no different that declaring your (or my) version as "inerrant" and all others anarchists. The people on the other side of the argument are saying the same thing back to us.

So which unchanging standard are the fundamentalists really about?
Jesus is God?
Gays are vile evildoers who should have their civil liberties taken away because my religion says so?
Allah is God and Mohamed is his Prophet?

Most of what I see in the outward rhetoric of Christian fundamentalism is about enforcing morality, calling for America to "return to God." Clamoring for better border security. Railing on the errors of transubstantiation (or whatever non-fundamental doctrinal position is the flavor of the day).

Is any of it truly bad? (Well, the railing on the immoral rather than just preaching the gospel is definitely bad.) But what is the focus? I think it is all messed up.

It was not so from the beginning. We are here for a different purpose.

If we are to be in the world but not of it, then what do you call a culture that has been manhandled to be the culture that [someone] thinks is what we should live in?

The world. And then we would be "of" it. And full of it because we created it.

[awareness]

Exodus 21:7-9 (CEV)
7 A young woman who was sold by her father doesn’t gain her freedom in the same way that a man does. 8 If she doesn’t please the man who bought her to be his wife, he must let her be bought back.

This, to me, is proof positive that we are living in the end days. The leading nation in the world is not following God's rules and orders. And of course God has got to judge it.

I should be able to sell my young daughter. She's a source of endless problems. This is God's order, God's rule, following, and combined with, the 10 Commandments. Yet, it is against the law.

It's not just gay marriage that's proof American has fallen from it's Christian foundations, it's the fact I can't sell my young daughter.

And that's why Jesus is coming back real soon ... to judge this lawlessness.

All seriousness aside, I'm glad we discount not only demons, but the laws found in Exodus and Leviticus.

But is this why the Bible inerrantists are upset? why they want to see God judge America? Quran followers seem to keep God's laws found in the Bible more than supposed Bible followers. Shame shame shame.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This, to me, is proof positive that we are living in the end days. The leading nation in the world is not following God's rules and orders. And of course God has got to judge it.

I should be able to sell my young daughter. She's a source of endless problems. This is God's order, God's rule, following, and combined with, the 10 Commandments. Yet, it is against the law.

It's not just gay marriage that's proof American has fallen from it's Christian foundations, it's the fact I can't sell my young daughter.

And that's why Jesus is coming back real soon ... to judge this lawlessness.

All seriousness aside, I'm glad we discount not only demons, b
ut the laws found in Exodus and Leviticus.

But is this why the Bible inerrantists are upset? why they want to see God judge America? Quran followers seem to keep God's laws found in the Bible more than supposed Bible followers. Shame shame shame.

Yeah, they got mercy killing in their Quran for naughty girls who shame the family name.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, they got mercy killing in their Quran for naughty girls who shame the family name.

Yeah, Mohammed adopted the OT, but unfortunately went to far ... if that's even possible. It's what happens when you embrace a mean God. If we hold it against the Quran, we've got to hold it against the OT too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, they got mercy killing in their Quran for naughty girls who shame the family name.

What we have here is a refusal to connect the dots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What we have here is a refusal to connect the dots.

quran has dots?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

quran has dots?

troll feigning ignorance?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

troll feigning ignorance?

goodbye!!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, they got mercy killing in their Quran for naughty girls who shame the family name.

I think bro Ohio was attempting to connect the dots, but that he failed to connect them far enough back.

Honor killings didn't start with Islam. And honor killing has been practiced more widely than Islam.

Here's something worth looking at concerning honor killings:

Historical Context - Origins of Honour Killing
Honour killings have been known since ancient Roman times, when the pater familias, or senior male within a household, retained the right to kill an unmarried but sexually active daughter or an adulterous wife.39 Honour-based crimes were known in medieval Europe where early Jewish law mandated death by stoning for an adulterous wife and her partner.40 Today the practice is most commonly associated with regions in North Africa and the Middle East.

Honour Killing - Worldwide
The notions of honour and shame and their use as justification for violence and killing is not unique to any one culture or religion.45 Indeed, honour and honour-based violence are reflected in historical events in many countries, and in many works of literature.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/c.../hk-ch/p3.html

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think bro Ohio was attempting to connect the dots, but that he failed to connect them far enough back.

Honor killings didn't start with Islam. And honor killing has been practiced more widely than Islam.

Here's something worth looking at concerning honor killings:

Historical Context - Origins of Honour Killing
Honour killings have been known since ancient Roman times, when the pater familias, or senior male within a household, retained the right to kill an unmarried but sexually active daughter or an adulterous wife.39 Honour-based crimes were known in medieval Europe where early Jewish law mandated death by stoning for an adulterous wife and her partner.40 Today the practice is most commonly associated with regions in North Africa and the Middle East.

