Christian faith: Calvinism is back

[chloe]

In America's Christian faith, a surprising comeback of rock-ribbed Calvinism is challenging the Jesus-is-your-buddy gospel of modern evangelism

Welcome to the austere – and increasingly embraced – message of Calvinism. Five centuries ago, John Calvin's teachings reconceived Christianity; midwifed Western ideas about capitalism, democracy, and religious liberty; and nursed the Puritan values that later cast the character of America.

Today, his theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made to order religion, Calvinism's unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians – especially the young.

Twenty-something followers in the Presbyterian, Anglican, and independent evangelical churches are rallying around Calvinist, or Reformed, teaching. In the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant body, at least 10 percent of its pastors identify as Calvinist, while more than one-third of recent seminary graduates do.

New Calvinism draws legions to the sermons of preachers like John Piper of the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. Here at CHBC, the pews and even rooms in the basement are filled each Sunday, mostly with young professionals. Since senior pastor Mark Dever brought Calvinist preaching here 16 years ago, the church has grown sevenfold. Today it is bursting at the stained-glass windows.

Yet the movement's biggest impact may not be in the pews. It's in publishing circles and on Christian blogs, in divinity schools and at conferences like "Together for the Gospel," where the rock stars of Reformed theology explore such topics as "The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability."

"There is a very clear resurgence of Calvinism," says Steven Lemke, provost and a professor at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
The renewed interest arrives at a crucial inflection point for American religion. After reviewing a landmarkopinion survery last yearthat showed a precipitous decline in the number of people who identify themselves as Christian, Newsweek declared ominously that we may be witnessing "the end of Christian America."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0327/Christian-faith-Calvinism-is-back

[crin63]

I'm a Baptist with Calvanist views and a great love for the Puritans.

[darin]

I think calvinism is anit-christian.

[chloe]

I think calvinism is anit-christian.

You think its anti-christian? What do you mean by that the religion itself or the way members interpret it?

[revelarts]

Calvinism was ordained to be mostly right from the beginning. And i was destined to agree with most of it.

[HogTrash]

I'm a Baptist with Calvanist views and a great love for the Puritans.I was raised in the Presbyterian faith that my Scottish ancesters brought with them to America. [which adheres to Calvinism]

[PostmodernProphet]

I think calvinism is anit-christian.

lol....I've always been Calvinist......I didn't know I was anti-Christian and I didn't know I had been gone....I am glad, however, to be "back"......


rock stars of Reformed theology

sweet....I want to be a roadie....

[revelarts]

lol....I've always been Calvinist......


rock stars of Reformed theology

sweet....I want to be a roadie....

ha, Just a fan here,
R.C. Sproul WOOT Woot Woot Woot
http://www.ligonier.org/

Young guys at the White Horse Inn podcast are pretty hard core uncompromising young Calvanist. Hard to listen to sometime but hard to argue with as well.

[crin63]

What Calvanism boils down too is that God is in charge instead of man and that God is not some all powerful bellhop in the sky waiting for mans beck and call to grant mans desires. That God is our Sovereign in which we serve.

[PostmodernProphet]

What Calvanism boils down too is that God is in charge instead of man and that God is not some all powerful bellhop in the sky waiting for mans beck and call to grant mans desires. That God is our Sovereign in which we serve.

while I would say no Calvinist would disagree with what you stated, it's a bit too simplistic to say that is what Calvinism "boils down" to...

Five basic teachings...1) man is incapable of attaining righteousness on his own, 2) through Christ, righteousness is available to everyone, simply by accepting him as your Savior, 3) some will refuse to accept, and if they refuse they will not obtain righteousness, 4) the Holy Spirit seeks us out, he is actively engaged in confronting us with opportunities to choose, and 5) the Holy Spirit also preserves, he is actively engaged in protecting those who have chosen to believe from slipping backwards into disbelief.....

[darin]

It's anti-christian in it's belief God forces himself upon people. (shrug). God is Love. Forcing one's desire upon others is not love. It's selfishness.

[Noir]

It's anti-christian in it's belief God forces himself upon people. (shrug). God is Love. Forcing one's desire upon others is not love. It's selfishness.

Selfishness is too right,

But even if you look at any god (Christian, Muslim, Hindu ect) what they want is to be worshiped.
If that is not selfish, vain, pride seeking and arrogant I don't know what is.

But ofcourse religious people will say there god has every right to be vain and arrogant and so forth after all he is a god.

[SassyLady]

I, too, was raised in the Calvinist style of religion .... hence my aversion to religion. I don't adhere to the premise that one man's (John Calvin) intepretation is gospel.

My major point of disagreement is that I don't believe "God" divided humans into two groups (the elected and the excluded) - basically I don't believe in predestination. I believe each one of us is responsible for our own salvation based upon our actions and choices in life. And each choice sends us down a different path with new options and choices to be made.

[darin]

Selfishness is too right,

But even if you look at any god (Christian, Muslim, Hindu ect) what they want is to be worshiped.
If that is not selfish, vain, pride seeking and arrogant I don't know what is.

But ofcourse religious people will say their god has every right to be vain and arrogant and so forth after all he is a god.

God wants fellowship with his Creation. That's the marked difference. ;)

[BoogyMan]

In what book, chapter, and verse to we find the teachings of Calvin? TULIP is a debauched and foolish ideology.

[darin]

I, too, was raised in the Calvinist style of religion .... hence my aversion to religion. I don't adhere to the premise that one man's (John Calvin) intepretation is gospel.

My major point of disagreement is that I don't believe "God" divided humans into two groups (the elected and the excluded) - basically I don't believe in predestination. I believe each one of us is responsible for our own salvation based upon our actions and choices in life. And each choice sends us down a different path with new options and choices to be made.

Of course he didn't. You're right on the money.

To understand how this works we have to make a couple assumptions. Firstly, God is outside of Time, and the constraints thereof. Because of that, there is no future or past where He is - it's one big Galactic NOW.

Okay then - To those God KNOWS will accept him (because he's all-knowing, because he's already there (at the end of things) right "now"), he's set into motion those events which will cause them to, or lead them to Him.

Get it? Because God is right there at the end of times, so to speak, he already knows who has accepted Him because he can see us. So - God works in our lives to bring to Him those people whom are already there where He is, outside of time.

It helps if you watch a lot of Science Fiction...But in my heart of hearts that's what scripture means to me. That's how it makes sense.

Now - the bible implies there will be those who elect not to choose Him.

It's written...."God is not WILLING that any should perish"

Now...if Calvinists are correct, that scripture is a big fat lie, or not accurate. Because - see - if GOD dictates who receives him, the verse might read "God will not allow any to perish" - because that's his will. Right? Make sense? The other choice is God IS willing that some should perish. One or the other.

[Noir]

God wants fellowship with his Creation. That's the marked difference. ;)

In a kind of 'worship me or I'll send ya to ethernal damnation' fellowship?

[PostmodernProphet]

It's anti-christian in it's belief God forces himself upon people. (shrug). God is Love. Forcing one's desire upon others is not love. It's selfishness.

???....never heard that before....


In what book, chapter, and verse to we find the teachings of Calvin? TULIP is a debauched and foolish ideology.

/shrugs...I guess this one?....
http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/calvin/ci_html.htm


if GOD dictates who receives him

???...that isn't what Calvinism teaches....


In what book, chapter, and verse to we find the teachings of Calvin? TULIP is a debauched and foolish ideology.

this is "TULIP"....what is debauched about it?...

Five basic teachings...1) man is incapable of attaining righteousness on his own, 2) through Christ, righteousness is available to everyone, simply by accepting him as your Savior, 3) some will refuse to accept, and if they refuse they will not obtain righteousness, 4) the Holy Spirit seeks us out, he is actively engaged in confronting us with opportunities to choose, and 5) the Holy Spirit also preserves, he is actively engaged in protecting those who have chosen to believe from slipping backwards into disbelief...

[darin]

???...that isn't what Calvinism teaches....

