The news that Barack Obama has resigned from membership in his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is hardly surprising. Video clips from sermons by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and a Catholic priest who spoke there, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, offended voters and raised questions about Obama's association with the Chicago church he attended for two decades.
The candidate says he's doing it not just for his own political benefit but to spare the church endless attention from the media. Although as Frances Coleman points out in the Mobile, Ala., Press-Register, "... smart pastors and politicians will preach every sermon and make every political observation as though the whole world is watching. It pretty much is, from here on out. Thanks to camera phones, other electronic devices and the evolution of the Internet, someone is always poised to post video of embarrassing utterances on YouTube."
I've never left a church because of anything that would have gone viral on YouTube. In fact, usually it had nothing to do with the shortcomings of the church I left and everything to do with the qualities of the church I found: Outreach that is sacrificial and benefits the "other." Worship that's fresh and lively. Teaching that enlightens and challenges. Community that is loving and inclusive.
What would make you leave your current community of faith? Why do you stay?
Monday, June 2, 2008
Church in the rearview mirror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
192 comments:
The thing I like about our church is the liberal spirit. They don't get all judgmental if you only want to handle garter snakes.
Honestly I think it just shows what and how long one can get away with if one has "Rev." in front of their name.
None of this spewing would be tolerated if uttered by someone else.
Iztok said "Honestly I think it just shows what and how long one can get away with if one has "Rev." in front of their name.
None of this spewing would be tolerated if uttered by someone else."
I disagree. The writer and readers of this blog have long tolerated your atheistic spewing.
Please, no personal attacks. State your own opinions or experiences or beliefs, but do not attack other people who post on this blog.
Anonymous, despite what you might thing I don't have anything against Christians, just Christianity. You know, hate the sin, love the sinner thing or homosexuals are ok just homosexuality is wrong type of thing.
Well, to get somewhat back on topic, I used to be a member of American Atheists, but left because I thought Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Jon Murray were jerks.
(And that's not a personal attack because they aren't persons anymore, they are historical figures...)
Well, maybe not on topic, because American Atheists is not exactly a community of "faith".
Unless you're a Christian apologist, of course, in which case science, mathematics, atheism, and everything in the universe is based on "faith".
I left the "faith" of mathematics because the theorems just became too damned difficult to prove and I never could learn to visualize objects in four dimensions.
Left the faith of "science" because ignorant Christian fundamentalists taught me Chemistry and Physics in High School and I just never could catch up with people taught by non-fundamentalists.
What would make me leave my community of faith?
Nothing could! Since the community of faith I belong to roots its faith in the Triune God -- not in a pastor, not in a priest, not in a building -- and since it is impossible that God would change -- it's not like He can get better than perfection -- there is nothing that could cause me to leave my faith community. Where would I go?
"Simon Peter answered him, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.'" -- John 6:68
I remain with my church (24 years and counting) for all the reasons Jane listed in her post; community service, outstanding worship, teaching that really challenges me, and a church family that cares for my family.
I almost left a long time ago, when the church split. An elder at the church I was going to join, however, advised me to go back and be part of the healing. I did as he said, and I'm still there.
Side note to Istok: Mohandas Gandhi said that he had great respect for Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible; he just couldn't be a Christian because of the behavior of Christians he had met.
Some days I know exactly how he felt!!!
Rod stated, "Mohandas Gandhi said that he had great respect for Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible; he just couldn't be a Christian because of the behavior of Christians he had met."
Well, this "quote" has some history behind it that puts it into better context. Gandhi made a statement close to this in recounting a story of his being prevented from attending Christian worship services in South Africa when he was stationed there as a barrister.
There was something a bit more sinister at work than Christianity in his being prevented from entering the church. He could have walked into (or tried, at least, to walk into) any "white" establishment in South Africa and been treated in the same way. In fact, Hindus and Muslims themselves acted in a manner other than that which Gandhi had read. Gandhi had no stomach for religion when it was used contrary to what he saw as its basic purpose -- to promote the brotherhood of all men.
I highly recommend the book "Gandhi: A Life" by Yogesh Chadha. One of the best biographies I have ever read.
Iztok,
I find your convenient ramblings amazing.
Here you say "I don't have anything against Christians, just Christianity."
Then, in a earlier post on this website you said that you went to a new church in Charlotte and asked the pastor to "prove" the miracles of Christ and complained that he didn't.
Then, someone else asked you on this site if there was ANY evidence they could give you to persuade you to put your faith in Christ and you said "no".
If that is the case, then you should learn to respect people's faith and just keep your mouth closed.
You obviously have something against Christians, so don't play the nice guy bit when its convenient. Thanks.
Anonymous wrote [of Iztok], "...in a earlier post on this website you said that you went to a new church in Charlotte and asked the pastor to "prove" the miracles of Christ and complained that he didn't."
That'd be the Mosaic Church that meets at the AMC 14 at Northlake on Sundays. I was at Northlake for an 11:30 showing of Indy IV. I saw their "faithful." They were constantly walking in and out of the theaters (into the lobby) DURING the program -- there were more people outside the theater (in the lobby, I mean) than there were people inside. It seemed they were all most interested in socializing and drinking coffee than they were in the "proceedings."
Mosaic Church believes that people are saved on faith alone [and of course, in the Bible being the sole authority on faith]. No good works needed!!!! So long as you believe you can shut yourself into your 4000 square-foot home and let your neighbor go to heck-in-a-handbasket. You'll still be saved. Goes against everything a Christian is supposed to mean, if you ask me (love of God, love of neighbor). You can't love your neighbor if you shut yourself off from them.
Anonymous: "Then, someone else asked you on this site if there was ANY evidence they could give you to persuade you to put your faith in Christ and you said "no"."
Please show me the post where I said that no evidence would persuade me. I honestly don't remember such statement and I am ready to admit it is a mistaken statement should you show me where I've claimed that.
My official stance is that scientific evidence would convince me. For example if evidence for God would be as evident as facts we see about evolution (mind you I find difference between evolution and evolution theory, two different things!). A human growing a limb for example would be true miracle. Someone returning from dead would not because we know people are misdiagnosed dead on occasion. Now would I see someone with head blown away and dead walking around with his head restored, that would be something. Like talking burning bush examined by scientists would do something too. Basically if sources of biblical miracles would be more reliable (like being able to be examined and confirmed by today's scientists and continued to be examined).
Danbo said...
"Mosaic Church believes that people are saved on faith alone [and of course, in the Bible being the sole authority on faith]. No good works needed!!!! So long as you believe you can shut yourself into your 4000 square-foot home and let your neighbor go to heck-in-a-handbasket. You'll still be saved. Goes against everything a Christian is supposed to mean, if you ask me (love of God, love of neighbor). You can't love your neighbor if you shut yourself off from them."
Thanks, Danbo, for another caricature of protestantism that has no connection to reality. As a protestant minister and one who I'm sure knows a heck of a lot more actual protestants than you, I can assure you that I know nobody who actually believes what you have just described.
Soli Deo Gloria
DJ Williams wrote, "Thanks, Danbo, for another caricature of protestantism that has no connection to reality."
Sorry, I can't change the facts. My comments were regarding the Mosaic Church, not Protestantism in general. The statement I made comes right off their website at www.mosaicchurch.tv.
But if you feel the shoe fits,...well, you know the saying.
Jane Pope said...
[Boys, Boys!]"Please, no personal attacks. State your own opinions or experiences or beliefs, but do not attack other people who post on this blog."
As a former Democrat Party activist, precinct president, convention delegate, county chair and campaign vice chair, etc for 18 years, I am not surprised to see my former party again commit McGovernite suicide again. I saw it coming and predicted in 2006, after the congressional elections, that the GOP would win the Presidency in 2008 because the dem party had been lulled into a false sense of security akin to all their losing elections save for Clinton's Perot enabled wins.
What is most significant is that so many Dems still think the leftist, and especially the black communities' portion of same's, pathologies can be ignored to no consequence.
They can't. This guy wants the nukes.
For more on that see:
http://race42008.com/2008/03/22/the-pathology/
http://race42008.com/2008/04/19/the-pathology-ii/
The twenty-year pew-parked butt speaks louder than his THREE attempts at making this unsurprising move, for a Church that tapes its own services and craves the spotlight.
These folks were trained to be dem party "smart", in that there would be no consequence as the msm covers up their pathologies. But when one of your's wants the nukes,
naw, naw, naw.
This guy is further left than McGovern or Dukakis. He will no be President.
All the talk that denigrated Jesse Jackson visa vis Obama is a crok. I was a delegate for Jackson, twice, and while I parted ways with him, modern day liberalism and the dem party after my conservative epiphany in 2000, one never heard the radical speu of Wright and his own wife from the Jackson church or campaign.
The din of the 20-yr pew-parked butt makes McCain a shoe-in.
I know. I spent years losing and knowing I would in the dem party.
more on churches later
I Like what Lazarus said a few posts back, "We are both trying to get to city hall, but we just take a different bus to get there. That's fine by me."