Honour Killing - Worldwide
The notions of honour and shame and their use as justification for violence and killing is not unique to any one culture or religion.45 Indeed, honour and honour-based violence are reflected in historical events in many countries, and in many works of literature.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/c.../hk-ch/p3.html

Do you really think it possible that Ohio does not see the similarity between the harshness of so-called honor killing of women in the Middle East and Old Testament law? Here's an example of the latter from Deuteronomy 22

Moses said to Israel:

13 Suppose a man starts hating his wife soon after they are married. 14 He might tell ugly lies about her, and say, “I married this woman, but when we slept together, I found out she wasn’t a virgin.”

15 If this happens, the bride’s father and mother must go to the town gate to show the town leaders the proof that the woman was a virgin. 16 Her father will say, “I let my daughter marry this man, but he started hating her 17 and accusing her of not being a virgin. But he is wrong, because here is proof that she was a virgin!” Then the bride’s parents will show them the bed sheet from the woman’s wedding night.

18 The town leaders will beat the man with a whip 19 because he accused his bride of not being a virgin. He will have to pay her father one hundred pieces of silver and will never be allowed to divorce her.

20 But if the man was right and there is no proof that his bride was a virgin, 21 the men of the town will take the woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death.

This woman brought evil into your community by sleeping with someone before she got married, and you must get rid of that evil by killing her.

That's a Biblically sanctioned honor killing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

goodbye!!!

I suggested you were feigning ignorance which implies that I acknowledge that you are informed. Acting like a troll was merely part of a passive-aggressive strategy for attacking my positions on Alt Views. That you will not defend your position reasonably is unfortunate, because if you chose to, it might elevate the level of discourse here. I would welcome that.

[awareness]

You guys?!? I don't know where we were going but bro Ohio took us to an interesting place and I was hoping for more discussion of it.

This idea of honor killings intrigues me. It's been going on a long time, which I take as evidence that it's in our human nature.

Was there a benefit to honor killings, that increased maybe survival rates? I don't know.

Thanks to zeek I saw that it is in our Bible, but it wouldn't be fair to single out the Hebrews.

Wiki points out :

"Honour killings have a long tradition in Mediterranean Europe. According to the Honour Related Violence - European Resource Book and Good Practice (page 234): "Honour in the Mediterranean world is a code of conduct, a way of life and an ideal of the social order, which defines the lives, the customs and the values of many of the peoples in the Mediterranean moral"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#In_history

That's a widespread area, affecting many countries and peoples, not just Hebrews ... nor Muslims. Wiki also points out the Aztecs an Incas practiced it.

Are humans really so insecure of their standing that they've got to protect their standing with honor killings? or does honor killings serve other beneficial purposes? Cuz for the life of me I can't see any benefit. It looks to me like honor killing just brings more shame.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I suggested you were an ignorant ... troll ...

The neighbor behind my house just finished another work of "art" in his driveway for my old friend zeek ...

[zeek]

Call this hairsplitting, but that's a gnome not a troll.

[awareness]

Glad to see y'all are filled with the Easter spirit.

[zeek]

Thanks to UntoHim for this quote:

"When we read Paul, we are reading somebody else’s mail—and unless we know the situation being addressed, his letters can be quite opaque…It is wise to remember that when we are reading letters never intended for us, any problems of understanding are ours and not theirs."

Marcus J. Borg
The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon

[zeek]

Here's a cheap trick for suckers:

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/dr-ja...-jesus-christ/

[zeek]

Here's a defense of biblical inerrancy you might find helpful: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...top#nav-subnav

Though the Bible presents a personal and relational God, popular modern worldviews portray an impersonal divine force in a purely material world. Readers influenced by this competing worldview hold assumptions about fundamental issues—like the nature of humanity, evil, and the purpose of life—that present profound obstacles to understanding the Bible.

In Inerrancy and Worldview, Dr. Vern Poythress offers the first worldview-based defense of scriptural inerrancy, showing how worldview differences create or aggravate most perceived difficulties with the Bible. His positive case for biblical inerrancy implicitly critiques the worldview of theologians like Enns, Sparks, Allert, and McGowan. Poythress, who has researched and published in a variety of fields— including science, linguistics, and sociology—deals skillfully with the challenges presented in each of these disciplines. By directly addressing key examples in each field, Poythress shows that many difficulties can be resolved simply by exposing the influence of modern materialism.

Inerrancy and Worldview’s positive response to current attempts to abandon or redefine inerrancy will enable Christians to respond well to modern challenges by employing a worldview that allows the Bible to speak on its own terms.