Absolutely DOES. Teaches Man is UNABLE to accept God unless God 'allows' that person to.

[BoogyMan]

/shrugs...I guess this one?....
http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/calvin/ci_html.htm

I don't want Calvinist dogma, I want Bible book, chapter, and verse that you can show me to support Calvinism.


this is "TULIP"....what is debauched about it?...

No, Calvinism teaches very specifically......

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

Book, chapter and verse. Then lets talk.

[BoogyMan]

In a kind of 'worship me or I'll send ya to ethernal damnation' fellowship?

Do you know what fellowship is?

[chloe]

Of course he didn't. You're right on the money.

To understand how this works we have to make a couple assumptions. Firstly, God is outside of Time, and the constraints thereof. Because of that, there is no future or past where He is - it's one big Galactic NOW.

Okay then - To those God KNOWS will accept him (because he's all-knowing, because he's already there (at the end of things) right "now"), he's set into motion those events which will cause them to, or lead them to Him.

Get it? Because God is right there at the end of times, so to speak, he already knows who has accepted Him because he can see us. So - God works in our lives to bring to Him those people whom are already there where He is, outside of time.

It helps if you watch a lot of Science Fiction...But in my heart of hearts that's what scripture means to me. That's how it makes sense.

Now - the bible implies there will be those who elect not to choose Him.

It's written...."God is not WILLING that any should perish"

Now...if Calvinists are correct, that scripture is a big fat lie, or not accurate. Because - see - if GOD dictates who receives him, the verse might read "God will not allow any to perish" - because that's his will. Right? Make sense? The other choice is God IS willing that some should perish. One or the other.

So Calvinism is a religion and this is the belief it teaches. Thanks for clarifying I wasn't sure if you mean't people of that religion tend to misinterpret the religion or the religion itself isn't good.

[PostmodernProphet]

Absolutely DOES. Teaches Man is UNABLE to accept God unless God 'allows' that person to.

dude.....that is the most ridiculous analysis of Calvinism ever put into words......nobody could do anything that God didn't allow them to, but it's foolish to say that God doesn't "allow" someone to accept him.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't want Calvinist dogma, I want Bible book, chapter, and verse that you can show me to support Calvinism.

lol....Calvin's Institutes is what, 1400 pages?.....you want me to give you an analysis from scriptures supporting it?.....



No, Calvinism teaches very specifically......

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)


and that is what I explained in my post....what is "debauched" about it....do you, for example believe that mankind IS able to attain righteousness by themselves?....

[PostmodernProphet]

So Calvinism is a religion and this is the belief it teaches.

no, it isn't the belief it teaches....I was raised in the Calvinist religion and got a masters in theology from a school named after John Calvin and I have never heard anything remotely similar to dmp's claim.....

[chloe]

no, it isn't the belief it teaches....I was raised in the Calvinist religion and got a masters in theology from a school named after John Calvin and I have never heard anything remotely similar to dmp's claim.....


Thanks PMP I wouldn't think it would be surging in our current society if it was a super hateful religion, but some religions are condeming like the one that protests military funerals so I wasn't 100% sure. The article says Calvinism is making a major comeback so it must have some attractive beliefs.

[SassyLady]

Calvinism to me advocates a capricious God......which I don't believe in. I don't believe God has already chosen anyone. I believe we are all given opportunities to achieve a higher level of existence and the choices we make determine where we spend eternity.

Calvinism is too depressing for me, which is why I decided that religion just doesn't work for me. I decided to be a good person because it makes me feel at peace with myself, and not because I'm trying to gain a seat in heaven. No matter how I may spend eternity, I know that what I do here and now is what really matters.

[darin]

dude.....that is the most ridiculous analysis of Calvinism ever put into words......nobody could do anything that God didn't allow them to, but it's foolish to say that God doesn't "allow" someone to accept him.....

...but it's calvinism. (shrug) The very root of Cavlin's theory is Man CAN NOT Choose God unless God decides to make that happen. Calvin grossly mis-understood and confused pre-knowledge and pre-destined. Truth is, our free-will allows us to do many things counter to His will.


In a kind of 'worship me or I'll send ya to ethernal damnation' fellowship?

No, not really.

[PostmodernProphet]

Calvin grossly mis-understood and confused pre-knowledge and pre-destined. Truth is, our free-will allows us to do many things counter to His will.
??....actually, he understood it, you don't.....of course our free will allows us to counter God's will.....do you think sin is God's will?.....your error regarding predestination is thinking that God's knowledge of our choice CAUSES our choice.....that could only be true if we shared God's knowledge....

let's say, for example, that if you choose to go to work tomorrow using a slightly more roundabout, but scenic route, that you will be broadsided by a driver blowing through a stoplight and you will die.......God knows that......does the fact that God knows this cause you to decide anything differently about which route to take to work?......no.....because God knows it, you don't.....you freely choose which route to take.....Now, let's say God doesn't want you dead this week because he has a use for you....."Dang, why didn't the alarm clock go off, now I'm going to be late for work"....or "Why do I have to have a flat tire now!"......maybe it even goes so far as your wife saying "I had a strange dream last night, don't go to work today".......now you could still blow off all those things, take the scenic route and die.....it's your choice....

now, substitute believing in God for driving to work.....God knows what you are going to choose.....he knows what path you followed and what steps you had to encounter before you made that decision.....He's prepared to put all those steps in place for you......but you are still the one who has to make that choice.......for others, God is aware that no matter what steps he places for them, they are going to repeatedly make the wrong choices.....that doesn't mean he's making the choices for them......

[BoogyMan]

lol....Calvin's Institutes is what, 1400 pages?.....you want me to give you an analysis from scriptures supporting it?.....

If you cannot, why do you support it? God needs no substitutes for His word.



and that is what I explained in my post....what is "debauched" about it....do you, for example believe that mankind IS able to attain righteousness by themselves?....

Lets take this one letter at a time. We will start with the "T" in tulip which stands for Calvin's teaching of "total hereditary depravity." This is the idea of sin that is passed down from father to son, generation after generation, because of the sin of Adam.

The bible quite handily refutes this debauched teaching:
1. Sin is breaking God’s Law I John 3:4
2. Sin is not passed on Ezekiel 18:20
3. You are pure until you sin Ezekiel 28:15
4. Man causes himself to be a sinner Ecclesiastes 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
5. Sin has do be done by someone realizing right and wrong James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
6. Can a baby sin? God says that we are to become as these little children not little sinners Matthew 18:3.

[Noir]

No, not really.


So what kind of fellowship is it?

[PostmodernProphet]

If you cannot, why do you support it? God needs no substitutes for His word.
Calvin's Institutes provides it's own scriptural support....that's what the Institues are, an examination of supporting scripture....I see no need to devote ten years of my life going over 1400 pages of theology just to explain it to you....





Lets take this one letter at a time. We will start with the "T" in tulip which stands for Calvin's teaching of "total hereditary depravity."
???....no it doesn't....there is no "hereditary" involved....

Total Depravity (Total Inability)

Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/


This is the idea of sin that is passed down from father to son, generation after generation, because of the sin of Adam.

such would probably be the case if we WERE talking about an hereditary sinfulness, but since that came from somewhere besides Calvinism it isn't actually relevant to this debate...


1. Sin is breaking God’s Law I John 3:4
2. Sin is not passed on Ezekiel 18:20
3. You are pure until you sin Ezekiel 28:15
4. Man causes himself to be a sinner Ecclesiastes 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
5. Sin has do be done by someone realizing right and wrong James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
6. Can a baby sin? God says that we are to become as these little children not little sinners Matthew 18:3.

I see nothing to argue about here.....nothing you posted is contrary to Calvinism....

[PostmodernProphet]

Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when miserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than themselves as they ought to do, they measure him by their own carnal stupidity, and neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their curiosity in vain speculation. (Inst. 1.4.1)

[SassyLady]

??..do you think sin is God's will?

