I'll Play The Fundie

[Paul_S]

Anyway it comes back to the Bible as the bases for Christianity. Without it there is no genuine Christianity.

 

Yup, no genuine xtianity.

 

6 day creation can be proven false. The bible makes extraordinary claims but does not provide extraordinary evidence to back them up. You have nothing but faith to back up its claims. I consider faith to be a copout and contrived way to go through life. Why your god wants a bunch of unthinking followers is beyond me.

No, you've got that wrong. The 6 day creation cannot be proved by science. Not that it can be disproven. The lack of provablity, is taken to be disproof. As for faith, faith in a lie, a lie is still a lie. Faith does not make anything true. One should only place faith in what is true. Truth is the reason for having faith. And eveyone has some kind of faith in something.

 

By the way, there is science to support (not prove) the feasablity of the 6 day creation story. Read up on the solar wind.

 

 

Why don't you have faith in Allah or Krishna or Zeus?

I happen to know God. I don't know Allah or Krishna nor Zeus.

 

If you can figure that one out you will probably be well on the road to understanding why I don't have faith in your god either. You're an atheist to, I just believe in one less god than you (Ok, I'm borrowing your line Mythra, so shoot me - inside joke Paul, just ignore it).

LOL. BTW, as I have often said [not here, until now], the god of the atheist never existed.

[Ouroboros]

Paul, I suspect we're derailing this thread by the discussion that is going on between us here, and I suggest we start a new thread where we go through these questions.

 

The OP started this topic as comic relief to debate between "pretending" fundamentalists, and not with a real one.

[Vigile]

Oops, my bad.

[Paul_S]

BTW Paul, it's pretty damning that christians cannot produce even one miracle that has ever been peer reviewed or stood up to even the most basic of scientific testing. In fact, you cannot even produce even one miracle that meets evidential requirements in a common court case. All miracles are hearsay and left up to subjective interpretations. . . <snip>

Hmm . . . . Ever notice in the resurrection accounts, only Jesus' disciples ever saw Him? Also it is argued by other Christian apologists, that the NT evidence would hold up in a court of law. The NT being the evidence. Then there is history that follows. (One example: The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, Newark: NJ: Soney & Sage, 1903, pp. 1-54).

 

Equally damning is the fact that the world is poorly designed if indeed it was designed as christians claim. Why did god in his infinite wisdom create phlegm, viruses, pain, conjoined twins, male nipples, asses that need to be wiped, mosquitoes that spread malaria, animals that must kill or be killed, tooth decay?

I hear that the fall of man is the excuse for this condition.

 

If we are all sinners in need of a savior why did he kill everyone in the world with a flood in order to start over again? Why didn't he send himself to save us all from himself before the flood? Was not even one child worth saving back then? There is a huge disconnect in your theology that requires you to fill in the gaps with wonder and trust that you are just unworthy of figuring it all out because his ways are not your ways. Well, an alternative interpretation is that it is just a stupid story that makes no sense. No, I can name you ten reasons for denial of the bible for every one you give me arguing for its acceptance.

Go. Under the Lion's den, let's do it.

 

By the way, there are two chief reasons that I'm still a Christian, 1) I know God personally. 2)The gospel is not ever exlained correctly by those who deny it. Some have come close, but at some point "works" based salvation is given over "grace" as the gospel. And number 3) Only the God of the Bible is both all just and all merciful. (Which is part of 2.) Any other claims regarding a god, he is niether just nor merciful.

[Paul_S]

Paul, I suspect we're derailing this thread by the discussion that is going on between us here, and I suggest we start a new thread where we go through these questions.

 

The OP started this topic as comic relief to debate between "pretending" fundamentalists, and not with a real one.

 

Yeah, I wanted to see how he would answer my question(s.) You refuesed.

 

But that aside, I am already in a discussion in the Lion's Den, "Why Do You Remain A Christian?"

 

We can continue there. And the others can have there fun here.

[Ouroboros]

Paul, I think you missed the point. Duderonomy was going to play the fundamentalist Christian, and we would argue with him.

 

So if you challenge duderonomy it wouldn't be anything more than he would pretend to agree. So if he doesn't answer it's probably because he's doing the "no answer - I pretend to agree" act.

 

The thread wasn't supposed to be serious.

 

The reason why I'm refusing to answering your question, is because the thread wasn't serious. Capice?

[Young Mother Atheist]

And a reason I wouldn't want to answer about what salvation is or how to lead someone to it is because the Bible is very contradictory on the subject. How can I present it as a clear idea when it isn't to me? Howver, if you'd like to start this dicussion in a fresh thread, maybe some might be willing to at least discuss the different verses on it (and invariably their contradictions).

[Ouroboros]

I started a new topic: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=193716

 

And I invite Paul to defend his faith and explain the Bible verses.

[RHEMtron]

Paul, I suspect we're derailing this thread by the discussion that is going on between us here, and I suggest we start a new thread where we go through these questions.

 

The OP started this topic as comic relief to debate between "pretending" fundamentalists, and not with a real one.

seriously... doode... you hijacked our thread!!