On one level we have different beliefs about God, worship, service and community; on a deeper level we all want peace, joy and love, we don't want to die and we worry about those we love.
If I remember that we're all trying to get to the same place, then I won't dislike people because of differences in our religion, whether they be small (wearing of robes) or large (murder).
Our destination is off the map. It may not be just on the other side of life. There is so much more of what we don't know than what we do know. But for now I see some of you are on a different bus. Our eyes may meet through the windows, I see your etchings on the seat in front of me. Let's wish each other well.
Anonymous: "If that is the case, then you should learn to respect people's faith and just keep your mouth closed.
You obviously have something against Christians, so don't play the nice guy bit when its convenient. Thanks."
I respect people but I don't have to respect their faith. I also have nothing against Christians just Christianity. It has been said here and other places and Christians say it all the time "love the sinner hate the sin" or "homosexuals are ok, homosexuality is bad". So I don't see how my statement about respecting people but don't respect their faith and like Christians hate Christianity are any different then what Christians say about sinners and homosexuals?
Now to why I stay and what could cause me to leave.
The latter is hard to answer since the list would be infinite. Suffice to say that no church I ever attended, much less was a member of, ever did anything or refused to do anything any where near as vile as what went on in Obama's church. And btw, the FIRST sermon Obama heard from Wright, that inspired the audacity of hope title, blamed all the world's problems on greedy white people.
I think a better question that I can answer is to show all the things that have occurred that I disagree with that did not case me to leave and why.
But first, why I stayed at the four churches to which I was baptized and moved my letter and the one's I attended for long terms but did not join.
I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church in Upstate SC. I was Baptized at age 13, and it was a very profound experience. Since that date I have felt the hand of God on my life. I have had similar close to God experiences at ages 18 (when I encountered atheists in college), age 21 (same thing at the next college), age 33 after a divorce, and at age 43 had a profound spiritual experience for 72+ hours that affirmed eternal life and removed all doubts.
I remained a member of my home church for many years even when I attended other churches, usually because my steady girlfriends or two wives attended same.
Those include Presbyterian, Lutheran, catholic (first wife) and a "harvest" non-denominational church in Atlanta.
I have always "stayed" a member of a Protestant Church because I think they are closer to the confession of the Bible.
I am a Christian first, and then a Baptist. I am a CS Lewis mere Christianity somewhat Calvinist Southern baptist by theology. I think the Southern Baptist confession is the closest to the Bible
I did move my letter to a non-denominational church in Atlanta despite my misgivings about their ordination of a woman pastor (she was one of three, the other two were men) and the speaking of tongues.
I was questioned about doctrine before they allowed me to join and I told the woman pastor, who was also a great friend, that I simply thought the Bible taught that only men could be pastor, as opposed to preaching, which is obviously open to all explicitly in the Book, but that I considered this secondary and not primary.
For primary, see the creeds and the book mere Christianity.
I have stayed at all the churches I have joined and attended due to the reasons Jane lists.
As a young person in my southern baptist sc church, I was rebel against racism. I was vocal against race jokes, etc. My pastor was not a racist and preached against it, and we integrated in the 80s.
I would not have stayed in a church that prohibited members due to race. Mine never did.
more later
Iztok
I think I agree with you. I do have a hard time respecting atheism. In fact, I don't even believe that anyone actually believes there is no God because God makes himself known and that he requires moral conduct to all men.
The mere existence of life, the Earth and the universe is self evident evidence of God, even apart form that still small voice that CS Lewis calls the Law of Human Nature.
"n fact, I don't even believe that anyone actually believes there is no God because God makes himself known and that he requires moral conduct to all men."
I can tell you that this is not true for most atheists.
It is not that we believe there is no god we actually don't believe there is god. There is subtle but important difference.
As far as moral conduct is concerned. We do it because we care not because it is required of us. Which I think it is a higher moral standard.
"The mere existence of life, the Earth and the universe is self evident evidence of God"
That also is not true. Why would one think such thing is true? Are you saying the "good old" "there is design therefore God exists"?
I've addressed this already in the past but even if life/universe was designed it doesn't automatically say that God is the designer, it could be many other things. We know that flu causes sore throat but to claim that sore throat is mere existence of sore throat is evidence of flu is bizarre to say the least.
Gamecock: one more thing, blaming atheists for not believing there is god is blaming the victim. Because if god exists it is its fault to not provide enough evidence.
Danbo, I have a question for you. Does a Catholic priest refusing communion constitute official stance of Catholic Church?
Does priest act in this manner as official representative of RCC?
Is there a guideline to follow who can and can't be offered communion by priest?
Is there an instance where one can file complain?
What happens to priest that refuses to give communion and it is found wrong?
Or are such acts or lack of there of just willy-nilly performed by priests without consequences either way?
Gee, how soon we forget history, especially if it involves anything bad about Christianity.
Racism in South Africa was often encouraged by the white Christians of primarily Dutch ancestry.
I can remember plenty of documentaries during that period where those Christians were interviewed and revealed how similar their beliefs were to that of Klansmen.
I'll see if I can do a little searching for the names of the churches.
Hopefully that hasn't been "whitewashed" out of our recent history.
Racists have found as much inspiration from the Bible as terrorists have found in the Quran.
Both major religions say they don't support either and that those people aren't following the "true" religion, but followers of both religions keep finding things in their holy books to support those beliefs.
I'd like to clarify something about atheism, as understood by many, if not all, atheists.
Atheists typically don't "believe there is no God", they "don't believe" there is a God.
Atheism is more a lack of belief, than a belief in a lack of gods.
I know that's probably not what the churches and apologists have taught you, but that is what many atheists think about atheism.
Just a clarification for those who want to know. Of course, we don't have anyone telling us exactly what to think about atheism, so some atheists may not agree, but that is fairly widely accepted.
"Atheism is more a lack of belief, than a belief in a lack of gods."
Ramen!
Danbo said...
"Sorry, I can't change the facts. My comments were regarding the Mosaic Church, not Protestantism in general. The statement I made comes right off their website at www.mosaicchurch.tv."
I tried to check that website, but it appears that their server is down. Anyhow, I greatly doubt that you pulled that statement right off their website. I'm sure the "faith alone" part is, but I find it hard to believe that your misinterpretation of what "faith alone" means actually came off their website. If it did, I'll join you in condemning their belief. Good works are not inconsequential or unimportant, but we are justified by "faith alone."
On that front, have you got an alternate exegesis of Romans 3:28 yet?
Soli Deo Gloria
Iztok asked, "Danbo, I have a question for you. Does a Catholic priest refusing communion constitute official stance of Catholic Church?
Does priest act in this manner as official representative of RCC?
Is there a guideline to follow who can and can't be offered communion by priest?
Is there an instance where one can file complain?
What happens to priest that refuses to give communion and it is found wrong?
Or are such acts or lack of there of just willy-nilly performed by priests without consequences either way?"
Iztok, those questions are better off being posed to the Bishop of Charlotte, Rev. Peter Jugis. Why not write him with these questions? I would suggest amending the "tone" of your questions if you desire an answer, though.
DJ Williams wrote, "On that front, have you got an alternate exegesis of Romans 3:28 yet?"
Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone — but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase "faith alone" does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Is it any wonder Luther fought so rabidly to have the book of James excluded from canonicity of the Bible?
Some churches are more exciting than others. Pentecostal churches are fun. I've had a few in my rear view mirror.
More videos: Holy Ghost People and Children Praying.
Danbo said...
"Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone — but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase "faith alone" does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Enough is enough, Dan. I've responded to that exact argument in great textual detail no less than two times already, and you've not responded to the issues I've brought up yet. The most recent example is here, taken directly from my comment from May 6, 2008 at 8:57 AM on the thread, “The Devil You Say?”...
“I think we’re talking here about a misunderstanding about the process of translation. Translation between languages is not a one-for-one process. Grammatical structure is different across languages, and koine Greek is very different from modern language – for instance, in ancient Greek both verbs and nouns have tense (past, present, perfect, etc.) and gender (masculine, feminine, neuter). Word order, on the other hand, means next to nothing. These factors have no equivalent in the English language, which means that translation is a difficult process of understanding the language and structure rather than simply substituting an English word for each Greek word. Let me illustrate with the verse you accuse Luther of doctoring…
The original Greek text has eight words in Romans 3:28 - “logisometha gar dikaiousthai pistei anthropon choris ergon nomou” (Apologies for the crude transliteration, but I don’t know how to get a Greek font in a comment)
The Latin Vulgate, however, has nine – “arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis”
The NASB (the most wooden “word-for-word” of any English translation) has sixteen words! – “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
So, did Jerome doctor the text as well? And the NASB translators must have absolutely butchered it! This kind of reasoning is nonsense to those who know the languages. Translation must keep in mind the dynamics of the source language and the destination language in order to preserve the original author’s intended meaning. Luther included the German for “alone” to communicate the meaning of the Greek word “choris,” which modifies “ergon nomou” (“works of the Law”). What does “choris” mean? It means “separate, apart, without any.” Paul is saying that one is justified apart from and without any works of the Law. I gave you a detailed description of this exegesis on a thread a while back, and got no response, so I’ll ask again. Given the Greek, what alternate translation would you offer, if Luther’s garbled the meaning so badly? Your accusations of translation tampering fall flat to one who has even an elementary knowledge of the Greek.”