Yes....all that is was created by God and why would God create something that was not of his will? God created sin in order to provide an environment of choice. If God had not created sin how would we be in a state of choice at any time?



.....your error regarding predestination is thinking that God's knowledge of our choice CAUSES our choice.....that could only be true if we shared God's knowledge....

let's say, for example, that if you choose to go to work tomorrow using a slightly more roundabout, but scenic route, that you will be broadsided by a driver blowing through a stoplight and you will die.......God knows that......does the fact that God knows this cause you to decide anything differently about which route to take to work?......no.....because God knows it, you don't.....you freely choose which route to take.....Now, let's say God doesn't want you dead this week because he has a use for you....."Dang, why didn't the alarm clock go off, now I'm going to be late for work"....or "Why do I have to have a flat tire now!"......maybe it even goes so far as your wife saying "I had a strange dream last night, don't go to work today".......now you could still blow off all those things, take the scenic route and die.....it's your choice....

So what you are saying is that if God has something else planned for us next week God can "influence" our choices by causing the alarm clock to not go off, cause a flat tire, or influence the wife's dreams, etc. How is that not some form of manipulation of destiny?


now, substitute believing in God for driving to work.....God knows what you are going to choose.....he knows what path you followed and what steps you had to encounter before you made that decision.....He's prepared to put all those steps in place for you......but you are still the one who has to make that choice.......for others, God is aware that no matter what steps he places for them, they are going to repeatedly make the wrong choices.....that doesn't mean he's making the choices for them......

So, if God knows which path I am going to choose, because God already has knowledge of the choices I will make, why does God even bother with putting the steps there?

See, this is where the whole argument falls apart for me. I make the choices, but only based upon whatever choices God puts in front of me, and that is based upon what path God already knows I am going down. How is that free will.....God knows and is just providing the nudges to keep me on the path he already knows I am following???


Goodness, how exhausting for God to be so involved in all these souls and all the complexities of decisions made very day.....

[BoogyMan]

Calvin's Institutes provides it's own scriptural support....that's what the Institues are, an examination of supporting scripture....I see no need to devote ten years of my life going over 1400 pages of theology just to explain it to you....

???....no it doesn't....there is no "hereditary" involved....

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

such would probably be the case if we WERE talking about an hereditary sinfulness, but since that came from somewhere besides Calvinism it isn't actually relevant to this debate...


I see nothing to argue about here.....nothing you posted is contrary to Calvinism....

My friend, if you cannot even accept the FACT that TULIP is a tenant of Calvinism you are too far gone to see the truth, and that was after a complete and utter destruction of just the first of the tenants of Calvinism.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes....all that is was created by God and why would God create something that was not of his will? God created sin in order to provide an environment of choice. If God had not created sin how would we be in a state of choice at any time?
[quote]
no, God did not create sin so we could make a choice.....sin is the act of making a bad choice.....it doesn't exist until we make the choice of disobedience.......

[quote]
So what you are saying is that if God has something else planned for us next week God can "influence" our choices by causing the alarm clock to not go off, cause a flat tire, or influence the wife's dreams, etc. How is that not some form of manipulation of destiny?
because you are still free to reject that influence....God may have given you a million opportunities to find reason to believe in him, but if you continue to refuse because that is your choice, then you have still chosen that destiny.....by the way, Calvinists call such a refusal the denial of the Holy Spirit....it is considered to be the one unpardonable sin......




So, if God knows which path I am going to choose, because God already has knowledge of the choices I will make, why does God even bother with putting the steps there?
the steps may be the catalyst that causes you to make the right choice....perhaps it's a combination of something your grandmother said to you thirty years ago with something you experience today....




See, this is where the whole argument falls apart for me. I make the choices, but only based upon whatever choices God puts in front of me, and that is based upon what path God already knows I am going down. How is that free will.....God knows and is just providing the nudges to keep me on the path he already knows I am following???
because you are making the choices without sharing God's knowledge.....each choice is made upon evidence that is fresh to you and measured by your own judgment and will....a "nudge" is something you know you "ought" to do.....you may still choose to be disobedient...



Goodness, how exhausting for God to be so involved in all these souls and all the complexities of decisions made very day.....
I'm sure he created Tahiti just so he could have a place to take a break....

[PostmodernProphet]

My friend, if you cannot even accept the FACT that TULIP is a tenant of Calvinism you are too far gone to see the truth, and that was after a complete and utter destruction of just the first of the tenants of Calvinism.

???...TULIP is a teaching of Calvinism.....you are incorrect about what TULIP is.....I have provided you with a more accurate statement of it twice, first in my own words, the second in Calvin's.....are you implying that you have completely and utterly destroyed it by inserting into it a word which it does not contain?.......if so, that is a rather silly method of debate....

first of all, what is your authority for claiming that the word "hereditary" is included in the "T" of TULIP?......

[BoogyMan]

???...TULIP is a teaching of Calvinism.....you are incorrect about what TULIP is.....I have provided you with a more accurate statement of it twice, first in my own words, the second in Calvin's.....are you implying that you have completely and utterly destroyed it by inserting into it a word which it does not contain?.......if so, that is a rather silly method of debate....

first of all, what is your authority for claiming that the word "hereditary" is included in the "T" of TULIP?......

The word hereditary points to the fact that the "total depravity" aspect as taught is hereditary in nature. A false assertion that man is totally depraved at birth or born with the stain of sin already in place.

You are simply wrong.

[revelarts]

Here's one of the things just from a , i guess, a philosophical pov. When you really get down to ultimate causations, you end up with some uncomfortable paradoxs no matter which way you go. For believers if you don't nuance your positions out. you end up with at least 2 views neither completely explainable to anyones satisfaction that doesn't accept God's ultimate goodness.

For those that don't like the idea that God's "chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" Ephesians 1:4

OK what do you think of man. You keep saying people can choose any time they want to do good or evil to believe or not to believe.

Do you think that people's heart start generally in the middle. or do you thinks peoples hearts are as the scripture says Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? If that verse is true. what your saying is that men who are desperately wicked are asked by God to make a choice for good under there own power against their nature, without even any push or nudge from God to do so.
How fair is that?
A little like asking a barracuda to love vegetables isn't it? Or asking a handicapped man to run, or as Calvinism teaches asking a dead man to live.

[Noir]

@mrskurtsprincess

Would rep if I could.

[PostmodernProphet]

The word hereditary points to the fact that the "total depravity" aspect as taught is hereditary in nature.

I have already shown you to be wrong.....I have to concede it's an interesting approach to debate.....pretend someone believes something ridiculous, prove it ridiculous, then proclaim victory......not very effective when you run up against someone who knows you are wrong, mind you....but interesting none the less....

[BoogyMan]

I have already shown you to be wrong.....I have to concede it's an interesting approach to debate.....pretend someone believes something ridiculous, prove it ridiculous, then proclaim victory......not very effective when you run up against someone who knows you are wrong, mind you....but interesting none the less....

I destroyed your position with only a superficial view of the first tenant of Calvinism. Defend it as you will, my friend, you cannot defend it scripturally, and therefore there is no defense for it at all.

Lets also now look at the U in tulip: Unconditional Election.

Unconditional election is the Calvinist teaching that before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons.

A few simple points will refute this.

1. God is no respecter of persons Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, and I Peter 1:17
2. If Christians are predestined why worry about the Devil I Peter 5:8?
3. If Christians could not do anything to change their condition and election then Romans 3:23 and 6:23 do not apply.

[darin]

??....actually, he understood it, you don't.....of course our free will allows us to counter God's will.....do you think sin is God's will?.....your error regarding predestination is thinking that God's knowledge of our choice CAUSES our choice.....that could only be true if we shared God's knowledge....