 

 

or are you guys sure he isnt one of us pretending....

 

and im still waiting for a response to my "fundie arguments"... or at least comments on how i did

[Ouroboros]

or are you guys sure he isnt one of us pretending....

I didn't think of that!

[Antlerman]

Anyway it comes back to the Bible as the bases for Christianity. Without it there is no genuine Christianity.

Without the Bible there is no Christianity? So you are saying that for the centuries of something that was called Christianity, there was no "genuine Christianity"? I thought the first Gospel was not written for at least 40 years after Jesus died, and that the various other writings were not collected, voted upon, tossed out, kept and canonized, later rejected, others added, others removed, etc until the current canon you are using some many, many centuries later? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

So exactly how was Christianity genuine without the books of the NT in their various churches?

 

I see a problem with your premise here. You seem too dependent on the Bible. I don't see how you can be in light of not having one for those first several hundred years. Maybe "truth" to the earliest Christians wasn't the black and white words that the "Bible is authoritative" crowd makes it out to be?

 

Put in simpler terms: If you didn't have the Bible, could you be a Christian? If not, then how were they?

[NotBlinded]

I'm going to tell you the gospel that I know. You explain it back to me. And there are some fine points which may need touching on. Again you explain it back to me. Understand, explaining it back should not necessitate your belief in it. Can we prove "if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost" wrong?

 

One, one must believe God and His word.

 

Second, that Jesus Christ died for one's sins.

 

Third, that as evidence that Jesus Christ paid for one's sins and was really God's Son, He rose from the dead bodily.

 

Fourth, God does the saving, and promises to those whom He saves, "There sins and iniquities I will remember no more."

 

Now that is the outline. For starters, can you give me that outline back, even in your own words, if you would.

 

Now one is saved by changing one's mind about one's dead works. And accepting God's work on the cross by His Son Jesus Christ as one's substitute. One believes God, that Jesus died for one, and By this has eternal life. (John 3:16, 1 John 5:9-13.)

 

All this without any work or giving of self. God does the saving (John 1:12, 13, Romans 4:5.)

 

Explain that back too.

You know...I find it extremely ironic that I see you as the one the gospel is hid from.

 

 

No Bible, no Christianity.

Now you have just insulted the people that were Christians before the bible. Of course, they are no longer here, but the ones that study them would be highly insulted too, IMO.

 

So, maybe you need to define the TYPE of Christianity you are refering to before you ask so many questions, don't you think?

[diggin]

 

<snip>

 

Before I will go tit for tat with you on biblical doctrine you will have to establish for me why the bible should be considered a document of truth to begin with. So let's start from there if you wish to have this discussion.

 

It claims to be God's word. Of course that doesn't make it so. It so happens, that I contuine to believe the Bible is God's word on the bases that I now Him through Jesus Christ as Savior.

 

The bottom line is, without the Bible, we have no message of salvation, no Christianity. None. All we are left with is the natural revelation of creation. What we study as science.

 

I believe in the 6 day ceation because I'm a Christian. The 6 day account would never convince men to become a Christian. The way most Christians believe about it, I would reject it and the gospel. It is that simple.

 

Nevertheless there are things which are taught in the Bible which cannot be proven false.

 

For example, "There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." Can that be disproven? (God being the God of the Bible.)

 

We need something that can be shown to be true, which requires the Bible not to be true.

 

If we cannot produce something true out side the Bible, that negates the Bible, then the Bible is not proven false. Most arguments against the Bible are use of internal arguments from the Bible itself. But that can be shown to be a matter of interpretation based on assumptions and denies, or mistranslation, or manuscript problems of copies.

 

Anyway it comes back to the Bible as the bases for Christianity. Without it there is no genuine Christianity.

 

Paul, I'm a Christian but your comments are offensive to me.

 

I believe in the Bible but it does not require 6 24-hour days of creation. It describes the earth as being empty and shapeless and dark, and the "days" are clearly epochs that occurred long, long, after creation. (read "A Matter of Days" by Hugh Ross) The point of reference of the "days" is "the face of the deep" -- the ocean surface. It was dark there, and the first day, which probably took billions of years, involved the condensing of the clouds to the point where some of the sun's light could hit the surface of earth. Next continents appeared. It's easy to calculate (for physicicsts) the kinetic energy this would create, and the fact is it had to take time. Plus there's lots of evidence that it took lots and lots of time.

 

Your concept of salvation makes God look like a wicked moron. I agree that man was created perfect, and I believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible -- but your belief that God is going to send the children of Adam to hell because of what their forefather did is misinformed, and needs re-examination. The Bible can be harmonized much better by abandoning the Grecian concepts of immortal soul and eternal punishment. The Bible concept of a substitutiion is also much more straigthforward than the one you describe. A righteous man stands in the place of a righteous man who sinned. A very simple exchange. Life for a life. And a single transaction frees the entire race.