You didn’t respond to my exegesis then, and you still haven’t offered a different explanation of the passage. You did respond with a sarcastic comment, so I know that you can’t plead ignorance. Now, you offer the exact same argument again, though I demonstrated it’s problems and you failed to respond or correct me in any way. In fact, I specifically asked you not to use the same argument unless you were willing to demonstrate exactly why my counter was wrong. This is simply intellectual dishonesty. If you want to go on believing this, then fine – but please don’t go around giving your skewed view of this verse to others unless you’re willing to interact with the serious problems your view has.
Soli Deo Gloria
If I were looking for a church, I'd visit Liberated Christians (libchrist.com) and Naturist Christians (naturist-christians.org). I think they'd be fun people and more able to think out of the box.
I love Greek, so I hate to not put my two cents into a Greek debate, but here I feel like it is not really necessary. The entire counsel of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is that salvation is on the basis of grace (Christ's substitutionary sacrifice) received through faith. It is also the full counsel of Scripture (Paul and James both agree, and so do the Old Testament prophets and law) that true faith is a working faith.
In other words, we can never earn salvation by our works, it is a gift received by faith so that no man may boast. However, the person who is a genuine Christian will always be characterized by good works. "Faith without works is dead," James tells us. Paul also instructs the Philippians to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" - there is an urgency to the way we do good works in Jesus' name - but he also says, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to work according to his good pleasure." Thus, we decide to do good works (and urgently!), but it is only because God is working in us.
This is why salvation cannot be on the basis of works. Romans 3 tells us how bankrupt we are in the wickedness of our heart. We first need to be freed from this. Jesus used the term "being born again" when speaking to Nicodemus. Ezekiel 36 gives the particulars, but ultimately our faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8 - because we would never come to God apart from his work in us first) and our good works are planned by God for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10 - because, again, we wouldn't do this in our own fallen condition).
The reason the Reformers proclaimed "faith alone" was because they saw the Roman Catholic Church as requiring a 'checklist' of some sorts for salvation (must partake of sacraments, etc.). The Reformers saw that true salvation was rooted in God's choice and activity, which first worked its way out in faith in an individual. But they never identified faith as mere 'belief'. The faith they had in mind was always a working faith. Their 'works' were just not sacramental.
"Doesn't The Bible Teach That Sex Belongs Only In Monogamous Marriage?
"Take out your Bible and show us where! Traditional Christian teaching wants you to believe this. But if you search the scriptures and understand the original Hebrew/Greek texts, the history of biblical interpretation and the influence of non-Christian thought on Christian tradition, you will discover you have been sold a lie all these years... We suggest that responsible non-monogamy, loving intimacy and other-centered sexual pleasure sharing is much more in line with Christ's teaching that love is the greatest commandment than the repressive traditional teachings which make rules based on false foundations." - libchrist.com
Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."
Genesis 2:24 is the foundation of one man and one woman.
Jesus repeats it in Mark 10:2-9.
Romans 1 gives a very clear understanding that same-sex relationships are wicked.
1 Corinthians 7 says that there are only 2 reasons you should ever divorce, and if you do get divorced because of one of those reasons, you should remain single or seek to be reunited with your original spouse.
Jesus said that to remarry was to commit adultery in Mark 10:11.
Just in case you suffer under the delusion that the Bible is NOT as antiquated in its morality as the Bible-thumpers say it is, I suggest Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
That's right, young women were forced to marry their own rapists AND had to stay with them forever!
Now I don't say all this because I dislike it. Quite the contrary. I believe that we have gotten very far off from the biblical revelation of sexual morality in these days, and we ought to go back. I merely point out that the Bible IS very prudish/restrictive when it comes to sexual matters and if you choose not to accept its teachings (as most liberals do), then get another holy book, because this one doesn't say what you want it to.
DJ, it is you, sir, who have the warped interpretation. Your interpretation didn't exist until Martin Luther came on the scene. It is your religion that has distorted Holy Scripture -- not mine.
You use the same tired arguments time after time, as well. So don't lecture me about how I haven't proven my point. My point was *the* point until Marty came along. It's up to you to prove why you and he changed the inspired Word of God -- something you have not done to my satisfaction, so stop trying to convince me. It's not going to happen.
As for simple intellectual dishonesty, you've been spouting your fair share of that, so let's stop kiddign each other.
The simple fact that your religion does not recognize the true presence of Christ -- Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity -- in The Eucharist has you wrong from the get-go. There is no reason to believe that anything else that Protestantism changed is any less mistaken. For someone who purports that the Bible is the final authority on faith, you seem to gloss over this fact presented in 1 Cor 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully in, John 6:32–71.
'Nuff said.
Danbo said...
"You use the same tired arguments time after time, as well."
Then demonstrate to me textually why my argument is stale and wrong, and offer your alternative interpretation. Over and over again, you tell me that my textual work is wrong, yet you'll never do me the courtesy of showing me why. That's all I'm asking for.
"As for simple intellectual dishonesty, you've been spouting your fair share of that, so let's stop kiddign each other."
I gave specifics, not blanket accusations. If you're going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, please offer specifics.
A discussion about the Eucharist would be great - but why should I take the time to respond to your points when you've already demonstrated in this case you won't offer me the same courtesy? We can't have a reasonable discussion that way, only shouting matches. Those don't interest me.
Soli Deo Gloria
DJ wrote, "A discussion about the Eucharist would be great."
To what purpose? I am not interested in defending fact from fiction.
Hey Danbo, did you read my response? I would like to see if there is agreement.
Corey Reynols wrote, "In other words, we can never earn salvation by our works, it is a gift received by faith so that no man may boast."
Agreed. Works alone, as written in James, is a fool's quest for Salvation.
Corey Reynolds wrote, "The reason the Reformers proclaimed "faith alone" was because they saw the Roman Catholic Church as requiring a 'checklist' of some sorts for salvation (must partake of sacraments, etc.). The Reformers saw that true salvation was rooted in God's choice and activity, which first worked its way out in faith in an individual. But they never identified faith as mere 'belief'. The faith they had in mind was always a working faith. Their 'works' were just not sacramental."
Who can truly say what the Reformers really saw? But, otherwise, I find the remaining thoughts well-reasoned. I'll concede that I was a bit to narrow-minded on the thought that Protestants don't believe good works are necessary.
Let me reduce my objections to the fact that militant Protestants are too quick to teach -- and wrongly, at that -- that evil catholics beleive in a works-based Salvation.
Pete
See The Ten Commandments and check out the thou shalt not commit adultery.
libchrist.com???? A porno site for liberated Christians????? You've got to be kidding me.
"In His own image He made them. Male and female He created them."
"That is why a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his WIFE, and the two will become one flesh."
Not "*three* will become one flesh." If a man (or woman) becomes one flesh with their sposue, how can they become "one flesh" with a third party? You can't be "one flesh" with two different people.
libchrist.com is truly liberating Christians, all right -- liberating them from The Truth, The Word; liberating them from The Way, The Light. In this kind of "liberation" one is truly a slave -- to sin, that is.
"Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means to us today. Clearly there was never a word said about the fact Hebrew men could have as many wives, concubines (breeders) and 'other women' as they could afford; this is not adultery in the Hebrew understanding of the Adultery Commandment of Moses.
"The forbidding of premarital sex is one of the traditions that is man made to control people... The koline Greek word that has been mistranslated as fornication is porneia. There is no biblical basis whatsoever to translate porneia into fornication (singles sex).
"Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the only law is the law of love. He demonstrated this by reversing four of the OT laws which conflicted with loving people. Therefore anything that was hurtful, not by mutual consent etc. would be immoral for a Christian, but obviously not loving sexuality regardless of marital status or natural sexual orientation." - www.libchrist.com/bible/premaritalsex.html
Pete, that website is full of quite a bit of fantasy. You swallow it whole, don't you?
You can try to justify this immoral and sinful behavior all you want, but it just doesn't get any traction.
Sex is a loving act which is confined to one man and one woman within the institution of their Holy Matrimony. Period.
Pete
wrong
God only "allowed" polygamy due to human weakness. It was not his preference.
Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin no more.
Actually, long before there was a king in Israel, God gave the command through Moses that the future kings must not let his people go to Egypt to aquire horses, or take many wives for himself (Deuteronomy 17:17). Just because some of the kings of Israel were positive characters (although even David - the greatest - was a big-time sinner, and guess what his sin was?) doesn't mean that they were right to take many wives. In fact, they did so in direct disobedience to the verse I mentioned.
And Jesus did not 'reverse' ANY commands in the Sermon on the Mount, he showed how God keeps us MORE accountable to these commandments.