No....A CALVINIST thinks God 'causes' us to choose Him or not. I'm saying the opposite is true. In fact, what I wrote describes exactly the opposite of what you think I believe.



let's say, for example, that if you choose to go to work tomorrow using a slightly more roundabout, but scenic route, that you will be broadsided by a driver blowing through a stoplight and you will die.......God knows that......does the fact that God knows this cause you to decide anything differently about which route to take to work?......no.....because God knows it, you don't.....you freely choose which route to take.....Now, let's say God doesn't want you dead this week because he has a use for you....."Dang, why didn't the alarm clock go off, now I'm going to be late for work"....or "Why do I have to have a flat tire now!"......maybe it even goes so far as your wife saying "I had a strange dream last night, don't go to work today".......now you could still blow off all those things, take the scenic route and die.....it's your choice....

see above.



now, substitute believing in God for driving to work.....God knows what you are going to choose.....he knows what path you followed and what steps you had to encounter before you made that decision.....He's prepared to put all those steps in place for you......but you are still the one who has to make that choice.......for others, God is aware that no matter what steps he places for them, they are going to repeatedly make the wrong choices.....that doesn't mean he's making the choices for them......

You are arguing my point against Calvinism.

A Calvinist believes we are complete depraved - unable to choose God. A Calvinist believes God has predestined us - that God picks who will choose him.

Sidebar - If one sin, committed by Adam and Eve is enough to damn us to hell/separation from God - whether we choose to sin or not - does it stand that Christ's one sacrifice stands as complete repayment for our sin, whether we choose it or not?


Lets also now look at the U in tulip: Unconditional Election.

Unconditional election is the Calvinist teaching that before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons.

A few simple points will refute this.

1. God is no respecter of persons Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, and I Peter 1:17
2. If Christians are predestined why worry about the Devil I Peter 5:8?
3. If Christians could not do anything to change their condition and election then Romans 3:23 and 6:23 do not apply.



Absolutely - Also - and to me the most clearly-stated biblical proof that Calvin was wrong:

"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

The implication is perfectly clear that some WILL perish. If Calvin were correct, as I wrote earlier, that verse would read "None shall perish because it's against God's will".

[SassyLady]

[QUOTE=mrskurtsprincess;418946]Yes....all that is was created by God and why would God create something that was not of his will? God created sin in order to provide an environment of choice. If God had not created sin how would we be in a state of choice at any time?
[quote]
no, God did not create sin so we could make a choice.....sin is the act of making a bad choice.....it doesn't exist until we make the choice of disobedience.......


because you are still free to reject that influence....God may have given you a million opportunities to find reason to believe in him, but if you continue to refuse because that is your choice, then you have still chosen that destiny.....by the way, Calvinists call such a refusal the denial of the Holy Spirit....it is considered to be the one unpardonable sin......



the steps may be the catalyst that causes you to make the right choice....perhaps it's a combination of something your grandmother said to you thirty years ago with something you experience today....



because you are making the choices without sharing God's knowledge.....each choice is made upon evidence that is fresh to you and measured by your own judgment and will....a "nudge" is something you know you "ought" to do.....you may still choose to be disobedient...


I'm sure he created Tahiti just so he could have a place to take a break....

Oh .... I do believe in God .... just not the God that is described by Calvinism. See ..... God gave me the choice to believe what "I" want to believe.....my God doesn't put restrictions on my love or beliefs .... because that would be limiting my choices.

Calvinism wants to dictate what our thoughts and beliefs about God are......which is why I left the whole religion/church community/society so many years ago.

[PostmodernProphet]

I destroyed your position with only a superficial view of the first tenant of Calvinism. Defend it as you will, my friend, you cannot defend it scripturally, and therefore there is no defense for it at all.
.

???...you still haven't gotten past the fact that you have mis-described it....come up with some authority for randomly inserting your own definition or admit defeat....


No....A CALVINIST thinks God 'causes' us to choose Him or not.

lol....I thought I was the Calvinist here....stop telling me I believe things I don't believe.....




A Calvinist believes we are complete depraved - unable to choose God.
total depravity does not mean people are unable to choose God....please see my quote above regarding total depravity



A Calvinist believes God has predestined us - that God picks who will choose him.
...../shakes head.....that isn't what predestination means



Sidebar - If one sin, committed by Adam and Eve is enough to damn us to hell/separation from God - whether we choose to sin or not

????....and that isn't what original sin means....good lord, where did you pick up your understanding of theology, bubblegum wrappers?




Calvinism wants to dictate what our thoughts and beliefs about God are......

???...well, Calvinism does require that you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior.....what other thoughts and beliefs do you believe are "dictated"?.....

[SassyLady]

???...well, Calvinism does require that you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior.....what other thoughts and beliefs do you believe are "dictated"?.....

So, PMP - If you didn't have Calvinism around to "tell" you that you have to believe in Jesus Christ as your savior how would one know this was a requirement for everlasting life?

How would the isolated tribes of third world regions manage to be "saved" if they have never heard of Calvinism or Jesus Christ? Do you really think God would forsake them just because some edumacated individual wrote something down on a piece of paper and told the world this is how God set up the rules of the universe? And because they couldn't read or had no contact with the diciples of that person they are forever forsaken?

I don't think my God would have set things up this way.

[darin]

lol....I thought I was the Calvinist here....stop telling me I believe things I don't believe.....


You might be a 'bad' Calvinist. Calvin is CLEAR - unless GOD moves on somebody's heart we are powerless - UNABLE - to accept him. AND...IF God moves on somebody's heart, that person is powerless to NOT accept him...because HIS will dictates.



...../shakes head.....that isn't what predestination means


Pre-destined. Destiny decided ahead of time.


????....and that isn't what original sin means....good lord, where did you pick up your understanding of theology, bubblegum wrappers?


You are randomly deciding what words mean now. The ORIGINAL SIN OF ADAM...you know...when Adam and Eve decided to SIN, and therefor passed that sin, through biology onto mankind. Are you simply avoiding an honest question (and NOT a statement of theology) because you don't understand it, or are because you're being obtuse?

[PostmodernProphet]

So, PMP - If you didn't have Calvinism around to "tell" you that you have to believe in Jesus Christ as your savior how would one know this was a requirement for everlasting life?

How would the isolated tribes of third world regions manage to be "saved" if they have never heard of Calvinism or Jesus Christ? Do you really think God would forsake them just because some edumacated individual wrote something down on a piece of paper and told the world this is how God set up the rules of the universe? And because they couldn't read or had no contact with the diciples of that person they are forever forsaken?

I don't think my God would have set things up this way.
and I don't assume he did.....I wouldn't expect God to refuse to communicate with someone who had been isolated from the word.....but that's between him and the dying isolated guy......for all the rest of us the scriptures are pretty clear......by the way, don't try to twist this into something about having to believe in God and also be a Calvinist in order to be saved.....I haven't said that, Calvin hasn't said that, God hasn't said that, so I see no reason for you to say it......

so, for you and all the rest of the folks who aren't isolated in some third world tribe, what do you think is necessary to be right with God?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Calvin is CLEAR - unless GOD moves on somebody's heart we are powerless - UNABLE - to accept him. AND...IF God moves on somebody's heart, that person is powerless to NOT accept him...because HIS will dictates.
all right....if Calvin in clear on that, link it.....



Pre-destined. Destiny decided ahead of time.

Book III. Chap. xxi. No one who wishes to be thought religious dares outright to deny predestination by which God chooses some for the hope of life, and condemns others to eternal death. But men entangle it with captious quibbles; and especially those who make foreknowledge the ground of it. We indeed attribute to God both predestination and foreknowledge; but we call it absurd to subordinate one to the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God we mean that all things have ever been, and eternally remain, before his eyes; to that to his knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are present; and present not in the sense that they are reproduced in imagination (as we are aware of past events which are retained in our memory), but present in the sense that he really sees and observes them placed, as it were, before his eyes. And this foreknowledge extends over the whole universe and over every creature.