 

What amazes me is how hard most "Christians" will fight to defend their concept of a God whose plan of salvation is a miserable failure, whose saints are not righteous, whose plans are unwise, whose "sovereign glory" is a disgrace.

 

I hardly know a mainstream Christian who wouldn't say I'm headed for eternal hell because I believe the promises of the Bible that all people will be raised from the dead and gently taught righteousness in a world that is not evil and deceitful, but noble and inspiring to the highest human potential. But right now, it is the secular humanists I find myself appreciating much more -- they are the ones who want to avoid bloodshed, to share our resources, to respect different cultural traditions, to construct an equitable human society.

 

Did you know that the Bible says that it was a curse for women to be beholden to a man for everything, just as it was a curse for man to have to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow?

Why do you suppose the world is enjoying growing riches and the reduction of female oppression? It is because the time is already at hand for God to release us from those curses, and to usher in a time the prophet called a "feast of fat things." But mainstream Christianity is nostalgic for those old curses, which had their purpose and accomplished the disciplinary impact God intended.

 

I believe what the Bible says -- that God will make the earth glorious, he will wipe away all tears, he will teach all people his ways, he will make a man more precious than gold, he will redress every wrong, he will reveal every dark secret, he will unite the world with one pure language, one happy family. He will be especially merciful to the poor and the downtrodden -- who incidentally are nothing but hell-fodder to your detestable "gospel".

 

Eternal life in the outgoing Christian age comes only from faith in Christ. Check.

But God first calls, invites, each and every one who accepts that gift. Faith is not expected without God's intervention and soft-touch of comfort. The Christians were expected to be a witness or example to the world of being good under hostile conditions; not a success in converting everyone, and certainly not a government on earth.

 

And faith in Christ is not a one-time, "Lord, I believe" irrevocable trust; on an individual level it is a bilateral agreement, with certain action standards that must be aspired to and met to the extent of ability by God's children. Humility is required for both entrance and successful exit from this process. It is a lifelong commitment that involves mental transformation and character change. Not a soul on earth will disagree with the decision God makes to elevate and reward anyone with a share in the government of the future age. Those comparative few will indeed be saints, not murderers and holier-than-thou bosses as many "christian" leaders have been. (If you wonder what I mean, just think, "Calvin".)

 

Paul, try to discover what Good News would really be. From God's perspective, as promised from day one by God and repeated with clarity and harmony by the prophets, by Moses, by Jesus, by the Apostles. A holy nation ruling from Jerusalem. A resurrection for ALL the dead. A restoration of ALL that was lost. Judgment, justice, peace, happiness. Exact knowledge of truth. The whole family of God, in heaven and in earth. THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS, and your "gospel" is an accursed thing.

 

That, Paul, is what you should be learning about, applying yourself to, and sharing with other Christians, instead of harassing and offending these ex-xtian folks who have mostly just run afoul of the most corrupt and damaging human institution in the entire awful history of human heartache.

[duderonomy]

Hi all!

 

Rhem,

I forgot about this thread too. Or at least, I thought it was dead. You single-handedly kept it alive, and your fundie logic is nearly impeccable.

 

Han, thank you too.

 

Anyway, the lack of Biblical understanding among most of those on this thread is really distressing.

 

For example, Paul S....

 

The Gospel nowhere declares that one must believe in God, as you said. You wouldn't be spreading a false Gospel, now would you? The Gospel is explained in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. Vs. 5-through-etc. may or may not be a part of that, depending on how you read it, but the Gospel is the Gospel, whether one believes in God or not. Certainly, to come to God, one must believe that He is, and is a rewarder of them that seek Him...etc; but that is NOT part of the Gospel.

The Gospel assumes that you know of God, sin, Hell, Why Christ, and a myriad of other things. What good then is the Gospel to them that don't know that there 'is a God'?

Or to them that know that there 'is a God', but they just don't have the correct God? The God they have may have a different way of Salvation. So you see, to make 'believe in God' (the Bible One) a condition of salvation is wrong. Didn't Jesus die for all of our sins? What about the 'sin of unbelief'? Did He die for that? The sin of 'Ooops, I was wrong but that's what they taught me'? Or, the sin of 'I Only Looked At Nature And Saw Nature...I Never Saw God!' Did Jesus die for accidents and incidents? Because a lot of sin is just that.

 

 

God wants no one to perish, and Jesus died for ALL sins, yet some go to Hell. Can you explain that?

 

...And that's just me putting down Bad Fundie Logic! I mean, yes, if the Gospel be hid, it is hid from them that are lost. Well, if the Gospel is the only way to Heaven, then Duh, those from whom it is hidden are lost.

 

Also,

" For example, "There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." Can that be disproven? (God being the God of the Bible.)"

 

But you seem to understand. You come here preaching your version of the Gospel, and want us to persue God the way that you have. If God says there is none that understands, then why should I trust you? You either don't understand, or you don't believe your own Bible, let alone your own post.

And then I have to believe also, from your limited understanding of Holy Writ, that you don't 'seek after God' either, because 'none does'. You need to learn that the sword cuts both ways, and if you are going to pull verses out of your ass to explain your position, and that if the verses you quote are true for you, then they are true for me also.