[zeek]

"The Republican “war on science” is also a war on the intellectual habits needed to detect lies." Critical thinking would have kept us out of Witness Lee's movement and would also keep us from voting for Donald Trump.


https://newrepublic.com/article/1346...umps-epic-scam

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"The Republican “war on science” is also a war on the intellectual habits needed to detect lies." Critical thinking would have kept us out of Witness Lee's movement and would also keep us from voting for Donald Trump.


https://newrepublic.com/article/1346...umps-epic-scam

Liberals will never get it.

Here is a list of Clintonian scandals which are why no one trusts Billary, and would vote for anybody else to get them out of Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-ranked-from-/

I would rather gave a president who buys it rather than sells it to foreigner governments. At least then I know the Prez is at least a successful businessman and somewhat patriotic.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Liberals will never get it.

Here is a list of Clintonian scandals which are why no one trusts Billary, and would vote for anybody else to get them out of Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-ranked-from-/

I would rather gave a president who buys it rather than sells it to foreigner governments. At least then I know the Prez is at least a successful businessman and somewhat patriotic.

Here are a list of some of Trump's scandals which illustrate why no one should trust him and should vote to keep him away from the Oval office. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...andals/474726/ Trump is a bully who cannot refrain from attacking, threatening and demeaning others. His business successes were achieved with inherited money, and scamming, cheating and suing people.

Trump's "patriotism" is a sham. His campaign promise to punish American companies that outsource jobs and to prevent them from using undocumented immigrants here in the United States contradicts his own business history, one of “putting profits, rather than America, first.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's become a pejorative term. Nobody seems to want to be called a fundamentalist. Yet H.L Mencken said in the 1920s "Heave an egg out of a Pullman window and you will hit a fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today." Who are these people? Are there any left? If not, where have they gone? Were we fundamentalists when we were in Witness Lee's Local Church? Are we now? Is it legitimate to lump Christians and Islamic terrorists under the same term? Let's talk about it.

I consider myself a fundamentalist. I define this as someone who takes the Bible as the word of God.

I understand that some of the Bible is written allegorically, but I take the words that are written as black and white truth as black and white truth.

That said I don't think it is fair to lump me with terrorists. First, the appropriate Christian Terrorist group similar to ISIS is the KKK and I can show without any doubt that I am diametrically opposed to the KKK. They use God as a pretense and justification for their crimes, but they are not obedient to God's word.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider myself a fundamentalist. I define this as someone who takes the Bible as the word of God.

I understand that some of the Bible is written allegorically, but I take the words that are written as black and white truth as black and white truth.

That said I don't think it is fair to lump me with terrorists. First, the appropriate Christian Terrorist group similar to ISIS is the KKK and I can show without any doubt that I am diametrically opposed to the KKK. They use God as a pretense and justification for their crimes, but they are not obedient to God's word.

Yeah, not all fundamentalists are terrorists. Probably only a small percentage.

You define yourself according to someone else's category. I suppose that makes you a true believer in Hoffer's sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer But, if you are, it is only because you choose to be. Of course, a choice can become a habit if it is repeated often enough.

It seems to me, just based on what I have read from you here, that you are a fundamentalist in intention. But, you try to use speculation and science to confirm your faith with uncertain results. So you make up for the cognitive dissonance between fact and faith by enthusiasm. Does that work for you? I tried it but once I became conscious that was what I was doing, it didn't work any more.

[Evangelical]

A terrorist is just someone who uses terror to achieve their goal. There is difference between fundamentalist, terrorist, and extremist. I would say muslim terrorists are often extremists, not fundamentalists. However not all terrorists are motivated by extreme ideologies - some just want to be free from oppression. For example Kurdish terrorist groups - they do not hold any extreme sort of religious ideology like ISIS, they just want their own country and autonomy. The IRA did not hold any fundamental or extreme religious ideologies, they just wanted to be free from English oppression.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, not all fundamentalists are terrorists. Probably only a small percentage.

You define yourself according to someone else's category. I suppose that makes you a true believer in Hoffer's sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer But, if you are, it is only because you choose to be. Of course, a choice can become a habit if it is repeated often enough.

It seems to me, just based on what I have read from you here, that you are a fundamentalist in intention. But, you try to use speculation and science to confirm your faith with uncertain results. So you make up for the cognitive dissonance between fact and faith by enthusiasm. Does that work for you? I tried it but once I became conscious that was what I was doing, it didn't work any more.

Are you familiar with Robin Wall Kimmerer? She is a professor of Environmental science. She sees her faith as a complimentary color with science, like Purple and Yellow. They each cause the other to pop out. As a result she sees a reason why goldenrod and Aster would appear together in a meadow. We would describe this juxtaposition as "beautiful" which is not a scientific term. But at the same time you can measure this quality scientifically by seeing if Bumblebees visit these sets of flowers more often when they occur together.