The ORIGINAL SIN OF ADAM...you know...when Adam and Eve decided to SIN, and therefor passed that sin, through biology onto mankind. Are you simply avoiding an honest question (and NOT a statement of theology) because you don't understand it, or are because you're being obtuse?
actually it's neither....it's simply that you have completely fucked up the meaning of original sin.....it isn't because eating some apple was an original sin.....it's that because we are human, it is within our nature, our origin, to be sinful.....it's origin-al sin, not original sin....that's a pretty fundamental error to be making, dmp....

the understanding is clear....it doesn't matter who Adam and Eve were, if it had been you or me in the Garden of Eden we would have screwed things up just like they did, because by having free will, it is simply impossible for us to exercise it perfectly forever.....

[BoogyMan]

Lets look into the L in tupip now.

Limited Atonement, or the idea that Christ only died for those who have been chosen to be saved and none other. Once again, a simple reading of scripture makes the idea of "limited atonment" shine as false doctrine.

1. Christ died for the ungodly Romans 5:6
2. God did not elect he wants all men to be saved I Timothy 2:3-4 and II Peter 3:9.
a. Unfortunately the majority will reject Matthew 7:13-14.
3. Christ said ANY MAN – John 6:51
4. It was the whole world Christ died for John 3:16, II Corinthians 5:19, and I John 2:1-2.
a. It is the whole world the saving Gospel is to be taken to Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16.
5. Christ did not come to save the saved he came for the lost Luke 19:10.

[Noir]

I have to say as an atheist there is little odder than seeing people of te same religion (even the same sect of the same religion) fight about what exactly there god wants/means.

Reminds me of this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE&feature=youtube_gdata

[BoogyMan]

I have to say as an atheist there is little odder than seeing people of te same religion (even the same sect of the same religion) fight about what exactly there god wants/means.

Reminds me of this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE&feature=youtube_gdata

Your having claimed that we are "of the same religion" means nothing, Noir. You look at religion with a jaundiced eye, so don't expect much honest consideration of such a comment.

[Noir]

Your having claimed that we are "of the same religion" means nothing, Noir. You look at religion with a jaundiced eye, so don't expect much honest consideration of such a comment.

I made the point to say that even of it was proved a god existed. Even that it was a theistic god. Even that it was a Christian theistic god. Even if it was a Calvinist Christian theistic god. There would still be arguements, you must be able to see the humour in that.

[chloe]

I made the point to say that even of it was proved a god existed. Even that it was a theistic god. Even that it was a Christian theistic god. Even if it was a Calvinist Christian theistic god. There would still be arguements, you must be able to see the humour in that.


It is more confusing then funny from my point of view.

[Noir]

It is more confusing then funny from my point of view.

Indeedy, it's funny because it's confusing.

But on a deeper level, it is much more dark because it is confusing. Showing just how devicive religion is.

[chloe]

Indeedy, it's funny because it's confusing.

But on a deeper level, it is much more dark because it is confusing. Showing just how devicive religion is.


yeah I guess thats true too, I wish it wasn't.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have to say as an atheist there is little odder than seeing people of te same religion (even the same sect of the same religion) fight about what exactly there god wants/means.

Reminds me of this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE&feature=youtube_gdata

perhaps your confusion arises because you think we are arguing about whether each of us or the other are saved.....we aren't....we are arguing about whether Boogie is clueless about the theology of Calvinism.....

[BoogyMan]

perhaps your confusion arises because you think we are arguing about whether each of us or the other are saved.....we aren't....we are arguing about whether Boogie is clueless about the theology of Calvinism.....

We are arguing about a doctrine of men being placed over the teaching of the Bible, PMP. Calvinism is false doctrine, pure and simple.

Need we press on to the I in tulip?

Irresistible grace? The false teaching that God sends the Holy Spirit, only to those on the saved list, which removes their depraved nature inherited from Adam and creates within them a saving faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit thereafter guides them directly to understand and correctly interpret the Bible.

The Bible clearly rejects this notion.

1. The Spirit can be resisted Acts 7:51
2. It is the word and preaching that pricks the heart and leads men to know what God desires Acts 2:36-41

You would do well also to read through Romans 10:14-17

[BoogyMan]

Indeedy, it's funny because it's confusing.

But on a deeper level, it is much more dark because it is confusing. Showing just how devicive religion is.

Religion as defined in the Bible is clear and simple for man to follow. Religion as defined by men such as Calvin is deceptive, false, and will ensure eternal destruction.

[Noir]

Religion as defined in the Bible is clear and simple for man to follow. Religion as defined by men such as Calvin is deceptive, false, and will ensure eternal destruction.

You want something pure and simple?
How about the gloden rule,
1 rule, that's all, no need for gods, no room for misinterpretation. Simply simple.

[PostmodernProphet]

We are arguing about a doctrine of men being placed over the teaching of the Bible, PMP. Calvinism is false doctrine, pure and simple.

Need we press on to the I in tulip?

So far we haven't gotten beyond arguing Boogie's misunderstanding of Calvinism over Calvinism......

I suppose you will press on, even though you haven't backed up your misrepresentation of the T yet....

[BoogyMan]

So far we haven't gotten beyond arguing Boogie's misunderstanding of Calvinism over Calvinism......

I suppose you will press on, even though you haven't backed up your misrepresentation of the T yet....

I backed it up, your predisposition simply won't let you read the truth straight from the scripture, my friend.

[revelarts]

Indeedy, it's funny because it's confusing.

But on a deeper level, it is much more dark because it is confusing. Showing just how devicive religion is.

um and all atheist agree on every point of humanism? c'mon Noir

Disagreement is pretty human don't you think? people can fight over the rules of poker.
You'd probable have differences in 3 siblings ideas of their natural father.
Your every see people differ over the contents of a will. How many shades of meaning and supposed unwritten intentions come into play. when they all say "they just want to do what father wanted". I think even atheist children might be divisive and not purely rational, except of course in their own minds.

However I think most Christians would agree on many of the points you drilled past earlier until they came to bones to squabble over. big bones at times but most Christians would agree at least that the bone exist.

[Noir]

um and all atheist agree on every point of humanism? c'mon Noir

Disagreement is pretty human don't you think? people can fight over the rules of poker.
You'd probable have differences in 3 siblings ideas of their natural father.
Your every see people differ over the contents of a will. How many shades of meaning and supposed unwritten intentions come into play. when they all say "they just want to do what father wanted". I think even atheist children might be divisive and not purely rational, except of course in their own minds.

However I think most Christians would agree on many of the points you drilled past earlier until they came to bones to squabble over. big bone at times but most Christians would agree at least that the bone exist.

But humanism is relitive. And as such should be debated.
You would think if this is all the plan of your God that he would have set out his stall pretty clearly, no?

[BoogyMan]

But humanism is relitive. And as such should be debated.
You would think if this is all the plan of your God that he would have set out his stall pretty clearly, no?

God DID set it out clearly, the Bible makes that pretty obvious. Men like Calvin want to go beyond what is written.

I love how you, once again, try to differentiate your belief system as not actually being one. :)

[darin]

all right....if Calvin in clear on that, link it.....



You aren't a calvinist bro.




Pre-destined. Destiny decided ahead of time.


Why do you keep repeating me :)



actually it's neither....it's simply that you have completely fucked up the meaning of original sin.....it isn't because eating some apple was an original sin.....it's that because we are human, it is within our nature, our origin, to be sinful.....it's origin-al sin, not original sin....that's a pretty fundamental error to be making, dmp....


God made us SINless. You've got it bass ackwards there man. It's because of Adam and Eve's sin Human nature is the way it is. It's because of their choice to sin - the rest of us are born with a sinful nature. It's NOT because we have a sinful nature, Adam and Eve sinned. Seriously - you're 180 degrees from correct on your order of things.


the understanding is clear....it doesn't matter who Adam and Eve were, if it had been you or me in the Garden of Eden we would have screwed things up just like they did, because by having free will, it is simply impossible for us to exercise it perfectly forever.....

That's beside the point...they chose to Sin. They went against the Will of God. Thus, Calvinism is absolutely in-correct in saying we're unable to resist His will.