 

 

 

 

diggin,

 

You don't even merit a reply based on your last post. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I hope that whatever kind of Christian Fantasy Camp you are waiting for shows up somewhere in your existence. I, myself, wouldn't be waiting for a hybrid Gospel to work for me.

 

 

Again, that's just me and so-called Fundie logic. Or even Christian logic. Man, I can't wait to get back to the unbelievers. I hope that these """Christians""" haven't ruined the truth for you.

[diggin]

The Gospel assumes that you know of God, sin, Hell, Why Christ, and a myriad of other things. What good then is the Gospel to them that don't know that there 'is a God'?

 

 

Well put. The Gospel as the new testament presents it is not for the masses, but for the ones who have been invited, introduced, "dragged" or drawn, as it says in John and many other places.

 

Didn't Jesus die for all of our sins? What about the 'sin of unbelief'? Did He die for that? The sin of 'Ooops, I was wrong but that's what they taught me'? Or, the sin of 'I Only Looked At Nature And Saw Nature...I Never Saw God!' Did Jesus die for accidents and incidents? Because a lot of sin is just that.

 

Brilliantly put. I agree 100%.

 

God wants no one to perish, and Jesus died for ALL sins, yet some go to Hell. Can you explain that?

 

Exactly right.... Fundies are wrong about the Hell part. Jesus did die for all sins, and God wants no one to perish. Therefore, most sins will have to be dealt with in another age... and they will. The apostles asked Jesus who sinned, a blind man or his parents. His answer: "neither sinned.... but that the works of God could be made manifest." God's works will be revealed when all the accidents and incidents are dealt with fairly -- humanely, in a way that far, far outstrips the pain and grief folks have experienced. When every cancer victim, every murder victim, every old age and SIDS victim is resurrected, reunited with loved ones, and completes the 2nd half of his education.

 

 

diggin,

 

You don't even merit a reply based on your last post. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I hope that whatever kind of Christian Fantasy Camp you are waiting for shows up somewhere in your existence. I, myself, wouldn't be waiting for a hybrid Gospel to work for me.

 

 

In the face of the obviously intentional ambiguity of the Bible and the perverse nonsense of Christian history, your incredulity is absolutely rational.

[duderonomy]

diggin said:

 

"Exactly right.... Fundies are wrong about the Hell part. Jesus did die for all sins, and God wants no one to perish. Therefore, most sins will have to be dealt with in another age... and they will. The apostles asked Jesus who sinned, a blind man or his parents. His answer: "neither sinned.... but that the works of God could be made manifest." God's works will be revealed when all the accidents and incidents are dealt with fairly -- humanely, in a way that far, far outstrips the pain and grief folks have experienced. When every cancer victim, every murder victim, every old age and SIDS victim is resurrected, reunited with loved ones, and completes the 2nd half of his education.

 

 

QUOTE

 

 

diggin,

 

You don't even merit a reply based on your last post. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I hope that whatever kind of Christian Fantasy Camp you are waiting for shows up somewhere in your existence. I, myself, wouldn't be waiting for a hybrid Gospel to work for me.

 

 

 

 

In the face of the obviously intentional ambiguity of the Bible and the perverse nonsense of Christian history, your incredulity is absolutely rational."

 

 

 

 

diggin,

 

If Jesus said that neither the blind man nor his parents had sinned (thus negating the contradiction of verses in the Old Testament that would explain his condition), then the blind man wasn't a sinner by any means. Explain then, between when the law was supreme i.e; "There is none righteous, no, not one", and when Jesus is alive again from the dead and supreme i.e.; "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God", what happened that there were people (at least one!) that had no sin during that time?

 

If we can't believe the Bible, the Church, or our own hearts, what do we have left? You see, many many times in the Bible, from Genesis to the maps, the works of God ARE made manifest. Paul even said in the first chapter or two of the book of Romans, that the works of God are manifest in nature. So no one has an excuse for not knowing that God is God! So then, what works will be revealed that would outweigh the pain and suffering that Mankind has felt through the ages? That implies that God hasn't really revealed Himself through His Word, or nature.

 

What if the cancer victim, the AIDS victim, et. al; come back to life, but are found to have been sinners in this life, and then MUST be sentenced to Hell? Have you ever really read the Bible????

 

You 'liberal' Christians are even easier than the apostates and non-believers are!

 

and...

 

 

Sorry I don't get this... the 'perverse history of the church (if I may paraphrase you)', and the Bible are as nothing? I mean, if the Bible is confusing on purpose, then it is worth nothing as a Holy Book, and if the Church is also in ruins by reputation and thus you can't believe it, then you aren't, and can't possibly be a Christian at all!