Now some would claim that they were "fundamentalist" when as missionaries one of their goals was to eliminate the native language of Indians and have them all speak English. I do not consider them "fundamentalist" but rather they are like Satan who can dress himself as an angel of light.

The language of Potawatomi Nation sees things as verbs that English describes as a noun. For example "to be a bay". That may seem very strange to many, but to me that is revelatory. A bay has a function, if you kill the creatures in it then it no longer performs that function. We recognize this and have "protected wet lands". Why are these lands so special? We realize they have a function to do that we need, we need them "to be a bay" not just look like one.

I also find it revelatory that the word for "to be" in the Potawatomi nation is Yahweh. Why would a "fundamentalist" want to hide this? Clearly that is merely Satan dressed up as a fundamentalist, not wanting people to know that God of the OT is the Creator. I see the erroneous view of a fundamentalist to be the Satan who tempted Jesus in the Wilderness -- "it is written". It is a simplistic view of the Bible without nuance or balance.

It is a "ruthless" view. Ruth's near kin thought that marrying Ruth would mar his inheritance. Clearly he was wrong as Ruth is in the lineage of Jesus, who is our inheritance. It was a superficial understanding. Ruth, according to the Flesh was a Moabitess, but in her heart she was the widow of an Israelite. God judges according to the heart.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, not all fundamentalists are terrorists. Probably only a small percentage.

You define yourself according to someone else's category. I suppose that makes you a true believer in Hoffer's sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer But, if you are, it is only because you choose to be. Of course, a choice can become a habit if it is repeated often enough.

It seems to me, just based on what I have read from you here, that you are a fundamentalist in intention. But, you try to use speculation and science to confirm your faith with uncertain results. So you make up for the cognitive dissonance between fact and faith by enthusiasm. Does that work for you? I tried it but once I became conscious that was what I was doing, it didn't work any more.

Today we face terrorist dangers from both islamic fundamentalists and liberal fundamentalists. It seems like your long term goal here is to associate Bible believing, moral, and peaceful Christians with these two extreme factions of fundamentalists.

Liberal idealogs are presently whipping their adherents into a frenzy via incessant fearmongering. They control all of mainstream media which constantly foments unrest and mass hysteria among the ignorant. They have unleashed their hatred upon all law enforcement. They readily justify "protesters" who are little more than paid thugs hell bent on anarchy. Cities are like powder kegs waiting to be detonated by their leaders.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today we face terrorist dangers from both islamic fundamentalists and liberal fundamentalists. It seems like your long term goal here is to associate Bible believing, moral, and peaceful Christians with these two extreme factions of fundamentalists.

Liberal idealogs are presently whipping their adherents into a frenzy via incessant fearmongering. They control all of mainstream media which constantly foments unrest and mass hysteria among the ignorant. They have unleashed their hatred upon all law enforcement. They readily justify "protesters" who are little more than paid thugs hell bent on anarchy. Cities are like powder kegs waiting to be detonated by their leaders.

That was radical dialogue.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today we face terrorist dangers from both islamic fundamentalists and liberal fundamentalists. It seems like your long term goal here is to associate Bible believing, moral, and peaceful Christians with these two extreme factions of fundamentalists.

Liberal idealogs are presently whipping their adherents into a frenzy via incessant fearmongering. They control all of mainstream media which constantly foments unrest and mass hysteria among the ignorant. They have unleashed their hatred upon all law enforcement. They readily justify "protesters" who are little more than paid thugs hell bent on anarchy. Cities are like powder kegs waiting to be detonated by their leaders.

It isn't just liberals who think Trump is wrong. Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement decrying Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority nations because it could become a "self-inflicted wound" in the fight against terrorism. The Koch brothers have also spoken out against the Trump’s move.

But they aren't as extreme in their views as you. After all, they didn't get the benefit of decades of Local Church indoctrination that you did.

On the other hand, extremist groups and ISIS and other Islamic fundamentalist terror groups hailed the ban as a victory on social media. They think Trump's ban will give them exactly what they want to recruit more people to their cause. Hey, it's all great cuz it brings us closer to the apocalypse that you want, right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today we face terrorist dangers from both islamic fundamentalists and liberal fundamentalists. It seems like your long term goal here is to associate Bible believing, moral, and peaceful Christians with these two extreme factions of fundamentalists.

Liberal idealogs are presently whipping their adherents into a frenzy via incessant fearmongering. They control all of mainstream media which constantly foments unrest and mass hysteria among the ignorant. They have unleashed their hatred upon all law enforcement. They readily justify "protesters" who are little more than paid thugs hell bent on anarchy. Cities are like powder kegs waiting to be detonated by their leaders.

I recently saw a news story where some woman called the police on her neighbor because he physically stopped her 8 year old from spreading garbage in his yard. The woman did seem to be behaving in a way that I felt was extremely disrespectful to the cops wanted the cops to arrest the man. The cops suggested that she should take better care of her 8 year old and discipline him. This enraged her, resulting in her being arrested for disorderly conduct.