Calvin believed God chose HIM - not vice-versa. He believes God's grace is impossible to resist - that when God decides to offer us Himself, we cannot choose otherwise but to accept him.

What do you want me to link you to? I think you're simply corn-fused a little bit about what label you've adopted; the things you write here sorta point you away from Calvin.

[revelarts]

I'm curious, I really have never heard an Armenian exposit these passages, how do you guys see them?


Roman 9
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

[PostmodernProphet]

I backed it up, your predisposition simply won't let you read the truth straight from the scripture, my friend.

I'm not arguing against truth from scripture....I'm arguing with your incorrect depiction of Calvinist theology.....I will give you another chance.....provide back up for your insistence in changing "total depravity" to "total hereditary depravity"....

as things stand you aren't even bothering to argue against Calvinism, you're arguing against Boogieism.......

[PostmodernProphet]

You aren't a calvinist bro.

the folks at Calvin Theological Seminary, who granted me a degree in theology will be disappointed....




Why do you keep repeating me :)

????....they're called quotes....I think we've used them here before....




God made us SINless. You've got it bass ackwards there man. It's because of Adam and Eve's sin Human nature is the way it is. It's because of their choice to sin - the rest of us are born with a sinful nature. It's NOT because we have a sinful nature, Adam and Eve sinned. Seriously - you're 180 degrees from correct on your order of things.
I have correctly stated the Calvinist doctrine of original sin......you want to argue with another definition of it.....that's fine, just don't pretend it's the Calvinist definition...




That's beside the point...they chose to Sin. They went against the Will of God. Thus, Calvinism is absolutely in-correct in saying we're unable to resist His will.
if they said it, they would be incorrect....but we've already covered the fact they don't say it.....you certainly won't be able to find a Calvinist anywhere who says we cannot sin....



Calvin believed God chose HIM - not vice-versa. He believes God's grace is impossible to resist - that when God decides to offer us Himself, we cannot choose otherwise but to accept him.
Calvin does not believe God chose to force him to believe in God....of course you can choose otherwise.....there's an entire doctrine dealing with the refusal of the Holy Spirit.....



What do you want me to link you to? I think you're simply corn-fused a little bit about what label you've adopted; the things you write here sorta point you away from Calvin.
no, they merely show I am not pointed in the direction you claim Calvinism is.....I would like a link supporting that what you claim Calvinists believe are things actually believed by Calvinists....I see no reason to defend Calvinism as defined by Boogie and you when it bears to resemblance to any theology I have heard attributed to Calvin.....

[Noir]

God DID set it out clearly, the Bible makes that pretty obvious. Men like Calvin want to go beyond what is written.

I love how you, once again, try to differentiate your belief system as not actually being one. :)

If you can not see the irony in the line "God DID set it out clearly, the Bible makes that pretty obvious. Men like Calvin want to go beyond what is written." then I don't know what to say, I feel all I really need to do is underline your comment to prove mine.

[darin]

the folks at Calvin Theological Seminary, who granted me a degree in theology will be disappointed....



Then why are you saying things that are opposite of Calvinism? Such as "God doesn't decide whom He chooses"



????....they're called quotes....I think we've used them here before....


No - you keep repeating back to me, in other words the same things I'm saying about For-knowledge and Pre-destined.


I have correctly stated the Calvinist doctrine of original sin......you want to argue with another definition of it.....that's fine, just don't pretend it's the Calvinist definition...


I'm saying that doctrine is wrong. That's my whole Point on the issue. It's absurdly wrong. Our sinful nature did not happen until Adam and Eve Chose that path.


if they said it, they would be incorrect....but we've already covered the fact they don't say it.....you certainly won't be able to find a Calvinist anywhere who says we cannot sin....


Are you not reading things? who said we 'cannot sin' -what is your point in bringing up the claim suggesting I believe a Calvinist thinks people cannot sin?


Calvin does not believe God chose to force him to believe in God....of course you can choose otherwise.....there's an entire doctrine dealing with the refusal of the Holy Spirit.....


no, they merely show I am not pointed in the direction you claim Calvinism is.....I would like a link supporting that what you claim Calvinists believe are things actually believed by Calvinists....I see no reason to defend Calvinism as defined by Boogie and you when it bears to resemblance to any theology I have heard attributed to Calvin.....



According to the Calvinist belief, man's inclination to sin has ensnared his will. Even though he can make choices according to his nature, man's character has been so corrupted that he can never choose what is pure. Calvinists point to verses in Mark 7:21-23 and Romans 3:10-12, which say that man's heart is utterly wicked and that no one seeks God because they have all wandered down the wrong path. Thus, man cannot accept Christ without God's intervention. In essence, Calvinism states that man only has the free will to choose evil and that he does not have the capacity to choose God.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw01whosewill.htm



We state that the unbelievers nature is so corrupt that he does not have the ability in his own will, to choose to follow God.

...

In other words, he cannot choose to freely follow God because that is a good thing to do. Since he is a slave of sin, does not seek for God and does not understand spiritual things, he is not able to freely choose God. (emphasis mine)

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/answers/freewill.htm

That's the nail in the coffin of the absurdity of Calvinism. I absolutely FREELY choose God. Everyone who Loves God does so because they decide to Love God.

[BoogyMan]

I'm not arguing against truth from scripture....I'm arguing with your incorrect depiction of Calvinist theology.....I will give you another chance.....provide back up for your insistence in changing "total depravity" to "total hereditary depravity"....

I explained my use of the word hereditary. It is fact that Calvinists teach the false doctrine of original sin. Words have meanings and honest men can have discussions that use words like hereditary and share an understanding without the silly distraction you are trying here.


as things stand you aren't even bothering to argue against Calvinism, you're arguing against Boogieism.......

No, I am apparently arguing against PMPism, which is apparently an eyes closed full on denial of the fact that Calvinist doctrine as outlined in TULIP is patently and egregiously FALSE.

[BoogyMan]

If you can not see the irony in the line "God DID set it out clearly, the Bible makes that pretty obvious. Men like Calvin want to go beyond what is written." then I don't know what to say, I feel all I really need to do is underline your comment to prove mine.

All it does is prove the arrogant stance you take regarding the scripture while you elevate the writings and works of men like Dawkins. Hypocrisy seems to be a natural fit for you.

[SassyLady]

so, for you and all the rest of the folks who aren't isolated in some third world tribe, what do you think is necessary to be right with God?.....

Knowing that any day is a good day to die.

[Noir]

All it does is prove the arrogant stance you take regarding the scripture while you elevate the writings and works of men like Dawkins. Hypocrisy seems to be a natural fit for you.

Lol, ofcourse. If I may ask a a question or two, assuming you are a Christian, what type of church do you go to? (Catholic, Protesant, ect ect)

[BoogyMan]

Lol, ofcourse. If I may ask a a question or two, assuming you are a Christian, what type of church do you go to? (Catholic, Protesant, ect ect)

Are you so limited in your Biblical understanding that you cannot see that there were simply Christians before Catholicism or Protestantism?

[Noir]

Are you so limited in your Biblical understanding that you cannot see that there were simply Christians before Catholicism or Protestantism?

So you are not a member of any specific church?

[BoogyMan]

So you are not a member of any specific church?

I don't hold to ANY manmade credal work. I follow the Bible and it's teachings without adding in my own opinion.

God gave us His instruction and it is not up to us to change it. The Greek word translated church is eklesia. It means a group called out for a purpose. With reference to God that is people called out for HIS purpose, and HIS alone.

[Noir]

I don't hold to ANY manmade credal work. I follow the Bible and it's teachings without adding in my own opinion.

God gave us His instruction and it is not up to us to change it. The Greek word translated church is eklesia. It means a group called out for a purpose. With reference to God that is people called out for HIS purpose, and HIS alone.


You follow all of the bibles teachings without care for your own opinion? Wow.

Also, this is the bible that a few men sat down and chose which books went into making it, yes?

[BoogyMan]

You follow all of the bibles teachings without care for your own opinion? Wow.