[RHEMtron]

Rhem,

I forgot about this thread too. Or at least, I thought it was dead. You single-handedly kept it alive, and your fundie logic is nearly impeccable.

yeah damn skippy i kept it alive!! It was kinda fun... you know... when i'd throw in phrases like "praise the lord our father who art in heaven hallelujah amen", or "you just have to open your heart brother", and my favorite "you just have to have faith!!" I seriously was Laughing Out Loud while i typed those phrases

 

 

God wants no one to perish, and Jesus died for ALL sins, yet some go to Hell. Can you explain that?

I love this logic right here. That exact thought right there is what started my deconversion.

[diggin]

diggin,

 

If Jesus said that neither the blind man nor his parents had sinned (thus negating the contradiction of verses in the Old Testament that would explain his condition), then the blind man wasn't a sinner by any means.

 

 

Jesus did not say they weren't sinners, but that his blindness was not caused by his own sin or his parents'. Rather, his blindness, along with all human weakness and trouble, is permitted for a time so that each will gain insights not otherwise obtainable. "By the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better". God's works will overcome every disease and malady. Isaiah 35 says this, as do many other passages.

 

Explain then, between when the law was supreme i.e; "There is none righteous, no, not one", and when Jesus is alive again from the dead and supreme i.e.; "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God", what happened that there were people (at least one!) that had no sin during that time?

 

If we can't believe the Bible, the Church, or our own hearts, what do we have left? You see, many many times in the Bible, from Genesis to the maps, the works of God ARE made manifest. Paul even said in the first chapter or two of the book of Romans, that the works of God are manifest in nature. So no one has an excuse for not knowing that God is God! So then, what works will be revealed that would outweigh the pain and suffering that Mankind has felt through the ages? That implies that God hasn't really revealed Himself through His Word, or nature.

 

What if the cancer victim, the AIDS victim, et. al; come back to life, but are found to have been sinners in this life, and then MUST be sentenced to Hell? Have you ever really read the Bible????

 

 

I know you're spouting Churchianity here, things you don't really believe yourself, for fun, and that's ok with me. But my answer is to the serious question behind your humor...

 

The point of the judgment day is not to discover whether a person has missed opportunities to do good, or been, on balance, a sinner or not. ALL are sinners, lumped together by their heredity and their bad environment, so that God can have mercy upon all. (Romans 11 -- there primarily applying to the Jews, but many other scriptures applying to ALL people including passages in Romans 5 and 8.

 

Yes, we can trust the Bible, but we can't trust the Church. We can trust that our own hearts are capable of learning some things, and that our life journey whether it leads us away from the Church or not, is something God will honor when the 2nd half of our education fills in the holes that only God can fill when the time is right for it.

 

As to ROmans 1, the phrase "When they knew God" indicates that he is primarily speaking of those generations of humans who had major contact with God, yet quickly put him out of their consciousness. Yes, God's works in nature can be seen to some extent by most (although nature is a pretty brutal thing, and the earth is definitely as hostile as it is beautiful), and God's anger with human sin can be seen by all who experience disease and death --- but only a few, those given faith by God, can see God's goodness. That is what Paul clearly states in verses 16ff. Most people, if you ask them if God seems fair (and they are honest) would say no, I believe. Calvinists solve this problem by fiat. "God is fair, and loving, and sovereign, by definition". THerefore, since the saints will praise God forever, and their will be shrieking sinners forever, the saints will praise God for the fires of hell where their uncles and parents and children may well be burning! Ugh!

 

Arminians excuse God, and blame people for rejecting him. They apologize for God's weak inability to save more folks. He can't MAKE people love him! Ugh!

 

 

Sorry I don't get this... the 'perverse history of the church (if I may paraphrase you)', and the Bible are as nothing? I mean, if the Bible is confusing on purpose, then it is worth nothing as a Holy Book, and if the Church is also in ruins by reputation and thus you can't believe it, then you aren't, and can't possibly be a Christian at all!

 

The Bible is confusing on purpose, because God is working with a small group right now. There are people in every denomination whose character fits what the Bible is looking for. But most church leaders, most pewsitters, are either clueless or hypocritical. That's ok .... they provide the tests and resistance that the rest need to develop the character God is looking for.

 

As I see it, being a Christian is really a hard thing to be and to do, and I apologize for the failures of most of us. For example, yesterday I was shouting at a brother for being too forceful with people!!!! I don't hold it against anyone who is disillusioned with Christianity.

[Ouroboros]

The Bible is confusing on purpose, because God is working with a small group right now. There are people in every denomination whose character fits what the Bible is looking for.

Funny thing. I've found non believers and followers of other religions that also fits the template of a good Christian, just they don't pray to Jesus.

 

But most church leaders, most pewsitters, are either clueless or hypocritical. That's ok .... they provide the tests and resistance that the rest need to develop the character God is looking for.

Which raises a problem. If a person deconvert because of false teachings, God will still punish the person for being unbeliever, which isn't fair, since God put the preacher there in the first place to lead him right.

 

As I see it, being a Christian is really a hard thing to be and to do, and I apologize for the failures of most of us. For example, yesterday I was shouting at a brother for being too forceful with people!!!! I don't hold it against anyone who is disillusioned with Christianity.