However, in the end the city apologized to her and brought charges against her neighbor. My guess is that her life in that neighborhood is about to get much worse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It isn't just liberals who think Trump is wrong. Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement decrying Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority nations because it could become a "self-inflicted wound" in the fight against terrorism. The Koch brothers have also spoken out against the Trump’s move.

But they aren't as extreme in their views as you. After all, they didn't get the benefit of decades of Local Church indoctrination that you did.

On the other hand, extremist groups and ISIS and other Islamic fundamentalist terror groups hailed the ban as a victory on social media. They think Trump's ban will give them exactly what they want to recruit more people to their cause. Hey, it's all great cuz it brings us closer to the apocalypse that you want, right?

Am I the only one offended by this kind of insulting dialogue?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Am I the only one offended by this kind of insulting dialogue?

I may agree in part and disagree in part. And he was a little harsh on Ohio.

But not offended. If that is all it takes for people to be offended, then it is no wonder that we now have rules that override the constitution by making offensive language punishable. Everyone is offended that there are others who don't agree with them. And there are so many people like that that they want to disregard free speech and turn it into hate crimes and make everyone think like them or go to jail. (Or leave the country.)

Both sides.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Am I the only one offended by this kind of insulting dialogue?

Probably ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Probably ....

So then what is the difference between you and the ones you condemn? You say they are bullies, so are you. You say they are insulting and demeaning, so are you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It isn't just liberals who think Trump is wrong. Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement decrying Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority nations because it could become a "self-inflicted wound" in the fight against terrorism. The Koch brothers have also spoken out against the Trump’s move.

But they aren't as extreme in their views as you. After all, they didn't get the benefit of decades of Local Church indoctrination that you did.

On the other hand, extremist groups and ISIS and other Islamic fundamentalist terror groups hailed the ban as a victory on social media. They think Trump's ban will give them exactly what they want to recruit more people to their cause. Hey, it's all great cuz it brings us closer to the apocalypse that you want, right?

This thread is on fundamentalism. So in the spirit of keeping on topic I offer :

No insult to my dear brother ZNP but from my persective bro ZNP is late to the party on two accounts.

First, after it became obvious that the local church is a cult, to me at least, ZNP came into the local church and didn't catch on.

Second. He's admitted to what has been obvious to any astute reader of his posts, that, he's a fundamentalist. He says in another post that he wasn't in the local church not for Witness Lee but was there for the Bible, so that's when he became a fundamentalist.

Again he's late to the party. I was indoctrinated into fundamentalism from a baby. But I eventually saw thru that too, upon discovering hypocrisy.

I hate to say it, and please don't take it personal, but somebody is slow to catch on.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This thread is on fundamentalism. So in the spirit of keeping on topic I offer :

No insult to my dear brother ZNP but from my persective bro ZNP is late to the party on two accounts.

First, after it became obvious that the local church is a cult, to me at least, ZNP came into the local church and didn't catch on.

Second. He's admitted to what has been obvious to any astute reader of his posts, that, he's a fundamentalist. He says in another post that he wasn't in the local church not for Witness Lee but was there for the Bible, so that's when he became a fundamentalist.

Again he's late to the party. I was indoctrinated into fundamentalism from a baby. But I eventually saw thru that too, upon discovering hypocrisy.

I hate to say it, and please don't take it personal, but somebody is slow to catch on.

I felt the post was insulting to Ohio. I read it, I was offended by it. I didn't see it directed at me, but I felt it was demeaning, insulting, and clearly untrue as anyone on this forum as long as Zeek would know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Am I the only one offended by this kind of insulting dialogue?

Personally, I thought it was just too stupid to get insulted by.

I figured he was self-medicating and just needed to vent.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I may agree in part and disagree in part. And he was a little harsh on Ohio.

But not offended. If that is all it takes for people to be offended, then it is no wonder that we now have rules that override the constitution by making offensive language punishable. Everyone is offended that there are others who don't agree with them. And there are so many people like that that they want to disregard free speech and turn it into hate crimes and make everyone think like them or go to jail. (Or leave the country.)

Both sides.

I guess you are right.

These liberals here need some "safe space."

These past few weeks (since Nov 8) have been pretty tough on progressives.

Tomorrow's SCOTUS appointment might send them all into shock.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I guess you are right.

These liberals here need some "safe space."

These past few weeks (since Nov 8) have been pretty tough on progressives.

Tomorrow's SCOTUS appointment might send them all into shock.

Ohio is having his moment. The man of lawlessness is in the White House and all is right with the world.