Also, this is the bible that a few men sat down and chose which books went into making it, yes?

Which codex are you referencing?

[Noir]

Which codex are you referencing?

I was refering to Codex Sinaiticus, would you rather I look into the origins of another?

[BoogyMan]

I was refering to Codex Sinaiticus, would you rather I look into the origins of another?

Sinaticus is one of the earliest along with the Vaticanus. Do you deny that we have all the texts? Are you arguing for the inclusion of apocrypha, what?

[PostmodernProphet]

Our sinful nature did not happen until Adam and Eve Chose that path.
and if they hadn't the next pair of humans who came along would have, and the next, and the next, right up to your front door.....you could not have avoided it.....and THAT is the meaning of original sin.....not sin attributed to us because of Adam and Eve, but sin that is inherent within us because we are just LIKE Adam and Eve....



Are you not reading things? who said we 'cannot sin' -what is your point in bringing up the claim suggesting I believe a Calvinist thinks people cannot sin?

???...because that's what you said....you said Calvinists believe we cannot oppose God's will......it obviously isn't God's will that we sin, thus in order to believe we cannot oppose God's will we would have to believe we are unable to sin.....



I absolutely FREELY choose God. Everyone who Loves God does so because they decide to Love God.
of course, so does everyone....no Calvinist would argue the fact....

[darin]

???...because that's what you said....you said Calvinists believe we cannot oppose God's will......it obviously isn't God's will that we sin, thus in order to believe we cannot oppose God's will we would have to believe we are unable to sin.....


of course, so does everyone....no Calvinist would argue the fact....


uh...except I just showed you from a calvinist website how we are UNABLE to choose god...(shrug).

[PostmodernProphet]

We state that the unbelievers nature is so corrupt that he does not have the ability in his own will, to choose to follow God.

...

In other words, he cannot choose to freely follow God because that is a good thing to do. Since he is a slave of sin, does not seek for God and does not understand spiritual things, he is not able to freely choose God. (emphasis mine)

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/answers/freewill.htm
That's the nail in the coffin of the absurdity of Calvinism. I absolutely FREELY choose God.

pretty lame attempt at selective editing, dmp....I'm embarrassed to see you stoop to it....you say you freely choose God and Calvinists say you can't....yet the sentence before you began your quote states "We affirm that people are free to choose what they want to choose. "


I explained my use of the word hereditary. It is fact that Calvinists teach the false doctrine of original sin. Words have meanings and honest men can have discussions that use words like hereditary and share an understanding without the silly distraction you are trying here.

/shrugs...basically you tried to justify one false representation with a second.....it's lame and a waste of time.....

[revelarts]

But humanism is relitive. And as such should be debated.

Of Course your right, relativity can be debated endlessly, I'm not quite sure why the divisiveness created by humanism's necessary endless squabbles is better than that of religions in your view though.




You would think if this is all the plan of your God that he would have set out his stall pretty clearly, no?

It is pretty clear, you argue against it's clear points vigorously. That's not to say that it's exhaustively settled in all points.

[PostmodernProphet]

No, I am apparently arguing against PMPism, which is apparently an eyes closed full on denial of the fact that Calvinist doctrine as outlined in TULIP is patently and egregiously FALSE.

I will concede that TULIP, as you define it, is a false doctrine.....has nothing to do with the issue of Calvinist theology, but in that part of the debate you've been successful....


Knowing that any day is a good day to die.

is it a good day to die if you refuse to believe in the existence of a deity?

[revelarts]

I'm curious, I really have never heard an Armenian exposit these passages, how do you guys see them?


Roman 9
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

still wondering about this, ...boggie? ...anyone?

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't hold to ANY manmade credal work. I follow the Bible and it's teachings without adding in my own opinion.


/grins....he saves adding his own opinions for other denomination's theology.....

[SassyLady]

is it a good day to die if you refuse to believe in the existence of a deity?

You asked:

what do you think is necessary to be right with God?.....

I said:


Knowing that any day is a good day to die.

Therefore, if I believe any day is a good day to die, I know that I am right with God. That I am at peace with my beliefs - however I got there. If I needed a specific doctrine ..... say, Calvinism, to help me understand how to be right with God, then so be it. However, I don't believe one needs to adhere to a specific doctrine to "be right with God".

As you said earlier, even the primitive tribes can be right with God without having read any scriptures or without belonging to any religion. I, too, believe this because every soul knows in their heart what it takes to be right with God..........and when they do, and they practice what they know to be right, then ANY day is a good day to die.

[Noir]

Sinaticus is one of the earliest along with the Vaticanus. Do you deny that we have all the texts? Are you arguing for the inclusion of apocrypha, what?

Well yes, books from it's have been cut from the bible.

And ofcourse the Sinaticus itself is the interpretation of 4 men, who where inperpreting the works of other mens writtings on god (which therefore must be man made themselves), and yet you somehow think there is no man-made opinion in any of it?

And that is before you get anywhere near modern Bibles and modern translations.


Of Course your right, relativity can be debated endlessly, I'm not quite sure why the divisiveness created by humanism's necessary endless squabbles is better than that of religions in your view though.

Becuase without religion (of all types) you will not have people willing to kill and die for a 'greater good' be there religion Christian, Islamic, Nazi and so forth.
There are debates within religion yes, but the point is religion does not want debate. Because at the end of the day religious people think there must be an absoloute answer, because their god must have a will.
It is the human part of us that will always ask questions unless we are brainwashed into religion.



It is pretty clear, you argue against it's clear points vigorously. That's not to say that it's exhaustively settled in all points.

...you mean you want it to be 'exhaustively settled in all points'? i.e. For one day there to be no debate at all?

[PostmodernProphet]

As you said earlier, even the primitive tribes can be right with God without having read any scriptures or without belonging to any religion. I, too, believe this because every soul knows in their heart what it takes to be right with God..........and when they do, and they practice what they know to be right, then ANY day is a good day to die.

don't misconstrue what I say....a primitive who has never heard of God can be wrong with God his entire life, yet God could offer him an opportunity to choose after death because he has never heard of God.......I disagree that "practicing what they know to be right" will carry any weight for those people who HAVE heard of God.....I will agree that no one must adhere to a particular doctrine to be right with God.....but I do not agree with the PC Christianity that says there are many paths to God, however.....one cannot be right with God while rejecting God.....


Well yes, books from it's have been cut from the bible.


uh, no....some writings were never included in the Bible, but none have ever been cut from it....

[Noir]

uh, no....some writings were never included in the Bible, but none have ever been cut from it....

You can play about with the meaning of word like 'cut' and 'not included' but that is missing the point.
At some time humans sat down and put the bible together, based on their opinions (with which you must accept the chance of bias) and on translations (with which you must accept that mis translations, both intense and accidental can be made).

[PostmodernProphet]

You can play about with the meaning of word like 'cut' and 'not included' but that is missing the point.
At some time humans sat down and put the bible together, based on their opinions (with which you must accept the chance of bias) and on translations (with which you must accept that mis translations, both intense and accidental can be made).

I do not for a minute believe that the collection of the Bible is the result of chance or human opinion.....what is presented to us as God's communication to man is simply that....what God has chosen to communicate to man.....
as for mistakes in translation, that is one of the reasons there was a Canon in the first place, to identify discrepancies.....and, as our knowledge of both archeology and of linguistics increases these are identified and eliminated....the translation of scripture we have today is more accurate than we had four hundred years ago......

[revelarts]

Becuase without religion (of all types) you will not have people willing to kill and die for a 'greater good' be there religion Christian, Islamic, Nazi and so forth.
There are debates within religion yes, but the point is religion does not want debate. Because at the end of the day religious people think there must be an absoloute answer, because their god must have a will.
It is the human part of us that will always ask questions unless we are brainwashed into religion.