Did he shout back?

[diggin]

 

Funny thing. I've found non believers and followers of other religions that also fits the template of a good Christian, just they don't pray to Jesus.

 

 

The mainstream Christian concept that everyone must have their eternal destiny decided in whatever time they have in this life does 2 things: it greatly waters down the high moral standards of true Christianity (which are even higher than Judaism's wonderful moral code) -- and it causes these "forgiven" -- really unregenerate-- "Christians" to devalue and underestimate the many wonderful qualities and potential that exist throughout the human race.

 

Which raises a problem. If a person deconvert because of false teachings, God will still punish the person for being unbeliever, which isn't fair, since God put the preacher there in the first place to lead him right.

 

 

On the contrary, the mainstream Christian church wasn't even planted by God. If you want to find Christians, don't look in the institutional church -- at least not in the pulpit. God is asking everyone to leave that church, called "Babylon" and "Jezebel" in Revelation. He's getting ready to toss it into the sea -- which I think is probably a metaphor for destruction by angry mobs.

 

I see God as not too concerned with punishment -- a focus on the past, and on "revenge" or "justice" -- but rather discipline, which is hopeful and focused on teaching lessons to a child.

 

The Bible claims God as saying his anger is momentary, his mercy endures forever. All of human history involves 6000 years of God's anger. Then it's over. Then the mercy starts and never stops. So you and me and everyone else have already seen all there is going to be of God's anger -- except that so far he hasn't specifically made it plain who or what he is angry at. Right at the end, he will make that plain -- and most of that anger will burn against Christianity as we know it. (I'm basing this on a lot of scriptures such as the whole book of revelation, Isaiah 13, 34, 58, 63, and other texts as well)

 

For most people, who know only in part and are groping through the pea-soup fog of life, God will reward in the next age any examples of what he's looking for, which are justice, humility, and the loving of mercy. (Micha 6:8) Faith is dangerous, because for most folks it involves believing things they lack a reality check for -- and that's why there is so much bad faith in Christianity.

 

For authentic Christians who really do have the spirit of God within them, faith is having enough confidence in the promises of God for the future, to do the right thing now even though there is not a short-term benefit. They can expect all their disciplines to come in this life. Their ultimate destiny will be determnined by how they respond to this discipline. If they become people of the lie -- a small group, no doubt -- they will forfeit life. Hebrews 6 and 10.

 

However, the vast majority who call themselves Christians never really have an authentic spark of the divine within them. They are the "tares" sown by the false message of "turn or burn". THey come to Christianity from fear, or from their parents teaching, or because of social advantage. They have the opportunity of benefitting from what is good about Christianity -- and all good decisions in life make a beneficial impact on character, which will be useful in the next age.

 

I would say that God will not "punish" anyone who sees the hypocrisy or the corruption of institutional Christianity and leaves it.

 

And Jesus said that all manner of blasphemy -- bitter and disrespectful words against God or Jesus -- will be forgiven them. What cannot be forgiven is what he calls "blaspheming the holy spirit". No, this is not some sort of trinitarian mumbo jumbo. It's simply saying that if a person sees the true spirit of God in their life, actually becomes a son of God, and then turns against it and calls good evil -- against light and knowledge that they have personally experienced -- well, that would require some sort of direct expiation or punishment by God rather than simple forgiveness.

 

In the context, Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, who did not have a personal encounter with the Spirit of God. But they still were in danger, because they knew a lot about God, they were religious leaders, and they were confronted with a good man who did good things. What would their response be? If they attributed evil motives and evil powers to the good Jesus was doing, they were doing the sort of thing Jesus was saying can't be forgiven -- blaspheming the sweet influence of God that was sent for their personal refreshment. Still, we know that Jesus asked on the cross for them to be forgiven. And many Pharisees and Priests did indeed follow Jesus, according to the early account in Acts. So again, people will do and say many incorrect things, but it is because of what their experiences lead them to in many cases. And the right way is hard to find because of the outworking of history, which God has kept murky for his own long-range purposes. It would be very easy for him to reward every good deed, and punish every evil deed. But he doesn't, and all the "success gospel" folks are deceivers. In fact, there's a very good promise about this very thing in Isaiah 26:9, where it says that when God's judgements are in the earth -- that is, when he rewards good and corrects or disciplines evildoers -- the inhabitants of the world WILL learn righteousness.

 

The frightful things taught about God, his stern anger, his fearsome wrath, are (IMHO) by far the biggest blasphemies of the holy spirit I ever see. When you've got guys like John MacArthur going around, steeped in Bible knowledge, proud of the grace of God in their own lives, and yet pointing the finger against the whole blasted world, condemning them to hell, and saying God is "sovereign" and will inflct this merciless outrage -- well, I can't imagine a greater example of a blasphemy or hate speech against the real character of God. Of course, God will decide what he can forgive among "Christian" pastors and what he'll have to take out of their hide.

 

 

 

Did he shout back?