So tell me, buddy, how's it going to go? Will eight Democrats confirm Trump's pick? Remember Merrick Garland?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ohio is having his moment. The man of lawlessness is in the White House and all is right with the world.

So tell me, buddy, how's it going to go? Will eight Democrats confirm Trump's pick? Remember Merrick Garland?

Man of lawlessness?

That's one thing you liberals are good at -- labeling your enemies with epithets and slinging mud at them.

Tell me how can a "Man of lawlessness" can nominate an upright nominee, faithful to the constitution? Wouldn't a "Man of lawlessness" nominate liberal judicial activists who would shred the constitution?

Kind of like what Clinton and Obama have done? Finding mystical "justifications" in the Constitution for all manners of evil such as abortion and homosexuality.

And, BTW, don't you remember that the Senate under Harry Reid changed the rules? Court appointees only need a majority. Amazing how you guys always want it both ways.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Man of lawlessness?

That's one thing you liberals are good at -- labeling your enemies with epithets and slinging mud at them.

Tell me how can a "Man of lawlessness" can nominate an upright nominee, faithful to the constitution? Wouldn't a "Man of lawlessness" nominate liberal judicial activists who would shred the constitution?

Kind of like what Clinton and Obama have done? Finding mystical "justifications" in the Constitution for all manners of evil such as abortion and homosexuality.

And, BTW, don't you remember that the Senate under Harry Reid changed the rules? Court appointees only need a majority. Amazing how you guys always want it both ways.

Actually, I was doing what the fundamentalists and apocalypticists do, i.e. identifying a contemporary historical figure with a prophesied Bible figure, in this case,Trump with the man of lawlessness in II Thessalonians 2:3-4

3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

That's Trump, the malignant narcissist, all the way. He believes he is above the law. He will appoint someone who he believes will further his interests. Nothing more. The "apostasy" refers to all the deceived Evangelical Christians who turned away from the teachings of Jesus to vote for him. Shame!

But, I think Supreme Court Justices still have to pass a 60% vote in the Senate to end a filibuster not 50% like the executive cabinet nominees. If so, the nominee will need eight Democrat votes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually, I was doing what the fundamentalists and apocalypticists do, i.e. identifying a contemporary historical figure with a prophesied Bible figure, in this case,Trump with the man of lawlessness in II Thessalonians 2:3-4



That's Trump, the malignant narcissist, all the way. He believes he is above the law. He will appoint someone who he believes will further his interests. Nothing more. The apostasy is all the deceived Evangelical Christians who turned away from the teachings of Jesus to vote for him. Shame!

But, I think Supreme Court Justices still have to pass a 60% vote in the Senate to end a filibuster not 50% like the executive cabinet nominees. If so, the nominee will need eight Democrat votes.

Yes he is showing signs of mental illness, that's what the experts are saying. When Trump starts the trade war with China and Mexico, then they won't be able to buy or sell either unless they receive the mark of the beast. The scary thing is that the UN or China may have to intervene, with force if necessary, to remove this dictator and ensure the will of the people is done. The new found country of California will assist.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I thought it was just too stupid to get insulted by.

I figured he was self-medicating and just needed to vent.

Aren't there more effective ways? Couldn't he set up his smart phone to let him know when it is time to take his pills. That seems to me to be a safer way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Aren't there more effective ways? Couldn't he set up his smart phone to let him know when it is time to take his pills. That seems to me to be a safer way.

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who confuses his crackpot ideas about the Bible with science.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Man of lawlessness?

That's one thing you liberals are good at -- labeling your enemies with epithets and slinging mud at them.

I know. That darn liberal Bible :

"A man of sin or man of lawlessness is a figure referred to in the Christian Bible in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. He is usually equated with the Antichrist in Christian eschatology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_sin

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who confuses his crackpot ideas about the Bible with science.

In light of the insanity all around it is important to keep a sense of humor. During the first week of his Presidency we had several major marches and demonstrations bigger than anything I can ever remember, even the Al Gore/George Bush election.

Now to start the second week he fires the AG who refused to acknowledge his orders as constitutional and we are witnessing a mutiny among the Whitehouse staff. They quote him as saying he wants to be thought of as a king, doesn't understand politics, and the "unholy trinity" are the three ranking republicans in the party.

And you call me a crackpot?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know. That darn liberal Bible :

"A man of sin or man of lawlessness is a figure referred to in the Christian Bible in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. He is usually equated with the Antichrist in Christian eschatology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_sin

They have already labeled the 3 leading republicans (I don't consider Trump a republican) as "The unholy trinity". See #roguePotusstaff

"VP Pence, Speaker Ryan, COS Priebus = unholy trinity. "

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know. That darn liberal Bible :

"A man of sin or man of lawlessness is a figure referred to in the Christian Bible in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. He is usually equated with the Antichrist in Christian eschatology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_sin

Diane Feinstein makes a very strong case that Jeff Sessions is a close confidant of Trump and therefore cannot be seen as one who would act independently of Trump.