Pete, I know that you are just quoting something that you either think is funny or interesting, so I am not assuming that these quotes reflect your own understanding. Some of these statements just can't go without being answered, however.
The Bible has something for everyone. We can, and do, take from it what we want. And if we choose not to follow any of its advice, that's OK too.
Pete
Wrong again. Words have meaning.
Pete states, "And if we choose not to follow any of its [the Bible's] advice, that's OK too."
No, it's not OK.
They're called The Ten Commandments, not The Ten Advisements.
It's called The Great Commandment, not The Great Suggestion.
You and your friends who rely on the tripe offered by libchrist.com are burning a path to hell -- no pun intended.
Actually, I'd rather somebody simply say that they've decided not to follow any of the Bible's commandments than to try and twist the plain meaning of Scripture to say what they want to hear.
If a person admits that, then at least they know that if the God of the Bible is real, they stand condemned for their behavior. That's a lot better than trying to reshape the God of the Bible into an image that suits you. If you do that, then you've deluded yourself into thinking that whatever you want to do is okay. Sadly, this is where most people are.
The Bible has some great stuff in it. I just don't agree with a lot of it. Believing in all of the Bible isn't necessary to be a Christian. For instance, the commandment about not working on Sundays.
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."
How is it that it's OK to ignore this commandment and not the others?
Are you sure it was Sundays? And what about the illegal alien residents? Can they work on Sundays?
The plain meaning of scripture?
Now would that be in English, Greek,Aramaic, or Hebrew?
I used to bounce from church to church, looking for one with adequate parking. But, after reading about everyone else's issues, it seems almost petty now.
Gee, I thought The Mosaic Church would at least have pretty, colored stain-glass windows but it turns they meet in dark, stanky theaters.
What a disappointment. At least the Crystal Cathedral is made of clear glass.
Scoffers are so unattractive.
Next question: What would cause scoffers to attend a church?
yes
Hard to find ass parking with hay?
Pete, who's ignoring that commandment? You know the original Sabbath was actually Saturday, but the law is for setting one day in seven apart for rest. It's not so much about a specific day.
The great thing about the Bible is that it provides a foundation and standard for truth. The bad thing about only choosing to follow the parts you like is that your opinion becomes the foundation and standard for truth. This wouldn't matter at all except that the Bible claims to be directly from God. Deciding to reject all of it because you don't believe in its God seems more logical and safe than deciding you like what God said here but not here. That sort of puts you in judgment over the infinite God you claim exists.
For example, you may say, "I don't like this antiquated view of sexual morality." What if God really does hold that view? How would you know? You may say, "I just feel that I'm right." What if someone who believes the opposite says that he believes that he is right? There must be a standard somewhere. The Bible actually claims to be that standard. One can still reject its claim, but I'm not sure how some of it can be useful to set your life by and not the other parts.
The reason why I say that I don't see how that can be useful is because if you're going to choose only those parts you like, why not simply write your own manifesto without the 'baggage' of large portions of Scripture that you reject?
"Pete, who's ignoring that commandment (Don't work on the Sabbath)?"
Just about everybody.
When Jesus summed up all the laws by saying, "Just love each other," He said it's OK to work on Sundays and it's OK to have sex with whoever we want as long as we do it with love.
Pete wrote, "When Jesus summed up all the laws by saying, "Just love each other," He said it's OK to work on Sundays and it's OK to have sex with whoever we want as long as we do it with love."
Really?! Is that what He was saying? If so, why didn't He just say it that way? If He said "Just love each other," [your words; not mine] did that mean don't do anything else? Don't eat? Don't sleep? Don't work? Just have sex with anyone and everyone you see?
Actually, Jesus said, "...and love one another as you love yourself."
Interpreting it along the same literal lines as you and your libchrist lunatics do, we must conclude that since you can't have sexual intercourse with yourself, that Jesus meant that our love for one another should not include sexual intercourse with one another. How about that?
Of course, Jesus never said, "Just love each other." You'll find that Jesus, in that very sermon, actually emphasized a higher calling of sexual morality that says even lustful intent in the heart is adultery. I agree with Corey - you'd be better off to just throw the Bible out and come up with you're own ideas rather than doing interpretive backflips to say that Scripture supports your ideas. If, as you said, "if we choose not to follow any of its advice, that's OK too," then why do you feel the need to seek Scriptural support?
Soli Deo Gloria
Christians interpret the Bible differently. D.J. Williams and Danbo59 accused each other of intellectual dishonesty and warped interpretations. I'm not saying that about you guys. The Bible inspires us in different ways. Jesus was about loving one another. He was able to think out of the boundaries the religious people were wanting to put him in. That's why they had him killed.
Pete
So, so long as we love our moms and sisters we can have sex with them?
And where did Jesus say this?
Can we also maim and kill people we love?
Danbo
"Obviously" Jesus was referring to masturbation?
Pete seeks to rationalize what he wants to do.
Me, I can read words and comprehend. I am a sinner.
DJW
BINGO!
Pete
Are you editing a "Pete" Bible, on the order of Jefferson's Bible, wherein you edit all the things Jesus said that you don't like?
He said what he said. You choose to "interpret", yes as no and black as white.
You may have a future as a supreme court judge. I just hope the mortgage on your house never gets "interpreted" like you and other liberals interpret other contracts/covenants.
Gamecock: "So, so long as we love our moms and sisters we can have sex with them?"
You know full well that incest was perfectly ok in the Bible. In fact God designed it to be needed at one point.
Iztok wrote, "You know full well that incest was perfectly ok in the Bible. In fact God designed it to be needed at one point."
You're right. Key words are was and needed.
Adam and Eve, the Bible tells us, lived for nearly 800 years. Whether or not you believe a day was a day when this was written, the intent in this passage was to tell us that they lived exceedingly long lives as compared to those who came after them. Why?
Well, to procreate and populate the earth, of course. This would necessitate intermarriage up to the time where genetic diversity would no longer demand it. By that time, genetic mutation (a consequence of original sin, of existing outide the perfection of God's creation) was creeping into mankind, which further necessitated the prohibition for marriage to one's own close kin so as to minimize the possibility of two recessive genes being paired in the next generation.
Gamecock is glad Danbo is on the job.
I don't think Jesus said anything about having sex with family. But I think he would say that sex between adults in a family would be OK if it's done with love.
Why would we want to mame and kill people we love?
Why would we want to have sex with moms and sisters we love?
Danbo: "Well, to procreate and populate the earth, of course. This would necessitate intermarriage up to the time where genetic diversity would no longer demand it."
I guess there was a flaw in design?
"Gamecock is glad Danbo is on the job."
Gamecock, when will you provide us the answers about ID? All you do is spew negatives about evolution theory yet you don't provide any better theory for us to test let alone point us to any scientific research done. Or people like you don't have any scientists to come up with scientific theory?
The "flaw" of free choice that makes it possible for us to inherit eternal life.
"All you (Iztok) do" is set up strawmen and demand they be knocked down.
Jesus would have accepted evolution. About 'Intelligent Design' he would have said, "Render unto science what is science, and unto God the things that are Gods."
"The "flaw" of free choice that makes it possible for us to inherit eternal life."
So what is consequence of free choice? What can't you have without free choice?
Gamecock: ""All you (Iztok) do" is set up strawmen and demand they be knocked down."
What strawman? Gamecock, didn't you claim that you have support for ID to be put in science classes? You are the one claiming having "evidence" for it to be included in science classes and fail to provide any.
Iztok
sons of god or tin soldiers
http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc27.htm
I claimed that at least 4 times, and as a lawyer that has studied most of the "establishment" cases and columnist in Atlanta that covered the Cobb County textbook sticker case, that school districts fear lawsuits even for answering the obvious questions students ask.
Hence the "sticker". (look it up)
My legal position is that local schools should decide what is taught in the classroom, not federal judges.
Pete wrote, "I think he would say that sex between adults in a family would be OK if it's done with love."
Gotta call a spade a spade -- you're sick if you believe that "sex between adults in a family would be OK if it's done with love."
'Nuff said.
Iztok, how many times does someone have to say it to get it through your thick skull. There was no design flaw. It was part of the design that the first humans would necessarily mate with close relatives.
Man introduced disorder (including the disorder that led to genetic mutation) into the world when he Fell.. His choice, not God's choice. Thank God that He, Himself, knew that man was weak and planned his Salvation from Day One (or is that Day Zero?).
Why don't you go argue this stuff with your wife, instead of bringing it here?
Danbo59,You just said, "It was part of the design that the first humans would necessarily mate with close relatives." How can you say I'm sick for saying that something God designed is OK? Anyway, Jesus said, "Don't judge and love each other." I love you and God bless.
Pete
The plan was for the apple to remain un-bitten. Its been all damage control since Eve bit same. Now, as to God's plan, I assume you would allow God to have a multi-stage plan? One that might "allow" for damage control measures for a time, and then other measures later on?
Didn't Paul deal with the incest issue in Corinth?