 

No, he shouted until he got me shouting, and then he turned as smooth and silky as a purring kitten. I chose to write him an apology for my intimidation, lack of patience, etc.... now the ball's in his court to deal with a long-standing moral problem in his life. I hope he does.

 

Sorry this post got longer than I intended.

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

You have an interesting blend of Christianity and bullshit, IMHO.

 

Now let's read this again:

 

 

 

 

" Jhn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

 

 

"Jhn 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

 

 

Certainly we can sustain your argument that it wasn't the sin of the blind man nor of his parents that caused him to be born blind, as it was for the purpose of God showing off His 'works'.

But that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents".

Jesus did NOT say, "This man and his parents were sinners, sure, but that isn't what caused him to be blind!"

No. In that time and place, speaking of that specific individual and his immediate ancestry, He said, "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents".

 

Now I am left with few options... If believe that that's true, then how can I harmonize that with "all have sinned"? Or I can just not trust that verse, and that leaves me to wonder which ones I can trust?

 

Without the 'church', I am dead in the water here. Who will explain these things to me without the Pope? Oh yeah, I have you, and you are equally as capable and authorized by God to interpret the Word and explain it to me.

 

Please, answer this first if you respond... if we can trust the Bible, how is it so, as it is the untrustworthy church which gave it to us in it's current form? I mean, I haven't yet seen you quote from the Apocrypha, so I can't but assume that you trust the 66 books we all know as "the Bible".

If 'Churchianity' and the 'church' are unreliable, then why aren't we quoting from the Book of Enoch or the Gospel of Peter?

 

Let's get past that, before we get into eternal destiny (dieing once, and after that the judgement), second chances (remember the great gulf fixed between Abraham and the rich sinner?), or your answer to Hans about God asking everyone to leave the church, thus indicating to me that the gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against it - something that Jesus said would never happen.

Again, I wouldn't be waiting for a Christian hybrid faith to save me, no matter how intellegent it sounds.

[duderonomy]

Also there is this diggin,

you said:

"...we can trust that our own hearts are capable of learning some things..."

 

and God said:

 

" Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked...".

 

You know the rest. You can't know it. So we see that you have no Scripture that you can trust, no fellows in the Faith that you can trust, and if you have a Bible, it says that you can't trust your heart either.

 

Anyway, again, humor me in this my first thread, and please tell me how it is that we have a Bible we can trust with our eternal souls to be true, accurate, and the Very Word of God.

[diggin]

diggin,

 

You have an interesting blend of Christianity and bullshit, IMHO.

 

Now let's read this again:

 

 

 

 

" Jhn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

 

 

"Jhn 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

 

 

Certainly we can sustain your argument that it wasn't the sin of the blind man nor of his parents that caused him to be born blind, as it was for the purpose of God showing off His 'works'.

But that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents".

Jesus did NOT say, "This man and his parents were sinners, sure, but that isn't what caused him to be blind!"

No. In that time and place, speaking of that specific individual and his immediate ancestry, He said, "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents".

 

Now I am left with few options... If believe that that's true, then how can I harmonize that with "all have sinned"? Or I can just not trust that verse, and that leaves me to wonder which ones I can trust?

 

 

You're right as to the precise words of Jesus, and you're right that it would create a contradiction if you put it up against "all have sinned".

 

Here's my explanation of the paradox: Jesus was saying in this spot that the man's blindness was not attributible to his sins. Since clearly something like blindness must be the result of some deflection, some missing of the mark of perfection, then where did it come from? It came from the first man's sin. Adam sinned, making all people sinners. It's a hereditary condemnation, which seems unfair, but has one crucial advantage as far as the plan of God is concerned. By making all sin the result of one single act of disobedience by one single man, then a single righteous act, by a single man, can be used in exchange for it. This is the argument of Romans 5.

 

In another sense, of course, all of us are sinners in our own right. But that is not what Jesus is saying in John 9 -- nor is it what Paul is arguing in the 1st couple of chapters of Romans.

 

 

Without the 'church', I am dead in the water here. Who will explain these things to me without the Pope? Oh yeah, I have you, and you are equally as capable and authorized by God to interpret the Word and explain it to me.

 

 

Hey, buddy, I'm not authorized to be anything more than a teacher -- Ephesians 4:11ff

And you sure can't rely on the Pope. But you've got the Bible and you also have God's spirit available to you if you want it. Everyone is allowed to make the effort to try and make sense of it.

 

 

Please, answer this first if you respond... if we can trust the Bible, how is it so, as it is the untrustworthy church which gave it to us in it's current form? I mean, I haven't yet seen you quote from the Apocrypha, so I can't but assume that you trust the 66 books we all know as "the Bible".

If 'Churchianity' and the 'church' are unreliable, then why aren't we quoting from the Book of Enoch or the Gospel of Peter?

 

 

The idea that the scriptures were decided hundreds of years later by the institutional church is not true. It's a convenient straw man for both higher critics and modern skeptics.