But what bothers me with this case is not that it is true, what bothers me is that this argument wasn't made when JFK appointed RFK.

As many campaign events as Sessions was involved in, how could it be more than RFK who was JFK's campaign manager, advisor, and "brother protector"?

She might be right that this is a valid issue to block Session's nomination, but if it is then I would say it is much more valid if applied to the Democrats and RFK.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Diane Feinstein makes a very strong case that Jeff Sessions is a close confidant of Trump and therefore cannot be seen as one who would act independently of Trump.

But what bothers me with this case is not that it is true, what bothers me is that this argument wasn't made when JFK appointed RFK.

As many campaign events as Sessions was involved in, how could it be more than RFK who was JFK's campaign manager, advisor, and "brother protector"?

She might be right that this is a valid issue to block Session's nomination, but if it is then I would say it is much more valid if applied to the Democrats and RFK.

And you have not even begun to talk about all the corrupt Chicago cronyism of the past administration.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And you have not even begun to talk about all the corrupt Chicago cronyism of the past administration.

You reap what you sow. This is the path that leads to the condemnation of the world.

[OBW]

It is clear that discussion of Christian fundamentalism is over. We aren't even talking about its modern propensity to think that deep involvement with conservative (more like ultra-conservative) politics — as a Christian group, not just as individuals — is a valid Christian activity. We are just talking politics.

And Muslims.

And Gays.

Etc.

This thread (according to title) jumped the shark long ago.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is clear that discussion of Christian fundamentalism is over. We aren't even talking about its modern propensity to think that deep involvement with conservative (more like ultra-conservative) politics — as a Christian group, not just as individuals — is a valid Christian activity. We are just talking politics.

And Muslims.

And Gays.

Etc.

This thread (according to title) jumped the shark long ago.

The primary definition of fundamentalism as it relates to this thread is referring to the strict adherence to the Bible scriptures by Christian or Muslim.

However, a secondary definition of fundamentalism is:

strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

And it is clear that most of those posting on this site have widened the discussion to include this aspect of the definition.

There is a tremendous overlap of the two. For example, saying that Homosexual sex is sin, that would definitely be considered fundamentalism in the religious sense as well as being political.

Because of this overlap it is quite difficult to determine at what point we are "just talking politics". As you said, "fundamentalism" can also include the discussion of whether or not we should be involved with conservative politics.

I think many of us have been influenced by the US constitution of "separation of church and state" as though that is part of our Bible.

On the one hand Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. On the other hand the NT is filled with many, many verses on how we should behave and act in this world, with our neighbors, in our community, etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The primary definition of fundamentalism as it relates to this thread is referring to the strict adherence to the Bible scriptures by Christian or Muslim.

However, a secondary definition of fundamentalism is:

strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

And it is clear that most of those posting on this site have widened the discussion to include this aspect of the definition.

There is a tremendous overlap of the two. For example, saying that Homosexual sex is sin, that would definitely be considered fundamentalism in the religious sense as well as being political.

Because of this overlap it is quite difficult to determine at what point we are "just talking politics". As you said, "fundamentalism" can also include the discussion of whether or not we should be involved with conservative politics.

I think many of us have been influenced by the US constitution of "separation of church and state" as though that is part of our Bible.

On the one hand Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. On the other hand the NT is filled with many, many verses on how we should behave and act in this world, with our neighbors, in our community, etc.

We are spending more time discussing the politics, nominees, actions, etc., of Trump, or Obama, or Hillary, or . . . . Not really "on topic."

As I said, we've jumped the shark. We have no anchor for discussion. It is a free-for-all.

[OBW]

After that last post, I read something that seems to put the whole political discussion into perspective. The following is from a blog by a guy who is responsible for directions and training in worship for a region of Baptists (not sure what branch, but I often like his stuff). In a post concerning why the church lost its curb appeal during 2016, he provided a top 10 list:

1. We united around what we were against rather than what we were for.
2. Politics determined our theology.
3. Formerly inclusive guardrails became exclusive litmus tests.
4. We blurred the lines between commandments and amendments.
5. We claimed theologically and philosophically to be racially diverse, yet still segregated relationally and practically.
6. Politicism superseded evangelism.
7. We no longer encouraged or even allowed critical thinking.
8. Friendly fire contributed to our net loss.
9. We hated the practices of culture more than we loved the people in it.
10. We justified meanness in the name of guarding religious territory.

While there is a lot in this, #9 was very telling. Gets back to the love the sinner but hate the sin argument. Many claim it cannot be done. So what is the way to handle that? It would seem that hating the sin should be an internal issue while our outward stance should be love for the sinner.