Can't believe Pete (sure your name isn't still Simon?) is arguing for incest...
Gamecock,
I'm just saying we should first of all love love God and each other. Jesus said don't judge. So I'm not going to judge what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I know it's a big taboo, but Jesus said to love and don't judge.
Pete
Yes Pete, we are not to judge a person's soul, and we must love all men. But we are supposed to exercise judgment of acts/behavior.
Basically hate the sin but love the sinner.
But I see you are sincere.
We cool.
"The plan was for the apple to remain un-bitten."
I guess God wasn't all knowing then as otherwise he would have known that Eve would go after the apple. Either that or Eve was framed and God had plan for this to happen all along.
I guess this Fish stinks from the Head.
Iztok
I suspect that for God to create creatures that can CHOOSE to love him and become sons of God, this process is necessary. Call it Cosmic calculus?
Gamecock, I've heard the "evil is needed for humans to have free will" argument but it just doesn't make sense at all.
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you.
"My legal position is that local schools should decide what is taught in the classroom, not federal judges."
I bet you do want that. Simply because your kind would easily manipulate the board to teach pseudo-science instead of science. To further detriment of our kids. Sorry but our kids deserve better then to be undereducated. They need real science.
anon
Did the US ever beg China for help in running our many Olympic Games?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/05/exclusive-us-to-lend-china-sensitive-security-gear/
Wrong Iztok
If a local school wants to teach that Susie has two mommies, so be it. See Decatur, GA.
Pete said, "I think he would say that sex between adults in a family would be OK if it's done with love."
Why just adults? Why would it be wrong for someone to seduce a child? Because you think so?
And Iztok, there are many of us out there that do not believe that "The plan was for the apple to remain un-bitten. Its been all damage control since Eve bit same."
Clearly, an eternal, all-knowing God who is actually in control of his creation would have known exactly what was coming, and it would have been a part of the plan from the start. Otherwise, why did he put a naughty tree there at all, or a crafty serpent, or a command not to eat, for that matter.
In another place, Christians are told that they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). Not only did God know that man would fall, he knew when he created the world that he would come and die for his creatures in the form of a man, and he already knew who that death was going to apply to. This is why Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Now, admittedly, there is some mystery here, but a god who cannot see the fall coming and who can only do "damage control" after the fact is not really a god worth worshiping. Thankfully, that is not the God we have revealed in the Bible.
Agreed Corey, when you put it that way. Yes, God knew that we would choose to be our own Gods and that the onlyway to fix us would be for God to send his son to die for us.
amen
"If a local school wants to teach that Susie has two mommies, so be it. See Decatur, GA."
Issue here is that many parents wouldn't have an option getting their kids proper education in their local public schools. For private schools it doesn't matter, they can udereducate as much as they want.
You still didn't back up your statement that you have scientific evidence about ID and as such want to be heard in science class. You are typical ID person who just really doesn't have a clue (and demonstrated it here several times) when it comes to science.
Corey: "Not only did God know that man would fall, he knew when he created the world that he would come and die for his creatures in the form of a man, and he already knew who that death was going to apply to."
Cool. At least we agree that Eve was really not to blame and neither was Judas. They both did what they were supposed to do. In fact they were then one who did a true sacrifice. Their name was tarnished and they became scapegoats for someone else.
So why do we still blame them instead of the true culprit for this misery? From this perspective Eve and Judas would only truly did something wrong if one would refuse to eat the apple and one would refuse to "betray" Jesus. So it was they who really did sacrifice a lot. They've both risked to go to Hell by doing what was expected from them for this to happen. They are the ones being tormented in Hell. Talking about true sacrifice there!
Iztok wrote, "They [Eve and Judas] are the ones being tormented in Hell."
So, you know that Eve and Judas are in Hell? Been there, have you? I thought you didn't believe in Hell. Or Heaven, for that matter. Or God.
No one knows where Eve and Judas are spending eternity except those who have gone before us. Although it is generally thought that Judas despaired and therefore denied himself Salvation, no one on earth knows for sure whether or not he might have repented in those last moments.
Danbo, I am writing under presumption that Heaven and Hell would be real for discussion sake. Obviously if God would provide sufficient evidence for its (God's and accompanied places/things) existence there would be no need for wishful thinking as we would see the evidence of aforementioned.
Yeah based on the same argument perhaps even Hitler and Stalin are enjoying their time in Heaven. On the other hand brilliant minds like Darwin, Einstein, most of our founding fathers etc. are in Hell. This is one of the major flaws with your religion that I see. Good people end up in Hell just because your God didn't provide enough evidence on the other hand those who repent go to Heaven no matter how bad their deeds. For me if (for the sake of argument) we would assume that Heaven and Hell are real I would rather spend it where Darwin, Einstein, and other brilliant minds are.
Corey
Each person is responsible for what they do.
Give God the credit for the good in the world and the gift of eternal life if one chooses to accept it.
So many here have this default position that takes happiness for granted.
Life is a gift.
"Give God the credit for the good in the world"
Only if you also can blame him for all the bad. You can't have one w/o other.
Iztok wrote, "On the other hand brilliant minds like Darwin, Einstein, most of our founding fathers etc. are in Hell."
How do you know this?
Iztok said, "For me if (for the sake of argument) we would assume that Heaven and Hell are real I would rather spend it where Darwin, Einstein, and other brilliant minds are."
From your lips to God's ears.
God is in control of all things AND human beings are responsible for their actions. How do we know that? Because that's what the Bible tells us over and over again.
All sinners are justly condemned for their actions that defy God's revealed will (his commands, if you will). Nevertheless, God knew that they would do so, and even planned it. Here we have a concept that is really too big for our finite minds because it deals with an entity that knows all, plans all, and yet commands obedience. His plan includes the disobedient acts of his creatures (the betrayal and slaying of the Son, for instance), but they are still held accountable for those acts, and God himself is not to be sullied with the charge of evil.
How we do this is the hard part that has led to much debate for thousands of years. The reason why we have this discussion is because of the revelation (the Bible). We are trying to understand how all the parts fit.
First, we must establish from the start that God, as Creator, has a right to do with his creation whatever he wants. Second, we have to grant that we, as his creatures, have no rights to any good treatment from God. That last idea is compounded by the fact that we sin against God repeatedly (I've been reading Jeremiah chapters 41-43 this morning and the disobedience of God's people is ridiculous).
But you may say that since God created us the way that we are and that he expected us to sin, that he is to blame, for who can resist his will? At this point I will simply direct your attention to Paul's treatment of this very critique in Romans 9:19-24.
Again, the answer (in Romans 9) may not be satisfactory to some minds, but it is biblical. I accept the answer and try not to be judgmental toward an infinite God, since there is no way I can know everything from his perspective. He says, "This is the way it is," and I say, "Okay. Praise God!" I know that I will one day see all that he has done with new eyes and will see beyond a doubt that all has been very good.
Iztok said, "For me if (for the sake of argument) we would assume that Heaven and Hell are real I would rather spend it where Darwin, Einstein, and other brilliant minds are."
You and Billy Joel (per Only the Good Die Young), both, I guess.
To Corey Reynolds:
Nicely put! To God be the Glory!
God does not make us sin, but he did create a world and life where good is possible. Only if evil is possible is there real good.
God gets to be God Iztok. We can't punish God.
Well, let me re-phrase that. We can be our own Gods and inherit the life that we can create. That would be death. We can punish God by denying him our love. Or we can accept his love and his plan.
But if you want to play self righteous God, go ahead. See what good it does you.
Read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It was written for logical minds. On second thought....
Amen, Corey - well said.
Soli Deo Gloria
Corey
This site needs you. Thanks.
Corey, your post makes no sense. If God planned then he alone is responsible for people's sins. People itself have no other option but pre-destination. So they are victims and yet they get blamed. What a cruel God.
Evil is needed for good to exist? So there is evil in Heaven? Or is that an exception? If it is exception then apparently evil is not needed for good therefore your argument is logically false. (Same goes for free will argument.)
Your logic just doesn't hold up. You rationalize it to fit your image of God and find all sorts of excuses to defend such creature.
You assume that God can do anything yet you fail to show that. Good example is that God declares things good that are inherently good not the other way around. God can't make a bad thing good just by declaring it so. Unless you are intrinsically saying that all the evil and destruction in the world is good. So if tsunamis, tornadoes and other natural disasters are good then why bother fixing it? If murder is good, why bother punishing it (and yes according to you God planned for murderer to be there and your God is a "good God").
You can either have God being responsible for everything or nothing. If everything, then nothing is evil/bad, if nothing, why call him God?
With whole sacrifice thing about Jesus, it was predestined and people had no choice but to do so, otherwise you wouldn't have the Jesus story. So people who "sacrificed" Jesus did you guys a world of favor so why would anyone found them guilty?