Do a little research on the Beaty Payrus. It dates to the 1st and 2nd centuries, and contains what are probably first-generation vellum copies of much of the "canon" of scripture. For example, the 4 gospels plus acts, the "letters of Paul" which includes Romans, then Hebrews, then all but Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. It also contains Revelation, which shows that it was a late first century document, and that the prophecies in Rev that identify Rome as a lion, diadem, etc. are indeed prophecies -- Rome wasn't known by those things until later.

 

Let's get past that, before we get into eternal destiny (dieing once, and after that the judgement), second chances (remember the great gulf fixed between Abraham and the rich sinner?), or your answer to Hans about God asking everyone to leave the church, thus indicating to me that the gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against it - something that Jesus said would never happen.

Again, I wouldn't be waiting for a Christian hybrid faith to save me, no matter how intellegent it sounds.

 

Dying once - etc. Heb 9, in context refers to a judgment that occurs after the death of the high priest, which is what that chapter is talking about. It as it awaits "the" (definite article) men (human high priests in ancient Israel) and after this A judgment (no definite article).....

 

In ancient Israel the involuntary manslayer was to be kept in a sort of penal community within the walls of the cities of refuge, until the death of the high priest. Then they were free to go. The judgment that we're talking about is a hearing at which they were reminded of their offenses and then released.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...&version=31

 

interesting commentary on this by Jewish thinker:

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/PrisonerRights.html

 

Well, how does that old testament type apply to us? Well, Jesus died and his death is a liberation to those who receive it.

 

But in another sense the high priest is a composite body, composed of Jesus and the church. Not until the church completes its death in his footsteps will the rest of the world receive the benefit of release that they are waiting for. So when the church is complete, the rest of Hebrews 9 comes true for the masses -- Jesus (and his church) appear without a sin offering -- that is, no more sacrifice and dying -- an the result is salvation.

 

As for the rich man and lazarus, it's not about the afterlife at all, but a lesson for Israel, in which the rich man is put in a conscious tortuous experience, separated from God's favor, while the poor man (gentiles) is escorted to Abraham's bosom -- the privilege of fellowship and participation in the Abhramic covenant. But lots of plain scriptures make it clear that Israel is not lost forever, but is beloved for their father's sakes.

 

A little hasty and a little sketchy, but I hope I scratched the surface enough to show I'm not just pulling it out of my ear. :-)

[diggin]

Also there is this diggin,

you said:

"...we can trust that our own hearts are capable of learning some things..."

 

and God said:

 

" Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked...".

 

You know the rest. You can't know it. So we see that you have no Scripture that you can trust, no fellows in the Faith that you can trust, and if you have a Bible, it says that you can't trust your heart either.

 

Anyway, again, humor me in this my first thread, and please tell me how it is that we have a Bible we can trust with our eternal souls to be true, accurate, and the Very Word of God.

 

You are right, that we all have fallen hearts that are indeed desperately wicked. But we are also redeemable and have many lovely qualities. We can trust that God sees the good, the potential, and we can trust that even if we live our entire lives in the shadows of false teachings and our own mistakes, we still are learning good lessons and we are not simply what the Calvinists teach, logs of wood for the fire.

 

Think of the wonderful qualities of humanity that find expression outside of the rubric of Christian history and dogma. In the last century, we had Gandhi. In the one before that, we had Lincoln (who may indeed have been a true Christian but certainly was not churched) Mark Twain. Before that we had Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Are these fellows worthless? Is their art or political influence of no value? I don't have a scripture for it off the top of my head, but I am certain that all the people of the world are going to have a song to sing when they discover God's grace and love.

 

I was listening to Ladysmith Black Mombasa yesterday. Are they orthodox Christians? I don't know but I doubt it. Are the guys from U2 worthless? Not in my book. They may be rockstars and sexually out of bounds, but they care deeply about poverty and they see the injustices of European (churchy-state) exploitation of Africa. I say, more power to them. John Lennon's imagination (Imagine), John Denver's imagination (I want to Live), Billy Joel's imagination (River of Dreams) are as holy as any song in the hymn books, once they will be informed by a few facts that they couldn't have known under present circumstances.....

[DanInPA]

diggin-Do a little research on the Beaty Payrus. It dates to the 1st and 2nd centuries, and contains what are probably first-generation vellum copies of much of the "canon" of scripture. For example, the 4 gospels plus acts, the "letters of Paul" which includes Romans, then Hebrews, then all but Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

 

I did a search on the Chester Beatty Papyrus and checked about a dozen sites, and every one of them date it at 200-250. That's early third century.

Here's a summary from a Probe Ministries

 

P 45 was originally a codex which contained all Four Gospels and the Book of Acts. Unfortunately, what we HAVE are two leaves of Matthew, seven of Luke, two of John, and thirteen of Acts.

P 46 consists of eighty-six nearly perfect leaves, out of a total of 104, which contain Paul's epistles. Philemon and the Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy, Titus are missing, but Hebrews is included.

 

P 47 contains Revelation 9:10 to 17:2, except one or more lines is missing from the top of each page. So this is a little under half of the book of Revelation.

 

These three volumes are dated at the early 200s A.D.