Seems we got that backwards, being vocal about our hatred for the sin (and often declaring a need for punishment for the violators) while giving excuse on why outward love could not be given or that our love is "tough love."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is clear that discussion of Christian fundamentalism is over. We aren't even talking about its modern propensity to think that deep involvement with conservative (more like ultra-conservative) politics — as a Christian group, not just as individuals — is a valid Christian activity. We are just talking politics.

And Muslims.

And Gays.

Etc.

This thread (according to title) jumped the shark long ago.

Amen to that OBW.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

After that last post, I read something that seems to put the whole political discussion into perspective. The following is from a blog by a guy who is responsible for directions and training in worship for a region of Baptists (not sure what branch, but I often like his stuff). In a post concerning why the church lost its curb appeal during 2016, he provided a top 10 list:

1. We united around what we were against rather than what we were for.
2. Politics determined our theology.
3. Formerly inclusive guardrails became exclusive litmus tests.
4. We blurred the lines between commandments and amendments.
5. We claimed theologically and philosophically to be racially diverse, yet still segregated relationally and practically.
6. Politicism superseded evangelism.
7. We no longer encouraged or even allowed critical thinking.
8. Friendly fire contributed to our net loss.
9. We hated the practices of culture more than we loved the people in it.
10. We justified meanness in the name of guarding religious territory.

While there is a lot in this, #9 was very telling. Gets back to the love the sinner but hate the sin argument. Many claim it cannot be done. So what is the way to handle that? It would seem that hating the sin should be an internal issue while our outward stance should be love for the sinner.

Seems we got that backwards, being vocal about our hatred for the sin (and often declaring a need for punishment for the violators) while giving excuse on why outward love could not be given or that our love is "tough love."

Great post. It brings us closer to the topic of fundamentalism. At least it's about Christian fundamentalists, and how they lost rack of Christian fundamental principles.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

After that last post, I read something that seems to put the whole political discussion into perspective. The following is from a blog by a guy who is responsible for directions and training in worship for a region of Baptists (not sure what branch, but I often like his stuff). In a post concerning why the church lost its curb appeal during 2016, he provided a top 10 list:

1. We united around what we were against rather than what we were for.
2. Politics determined our theology.
3. Formerly inclusive guardrails became exclusive litmus tests.
4. We blurred the lines between commandments and amendments.
5. We claimed theologically and philosophically to be racially diverse, yet still segregated relationally and practically.
6. Politicism superseded evangelism.
7. We no longer encouraged or even allowed critical thinking.
8. Friendly fire contributed to our net loss.
9. We hated the practices of culture more than we loved the people in it.
10. We justified meanness in the name of guarding religious territory.

While there is a lot in this, #9 was very telling. Gets back to the love the sinner but hate the sin argument. Many claim it cannot be done. So what is the way to handle that? It would seem that hating the sin should be an internal issue while our outward stance should be love for the sinner.

Seems we got that backwards, being vocal about our hatred for the sin (and often declaring a need for punishment for the violators) while giving excuse on why outward love could not be given or that our love is "tough love."

That's just sad.

[zeek]

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

Very funny, but not relevant to a Christian thread on Fundamentalism. Why not post it on an orthodox Jewish thread?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Very funny, but not relevant to a Christian thread on Fundamentalism. Why not post it on an orthodox Jewish thread?

It's actually a thinly veiled attack on the author of the Old Testament and the Giver of the Law.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's actually a thinly veiled attack on the author of the Old Testament and the Giver of the Law.

I would definitely be willing to respond if I were an orthodox Jew, but do not see the relevance unless this could be reworded -- to be relevant to this forum.

Post #1 It's become a pejorative term. Nobody seems to want to be called a fundamentalist. Yet H.L Mencken said in the 1920s "Heave an egg out of a Pullman window and you will hit a fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today." Who are these people? Are there any left? If not, where have they gone? Were we fundamentalists when we were in Witness Lee's Local Church? Are we now? Is it legitimate to lump Christians and Islamic terrorists under the same term? Let's talk about it.

So if we reworded it to say "this is an example of a fundamentalist teaching to Jews, how is it different from a Christian Fundamentalist"? That would be relevant.

[awareness]

Isn't 'Schlesinger' Jewish?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Very funny, but not relevant to a Christian thread on Fundamentalism. Why not post it on an orthodox Jewish thread?

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as Christian fundamentalists claim, then everything it says is relevant to this thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as Christian fundamentalists claim, then everything it says is relevant to this thread.

Fine. According to fundamentalist the Law was replaced with Grace. None of those points discussed refer to NT teaching on any of those topics.

[awareness]

The born-againers aren't much better that the pedophile RCC priests :

Hundreds of sex abuse allegations found in fundamental Baptist churches across U.S.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nat...222576310.html