Also another thing stems out of all this. Apparently goal of all Christians is to go to Heaven and all newborn when they are born and if they die soon they go to Heaven. So it would only be natural for parents to sacrifice themselves and kill newborn baby to make sure he/she goes to Heaven. They would perhaps sacrifice themselves to Hell but any true loving parent would happily sacrifice themselves to ensure their offspring would end up in Heaven. Unless they don't truly believe what they are saying and they are just hoping they are right. In such case it is understandable they don't commit such acts.
Iztok writes, "Apparently goal of all Christians is to go to Heaven and all newborn when they are born and if they die soon they go to Heaven. So it would only be natural for parents to sacrifice themselves and kill newborn baby to make sure he/she goes to Heaven. They would perhaps sacrifice themselves to Hell but any true loving parent would happily sacrifice themselves to ensure their offspring would end up in Heaven. Unless they don't truly believe what they are saying and they are just hoping they are right."
Izzie, it is not Corey whose logic is warped. It's yours. It's one thing to question, even to be angry at God for some reason or another. It at least keeps the dialog open. But, as Jesus said, the unforgivable sin is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- something you do quite regularly here. You just don't question the existence of God -- because, regardless of the amount of hot air you blow you actually know He exists and believe in Him -- you make it a point to mock God every chance you get. You're the cooperative tool of Satan, trying to win others over.
Well, let me tell you something. Satan has nothing waiting for you, dear boy. You know what Satan's followers get at the end of their earthly life -- nothing! No exalted place in Hell; no 'good job, my worthy servant;' no 'join the family.' Nothing. They get the same as everyone else -- eternal torture and damnation.
Why? Because Satan doesn't care a damn thing about winning you over to his side. The only thing Satan cares about is trying to stick it to God by destroying another soul. Satan plays you like a fine violin, and when your life is over he rejoices in having robbed another soul from God. Then, like a piece of crumpled paper, he tosses you into the fire and says, "Next."
So keep judging God according to man's standards. You're making your own bed, and soon enough you're going to lay in it. I pray you don't take anyone else with you.
Iztok wrote, "So it would only be natural for parents to sacrifice themselves and kill newborn baby to make sure he/she goes to Heaven."
Congratulations! You'd have been an excellent adviser to both Rameses I and Herod the Great. Fine company you keep.
Iztok,
As they say, "God gets to be God." Their God is cruel and petty, and they just have to say, 'Glory to God." Their God is a tyrant. That's not how I want to live; but, whatever gets them through the night.
Danbo - "You know what Satan's followers get at the end of their earthly life.. They get the same as everyone else -- eternal torture and damnation."
The message from your tyrant god. Fear. You're already trembling.
pornstudent wrote, "As they say, "God gets to be God." Their God is cruel and petty, and they just have to say, 'Glory to God." Their God is a tyrant. That's not how I want to live; but, whatever gets them through the night."
The above should, once and for all, convince anyone who believes that there is no such thing as "evil" that it does, indeed, exist.
It's disheartening to see humans grovel so.
pornstudent writes, "The message from your tyrant god. Fear. You're already trembling."
You score a zero.
The message from my God is love. As for trembling -- you're right -- but not from fear of Satan; from the magnificence of His (God's) Glory and love.
People in the past who couldn't think for themselves did the evil that others have asked of them.
Your god of glory and love makes you tremble with fear? I'd rather tremble with ecstasy and excitement.
I'd like a church where God doesn't ignore you. I mean, I've been to gatherings where everybody closes their eyes and talks to God, but I never hear God talk back. No one else hears anything either. Is he rude, stand-offish, shy, deaf, too busy, is he trying to be mysterious, or playing a game? There are healer/evangelists who say God is speaking to them, they'd say something like, "God is telling me there is someone here tonight with a head ache." But there's never a voice that everyone can hear. Why not a voice that says, "Come on down J. D. Williams. I'm going to heal your head ache."
I'd like a church where if you said, "Good morning, God" He'd have some kind of polite response. Wouldn't it be nice if after we sang him a song he'd thank us or had a little choir of angels sing us a song. And why not a Sunday School lesson from God himself? Why couldn't we all sit in a room and have God teach us so that we all can hear the lesson; not with a "still, small voice" that only the more spiritually can hear.
I expect spiritual leaders to have some information from God. If I go to an elder, bishop, minister, or rabbi with a problem or question, I'd expect them to have an idea of what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm too spiritually dumb to hear God, but I expect those who claim to be the spiritual leaders of a church to have some information from God. Although they offer encouragement and a prayer, they are obviously ignorant of what's on my mind. When all the world's Godly men are disagreeing, fighting even, and God is silent in the churches, then I create my own God. It is more responsive and loving than any other.
pornstudent, God has already spoken in his word (the Bible). He doesn't need to repeat himself audibly for those who don't care to read what he has already said.
Now sure, I would like to hear him speak aloud too, but how would I know that it was him speaking and not some malicious spiritual force? I would have to check what he said against the Bible to see if they lined up. If they did, then why did I need the audible voice anyway, since the Bible alread said it? When the rich man in hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers so that they would not make the same mistake he did (Luke 16), Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the prophets. If they don't believe them, neither will they believe if a man comes back from the dead."
Now, back to this issue of God's control over evil actions for a moment...I think that a perfect Scriptural example is the Egyptian Pharaoh during the Exodus. This man was raised up by God to be king just so God could harden his heart and strike him down in order to show his own people (the Israelites - a people very undeserving of God's goodness) just how powerful of a God he is and just how good he is to his own people (again, I'm getting this from Romans chapter 9).
Some seem to think that God is unjust if he does something like this, as if he doesn't have a right to do whatever he wants with all that he has created. If you were writing a mystery novel, would you, the writer, be unjust when you allow one character to be murdered? Would you be unjust when you craft the plot in such a way that another character takes vengeance on the killer? Why is the writer not condemned for the actions of his characters? Because he wrote the book. They are his characters and he can do whatever he wants to with them.
In the course of a story like this, some characters get what they deserve because of the consequences of their actions. Now, we as the readers know that the author has constructed all this, but we still feel like the character deserves what he or she got. One of my favorite shows is Lost, and there are a lot of characters on there that I want to see get what's coming to them. I don't blame the writers for their actions, although I know that the writers planned those actions.
Again, I think that this is a mystery that transcends our finite human minds. God does seem responsible for Pharaoh's actions, doesn't he? But so does Pharaoh! What a jerk! We want to see him go down as we read the story. And if we were an Israelite at that time, we wouldn't really care what the divine specifics of the situation were, we would just be glad to be the ones rescued.
I thank God that he rescued me by the atonement made through Christ's sacrifice. Jesus took the wrath that I deserved because of my sinfulness and he suffered their just penalty in my place. In a similar manner, I receive his righteousness as a gift through faith. If all this is not the activity of the most loving and good God imaginable, then I can conceive of nothing greater.
Danbo: "Izzie, it is not Corey whose logic is warped. It's yours."
Danbo care to demonstrate where it is fault in logic?
Here is the premise:
A = Newborns kids that die go to heaven.
B = Loving Christian parents would do everything in their power to make sure their kids go to heaven.
C = murder of newborn
C is subgroup of B
A and C = sure way for kid to go to heaven.
not A and C = maybe, it depends on if kid repented and accepted Jesus.
A and not C = maybe going to heaven, depends on kid again.
not A and not B = maybe again.
So please let us know where this math logic is flawed.
Corey: "God has already spoken in his word (the Bible)"
And we know that because?
Perhaps the Bible tells us so?
Circular logic anyone?
pornstudent asked, "Your god of glory and love makes you tremble with fear?"
No, I said 'tremble,' not 'tremble with fear.' Read for content next time.
pornstudent wrote, "Maybe I'm too spiritually dumb to hear God,...."
No, you just refuse to listen.
Iztok's comedy routine continues with, "Here is the premise: A = Newborns kids that die go to heaven. B = Loving Christian parents would do everything in their power to make sure their kids go to heaven. C = murder of newborn. C is subgroup of B. A and C = sure way for kid to go to heaven. not A and C = maybe, it depends on if kid repented and accepted Jesus. A and not C = maybe going to heaven, depends on kid again. not A and not B = maybe again.
So please let us know where this math logic is flawed."
Here's where your logic is flawed. If what you said was logical, the world would have never progressed past Adam and Eve. There'd be no children maturing into parents for your premise.
Your posts here are a joke, Izzie. Why not go ply your garbage elsewhere, like on an atheist's forum?
Danbo, you fail to demonstrate where logic is flawed. Wat you say about progressing past Adam and Eve is true but that is just because people really don't believe what they say.
What you are saying is that one or possibly both of my premises in logic are wrong. Which is fair and I assumed you would say that. Either way if A is wrong then someone is telling a fib. If B is wrong then people are not willing to do anything in their power.
I claim that both A and B are simply wring. (There is no evidence of A and most if not all people would do almost all but not quite all.)
Either way you've confirmed what I've hinted all along.
Iztok wrote, "Either way you've confirmed what I've hinted all along."
It brings me much solace knowing that I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Your posts here are a joke, danny boy. Why not go ply your garbage elsewhere, like on a Christian forum?
So, danny boy, God's love causes you to tremble? Any details?
pornstudent asked, "So, danny boy, God's love causes you to tremble? Any details?"
None you'd understand.
Corey,
You would know God's audible words are from God the same way you know God's written words are from God. A few advantages of God having audible conversations with us is that we wouldn't need them translated, we could ask Him to clarify things we don't understand and He could tell us plainly what to do about Iraq, abortions, teaching evolution, gay marriage, etc..
pornstudent wrote, "...we could ask Him to clarify things we don't understand and He could tell us plainly what to do about Iraq, abortions, teaching evolution, gay marriage, etc...."
He already does. Read!
Do some reading yourself danny boy:
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION by Pope John Paul II
pornstudent wrote, "Do some reading yourself danny boy:
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION by Pope John Paul II"
Read that years ago. Your point?
smut peruser
God talks back
http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_DFND/
Corey
Ditto re Romans 9 and Christ's atonement.
Re Iztok's ABC's
God allows you to hate him.
What you can't do is change him and your and our desperate circumstance.
You claim to reject the existence of God, yet you claim to know exactly how a God would act if there were one.
See if you can construct an a-b-c syllogism to explain yourself.
Iztok, I agree with your logic, I just don't agree with your first premise. Nowhere does the Bible say that all babies go to heaven. Of course, it doesn't say much about where they go at all. Thus, it would be good for us not to get too dogmatic on the subject.
Someone said something about circular logic about appealing to the Bible as God's word. I don't disagree with this charge either. Yes, it is circular. I just think that at some point, you've got to have a circular argument. For example, if God spoke audibly and told us what to do about homosexual marriage (and yes, I agree with Danbo that he has already told us this, but let's just say that he decides to do so again), then how would we know that it was God speaking to us? Well, maybe he claimed to be God at the start of his message. Then we would claim that God said a certain thing, and we would know that it was God who said it because the same voice claimed to be God. It's circular. When you deal with the absolute supreme being in the universe whose existence is contingent upon nothing else, then you can't have a footnote. There is no appeal to a higher authority to authenticate the highest authority. He has to do that himself.
You can't think for your self can you, danny boy? Or does your tyrant God like it when you pretend being stupid? You and your infallible Pope disagree about the value of evolution theory. Your god is silent.
Limpy,
Try to keep up.
Corey,
"... how would we know that it was God speaking to us?"
We us our brains. Thats what we do.
Corey,
Your absolute supreme being's existence is contingent upon an old book.
Pornstudent asks, "You can't think for your self can you, danny boy?"
Sure can.
pornstudent asks, "Or does your tyrant God like it when you pretend being stupid?"
I don't have a tyrant God, but someone's got you hot under the collar. God doesn't like any of us to pretend to be anything but ourselves.
pornstudent assumes, "You and your infallible Pope disagree about the value of evolution theory."
How do you know I disagree with the infallible Pope? Do you even know the meaning of the word infallible as it regards the Pope? Bet not, because if you did you would not have used it in your statement.
pornstudent says, "Your god is silent."
No, He is not silent. I hear Him 'loud and clear.'
Smile, pornstudent! God loves you. He's hoping you'll feel the same way toward Him, and soon!
Wouldn't it be revealing, just once, to hear each and every atheist/agnostic in this world (or even easier -- on this forum) stand up and honestly say what event in their life has made them mad enough at God that they'd try to hurt Him by denying His existence. Is it the death of a loved one? Is it personal sickness? Honesty would be refreshing.
No one is an atheist from the start. We all all born believing in a power higher than ourselves. It's natural. Atheism is nothing more than a supernatural tantrum; the spiritual equivalent of a child holding its breath on mommy and daddy until it gets its way.
My question -- What is it that each atheist wants from God before they'll start breathing again?
Danbo
They are mad because they don't get to be their own God AND be happy and have eternal life. They hate the moral law.
danny boy,
Do you agree with the Pope concerning the value of evolution theory? If not, then is God not speaking to you or the Pope about the correct value of evolution?
You and D.J Williams disagree about the ability of "faith alone" to be sufficient for salvation. Evidently, God is not speaking to you or D.J. about the sufficiency, or not, of faith.
God is silent about a lot of things because he doesn't exist.
Christians are the mad ones; believing the billions of people who don't agree with them will spend eternity in a lake of fire.
pornstudent brings a knife to a gunfight in asking, "Do you agree with the Pope concerning the value of evolution theory?"
Well, first, let's see what you think you know.
1. What is the 'value of evolution theory,' according to Pope John Paul II? Tell me.
2. Is what the Pope said about the value of evolution theory a) infallible teaching, b) canon law, c) both (a) and (b) or d) neither (a) nor (b).
Then we'll talk.
danny boy,
You can't even answer a simple question. Is this the kind of games your religion teaches you to play? Pathetic.
pornstudent writes, "danny boy,
You can't even answer a simple question. Is this the kind of games your religion teaches you to play? Pathetic."
What is pathetic is that you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't even read the letter.
What you need to do, pornstudent, is get your nose out of the internet and its world of two-dimensional females and get yourself a flesh-and-blood three-dimensional girlfriend.
You know what they say -- "Those who can't, watch porn."
Slime oggler
You have studied enough. Get out there and risk rejection!
Corey -
Good points re: circular reasoning and a supreme being. By definition, a being who is supreme authority can appeal to no higher authority to validate himself.
Soli Deo Gloria
danny boy,
You often bring up the fact that I look at porn. So? It never has anything to do with any discussion. 60% of Christian men look at porn. The difference between me and the wimpy masturbating Christians like yourself is that I'm not crying about how I can't help myself.
By the way, you have no idea what you're talking about.
DJ,
You supreme authority is appealing to the authority of an old book.
This is addressed to pornstudent:
I asked you a serious question about how would you know that any God that speaks audibly or through writing was legit and your response was, "We'd use our brains"?!
Come on, now, you have to actually try to deal with what I've said. Don't just write off the argument. I'm curious. In your system of understanding/belief, how would you know that God is speaking without using a circular argument?
Every comment you post mentions porn
OK Corey,
If after thanking God for food at home, we heard a voice saying, "You're welcome." We'd check to see where the sound came from. We'd might be able to find a speaker or someone in the attic. If it were just that one time, we'd probably assume that's what it was. But let's say it was a common occurrence in a manner I commented about, a whole Sunday School lesson. Let's assume God didn't mind us finding Him. We'd keep talking to Him as we looked for the source of His voice. The source could never be found; it seems to just materialize out of the air. We would keep looking for the source. All the best scientists and religious people in the world would keep looking for it. Meanwhile, of course there will be the content of what the voice is saying. I think this is what is important to you. How would we know the voice is from God and not Satan. We'd ask questions. We'd ask him if he was God and if he were, that he prove it to us. Now I don't know how He would do that. Since He is God and pretty smart, he could come up with something better than I can, especially off the top of my head. If I never believed the voice was God's, there would be nothing lost from what I have now. Same for everyone else. The verbal contact with someone having the miraculous powers of God, would be a wonderful experience. The wisdom of the being may help us with many problems. We may never know for certain the voice is God's, but does that really matter? "We judge them by their fruits" comes to mind. If this being did good, then good; whether we call it or think of it as the God some think exists. If the fruits of this being were bad, then the voice may belong to Satan or the vengeful, petty, cruel tyrant God of the Bible. So, in conclusion (don't expect me to catch all my typos), we couldn't know for sure the voice was from God; but I would no longer question as I have why God is silent and the human race would likely benefit from this being's wisdom.
Thank you for you honest answer. I really appreciate the time that you took to do that.
I find it interesting that you would look for miracles to authenticate the messages. It's an amazing thing that pretty much all of the words of the Bible, when they were first uttered by prophets, Moses, apostles, or Jesus were attested to by miraculous signs. I know that this does not satisfy your longings NOW, but still it is an important part of the discussion, for if God did speak those things in the Bible, then he did so in exactly the way you would want.
A really fascinating thing for you might be to look at what happened in Exodus 20:19. God spoke to the people audibly and they were so fearful because of the holiness of God that they didn't want to hear him anymore, but wanted Moses to speak to God and then tell them what he said. His prophets since then all did the same thing.
Just as a personal note, and I know you will have to just take my word for it, but I don't think God is silent at all. I read large passages of the Bible every day, and I 'hear' him speak to me more and more clearly all the time. The truth shouts from the pages. Many times it brings me to tears, it is so wonderful. When someone says that God is silent, I can't help but gasp. I can read the same book of the Bible a hundred times, but this morning I will pick it up and read it and it will be exactly what I need to satisfy my soul, convict me of sin, show me God's glory, and encourage me to live for him. It is unexplainable apart from the power and wisdom of God.
I would encourage anyone to be 'like a tree planted by streams of water' and 'meditate on the word day and night.' (Psalm 1)
Have a look at Jane's post, This is your brain on God. Neurological research explains religious experience as being a process in the brain. This doesn't make our transcending experiences any less, but it makes the existence of God unnecessary for the experience.
peepshow tom
So, being able to study matter in a lab precludes creation by God? What god told you that one?
limp dick,
God may still exist, but his existence isn't necessary for a religious experience. An unnecessary God doesn't preclude creation by God. My little sentence didn't even mention creation. Your having a hard time keeping up. Take your time, try again later.
My nakme is not Richard.
Danbo, we're all born atheists, not believing in any gods.
It is only through training at a very early age that we take on the religion(s) of our caregivers.
You're a Christian most likely because you were raised Christian. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would have been a Muslim, in Thailand, most likely a Buddhist.
Tough for your "theory", but that's the way it works.
Some atheists are lucky enough to have atheist parents and don't have to undo any previous religious indoctrination.
The rest of us eventually figure it out for ourselves.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but I've had a pretty good life.
No major problems or reason to "hate" any God.
I have been told by extremely ignorant Christians for most of my life, from a relatively young age, that I would eventually "find" Jesus:
A) when I became an adult
B) when I got married
C) when I had children
D) when I lost a parent
E) when I had a great hardship
But, here I am a married adult with children, dead parents, and at least my share of typical problems, still happily chugging away as an atheist.
But, NOW you tell me I'm an atheist for precisely the same reasons all the other Christians have told me I would become a Christian!
Ha, what jokers you guys are.
You want it both ways and just can't believe that atheists are what they are for exactly the reasons they say they are.
You are wrong. Learn to live with it.
Every comment you post mentions cock.
Iztok, you make it sound like a slamdunk that killing your kids will give them a one way ticket to heaven.
I'm not sure all Christians believe this.
In fact, I can remember a truly bizarre TV interview I saw with some Vatican apologist named Mordecai Martin who said one of the main reasons to oppose abortion was that all those unbaptised souls would go straight to hell and just make the armies of Satan stronger.
Weird crap, for sure, and an argument I haven't heard again for decades. Probably not PC now.
I wonder if that view is still held and is just being kept quiet so religious nutcases don't seem TOO nutty.
This Mordecai Martin is a weird fellow, an exorcist, who claims he can see demons, but still I wonder if he was telling the truth about the real reason the Catholic Church opposes abortion.
A gamecock
this one
http://gamecocksonline.cstv.com/#00
Sorry, that was Malachi Martin (not Mordecai) and I think it was the Dick Cavett Show.
Danbo and gamecock: perhaps you could read and actually understand once and for all. Atheists are not atheists because we deny god. We are not believing there is no god. We just don't believe. We find no evidence of god. God (if exists) simply doesn't provide any evidence for us. Our mind is set not to believe but to trust evidence and logic. We don't need faith we need facts.
Iztok. Been trying to find info on that Malachi Martin guy.
Probably won't find the interview, but apparently he is known for similar statements.
Maybe it was Limbo, not Hell, but either way, what was striking to me was the overriding concern for the SOUL, not the actual unborn "child".
That's been remarketed, of course.
Yeah, I've always found the "god-hating" atheist stereotype a bit stupid, but it's one of the biggest ones out there.
Almost never hear that from the real atheists I have known, but hear about it through churchpeople who talk so-called "atheists" who re-join churches and talk about their former "atheism".
Usually, those people talk about how some calamity in their lives made them "believe" there COULDN'T be a god (r may be he would have intervened, perhaps?).
That's stupid thinking. I think of those people as lapsed Christians, not atheists.
"Maybe it was Limbo, not Hell, but either way, what was striking to me was the overriding concern for the SOUL, not the actual unborn "child"."
Dude, while not official statement of Catholic Church many of its prominent theologians did abuse their fellow religious parents who lost their children before they got baptized that they ended up in limbo. Many parents who lost their child were for decades (if not centuries) tormented my thoughts of their children in limbo. That is until recently when they went even weirder on this.
Pope Sixtus V, whose Constitution Effraenatam of 29 October 1588 not only abstains from raising any hopes that unbaptized children may attain the beatific vision, but positively affirms that they do not attain it is the only papal statement about this in Vatican history. While this was not ex cathedra it is still in in legislative act of Catholic Church.
I think good source of knowledge about what RCC real position on limbo can be found here: http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html
All in all, it is shady at minimum as it seems no pope got clear guidance from their God with whom they supposedly communicate daily. So much for clear guidance from God who apparently talks back.
For me lack of evidence speaks louder.
Iztok, sometimes that stuff is so bizarre that it's hard to imagine that we live in a country where such beliefs have become a "litmus test" for holding high office.
Even had an article in todays paper about the crazy preacher influence in this election.
Where else in the world does that happen.
We must look insane to the rest of the world.
Millions from rest of world flee "sane" countries for "crazy" USA! As millions of anonymous leftists keep their butts parked in the nation they rant about.
"Millions from rest of world flee "sane" countries for "crazy" USA! As millions of anonymous leftists keep their butts parked in the nation they rant about."
Yeah, we have huge influx of Catholics into this country to sustain the Catholic population here. On the other hand the non-religious (atheist) population is the fastest growing "religious" group in US.
The only reason most people come here is because we have money, power and influence. In the last decade that has changed a lot.
The well-educated, relatively well-off foreigners who were clamoring to get into the U.S. have started backing off (except for the occasional shopping sprees due to the weak dollar).
I know plenty of educated foreigners who are going back to their native countries for the future growth opportunities that they don't think we will ever have again.
In the meanwhile, we get more and more poor, uneducated people swarming into the U.S. from the south of our border.
Hardly leftist, atheistic territory down there. The Catholic Church has been running safe-houses for the poor, uneducated illegals for decades in the hopes of winning future voters for their cause.
But, hey, don't worry about this anonymous "leftist" (heh, as if).
I have a well thought out exit strategy. Nothing wrong with doing what everyone else is doing, milking the US for all it's worth while they can.
Milking the cash cow to fund the rising star is a common strategy that has worked well. It's a purely capitalistic idea.
For all you folks who think they know so much about what atheists REALLY think, guess who voted for both Reagan and Bush I?
Me, haha.
(The poor, misguided, anonymous,
"leftist", atheist that I am, I just couldn't resist voting against MY BEST interests).
Of course, they were the lesser of the evils offered at the time, so I went with the best choice I thought I had.
Pretty pathetic, but when I get lemons, I make lemonade.
However, I will NOT vote for someone who is certifiably stupid, which is why I did not vote for Bush II.
What would make you leave your current community of faith?
Tired of the same old lies!
If the pastors want to teach or preach from the Bible then they need to understand the Bible don't. They preach of social events and what the society is to them.
Jesus taught about his Father and how to get to know his Father. Pastors teach of a mythical God who some day we will meet when we die. If we have salvation that is all we need so we can live in heaven. Never mind living a rigthteous life now and following Jesus as long as we go to the alter we will be fine.
Another point and I will end is that Pastors point to Easter as a day to celebrate but what about Passover and the Feast of Unleaven bread. Jesus was the Passover Lamb not the Easter Bunny. When I researched just this one thing I found a lot of things that Pastors don't want us to know. These are just a few things why I left the church!
Oh, and while on the topic of Christian lies about atheists, let me clear up another one.
We do NOT want to be our own "God", or become a god.
I've never heard an atheist say such a thing.
Mormons, however, do have such aspirations.
Atheists are not Mormons.
The next time you are at your local house of worship/lies and hear someone speak nonsense about non-believers, ask yourself:
What does this person REALLY know?
It's a lot like listening to the Grand Wizard at a Klan meeting talking about blacks.
Chances are he doesn't know squat.
Iztok, that article on Limbo was pretty wacko. I guess I don't need to go back decades to find true nuttiness behind our modern political debates.
Now, I would really like to see these discussions of aborted baby souls in Limbo, "on the border of Hell", take front seat in our political discussions, where they belong.
Let's get the stinking roots of this insanity out in the fresh air for a change.
Iztok wrote, "All in all, it is shady at minimum as it seems no pope got clear guidance from their God with whom they supposedly communicate daily. So much for clear guidance from God who apparently talks back."
How little you know about what you write! Bold lies will not win you any points.
So tell us where I am wrong? That one pope claims one way and other different way?
Bold lies may not win points, but they could win you a huge congregation.
Iztok, We live on a planet that is making its way through space that is filled with stars, planets, and more. If there was no guidance from an intelligent being, we would be like a person walking on an Intertate full of driverless cars, or an airplane flying amidst numberless planes that are not piloted. Order does not come accidentally, so I choose to believe in a Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
Anonymous: "Order does not come accidentally"
Care to put any evidence behind it?
Here is an experiment. Accidentally drop a marble in tub of water. You will find out that even this accidental disorder will get you certain predictability on how water will react to the impact.
"so I choose to believe in a Creator and Sustainer of the universe"
You are assuming there is a need for creator and sustainer to exist. You need to prove such a thing and then you have to deal with fact that you need to figure out what created creator and what sustains sustainer.
Post a Comment