Your saying some people SAY they kill for the greater good of their religion. that's true. My question was why is that better than killing for the PARTY, or the PLEASURE or "the people" under wise chairman Mao. My point is that those are not religious motivations. You try to make religions out to be worse excuses for murder and killing than secular or humanistic ideas, when honestly you'd have to start by saying that they are no better. If your trying to make an unbiased assessment it seems to me. After that start, I think one would need to examine the teaching of each religion and each humanistic opinion to see which ones really promote bad behavior. Though Christianity has been used as a cover for a lot of ugly crap. you can't honestly say that Christ promoted mass murder. But you can't say the same for Mao.







...you mean you want it to be 'exhaustively settled in all points'? i.e. For one day there to be no debate at all?

That's not the point I was trying to make but, let me ask you a question? is the sun the main source of light for the earth? should we debate that anymore? We could debate the various effects of the light etc but the source is past debate, though we haven't exhausted the details.
God is the creator and king of the universe, for Christians that not a debate point the details of the creation and his lordship are for many. But many other issues are less so and beyond debate except for intellectual or apologetic reasons. so yes certain issues are settled forever, amen.

[darin]

pretty lame attempt at selective editing, dmp....I'm embarrassed to see you stoop to it....you say you freely choose God and Calvinists say you can't....yet the sentence before you began your quote states "We affirm that people are free to choose what they want to choose. "


/shrugs...basically you tried to justify one false representation with a second.....it's lame and a waste of time.....


Ya know what - you're kind of a dick.

But re: this topic - I didn't selectively edit. I showed the part that matters - Calvinists believe, by their own admission, God chooses US - we are unable to choose him.

Now - You folk can 'freely choose' to wear a blue shirt. Sure - You'll admit that just so you can satisfy your conscious.

The TRUTH IS this: Calvinism is inherently NOT Christian - not Godly - it's ANTI...or COUNTER to Love. To God.

You can stomp your feet up and down and make all the snide remarks you wish - that only adds to my believe in those trapped under Calvinism - and their inability to understand Love.

Reasonable Person: So - Calvinists believe we can't choose God. We are unable. HE chooses US.
Calvinist: No!! Of course we believe in free will!!
Reasonable Person: ...except the free will to choose god?
Calvinist: Yup
Reasonable person: So - we have no choice; since we are unable to choose God, HE chooses us. We are left out. He decides.
Calvinist: Absolutely NOT! Of course we have a Choice!
Reasonable Person: ...except we cannot - we are unable to choose God.
Calvinist: Yes. That's right.
Reasonable Person: How is that different than what i'd just said
Calvinist: I'm going to continue to argue in circles until I become increasingly more of a dickhead about my wonderful Lord Jesus
Reasonable Person: ...maybe I'll try Islam.

Sure - you're a Calvinist who believes People have FREEDOM of WILL to choose EVERYTHING but God. Big f'ing deal.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ya know what - you're kind of a dick.

But re: this topic - I didn't selectively edit. I showed the part that matters -

lol....first you redefine Calvinism, then you redefine selective editing...I guess that makes me a dick.....or was it winning the debate that made me a dick?.....you've been caught in one outright lie already, don't try for more....

[darin]

lol....first you redefine Calvinism, then you redefine selective editing...I guess that makes me a dick.....or was it winning the debate that made me a dick?.....you've been caught in one outright lie already, don't try for more....

Circular logic again. You keep saying "Calvinists Don't believe GOD Chooses us." yet I've shown from a Calvin-based website where That's the very case. All you're doing is making stupid, juvenile comments to me privately, and stomping up and down. Look at the convo I posted - between a Calvinist - such as yourself, and a REASONABLE person. That's all you're doing. Hell - it must be REALLY EASY to get a degree in that field of study. Seriously easy...all you have to do is bitch and moan and say 'nuh-uh!' when the flaws of your beliefs are presented.

[PostmodernProphet]

I've shown from a Calvin-based website where That's the very case. .

I have shown from that very same web site that you lied.....the sentence before the one you quoted directly contradicted the point you made.....I'm sorry....you suck.....and it was pretty lame to neg rep for showing your lie....


Look at the convo I posted - between a Calvinist - such as yourself, and a REASONABLE person.

???....you make up a fucking conversation and you think that proves your claim.....you're acting like an idiot.....there are no Calvinists that are going to agree with your claim that we believe we do not choose whether or not to believe.....it's just too stupid to credit.....

[Noir]

I do not for a minute believe that the collection of the Bible is the result of chance or human opinion.....what is presented to us as God's communication to man is simply that....what God has chosen to communicate to man.....
as for mistakes in translation, that is one of the reasons there was a Canon in the first place, to identify discrepancies.....and, as our knowledge of both archeology and of linguistics increases these are identified and eliminated....the translation of scripture we have today is more accurate than we had four hundred years ago......

=/
Let me run by you two things you just said.

what is presented to us as God's communication to man is simply that....what God has chosen to communicate to man.....


the translation of scripture we have today is more accurate than we had four hundred years ago......

...so what about the poor folks 400 years ago who were Reading from the bible as fact when we now know there to be inaccuracies?
And what of you now, I mean if the bible is more accurate still in 400 years time, where does that leave you who are reading innaccurate biblical text and don't know?

And this was all part of a Gods plan?...


That's not the point I was trying to make but, let me ask you a question? is the sun the main source of light for the earth? should we debate that anymore? We could debate the various effects of the light etc but the source is past debate, though we haven't exhausted the details.
God is the creator and king of the universe, for Christians that not a debate point the details of the creation and his lordship are for many. But many other issues are less so and beyond debate except for intellectual or apologetic reasons. so yes certain issues are settled forever, amen.

No issue is ever settled forever.
They can only be proven To be settled with the understanding we have.

Put simply, science tells you to never stop asking questions. Religion tells you it already has all the answers.
You can chose which side you want to rely on to satisfy your curiousity.

[SassyLady]

I do not for a minute believe that the collection of the Bible is the result of chance or human opinion.....what is presented to us as God's communication to man is simply that....what God has chosen to communicate to man.....as for mistakes in translation, that is one of the reasons there was a Canon in the first place, to identify discrepancies.....and, as our knowledge of both archeology and of linguistics increases these are identified and eliminated....the translation of scripture we have today is more accurate than we had four hundred years ago......

So, do you think God is still communicating with us?

Would you accept the words in the book "Conversations with God" as simply as you accept the words of the Bible?

[PostmodernProphet]

=/
Let me run by you two things you just said.




...so what about the poor folks 400 years ago who were Reading from the bible as fact when we now know there to be inaccuracies?
And what of you now, I mean if the bible is more accurate still in 400 years time, where does that leave you who are reading innaccurate biblical text and don't know?

And this was all part of a Gods plan?...

uh, do you think they misread it and thought they had to believe in chocolate pudding in order to be saved?....the Bible hasn't changed THAT much.....we're talking about things like contradictions between Chronicles and Samuel about how many horses Solomon had in his stables....


So, do you think God is still communicating with us?

Would you accept the words in the book "Conversations with God" as simply as you accept the words of the Bible?

ask me in 2000 years....

I think God makes sure we hear those things we need to hear.....just as he did 2000 years ago that may come from something spoken or written by a human.....shucks, it may even come from your neighborhood prophet....as I recall, even Balaam's ass got in a few important statements....

[darin]

I have shown from that very same web site that you lied.....the sentence before the one you quoted directly contradicted the point you made.....I'm sorry....you suck.....and it was pretty lame to neg rep for showing your lie....

omg - You aren't a calvinist - you're insane.

I quoted a site from YOUR camp. I quoted the IMPORTANT part. And you call that lying.


???....you make up a fucking conversation and you think that proves your claim.....you're acting like an idiot.....there are no Calvinists that are going to agree with your claim that we believe we do not choose whether or not to believe.....it's just too stupid to credit.....

Okay, I get it...you're more concerned about preaching Calvinism than anything. You're the kind of guy that'd fly planes into buildings because Calvin told you.

You can't reconcile the bullshit that IS calvinism:

a) Man is unable to Choose God
b) you say we have free will to do so
c) but you say we can't choose god; He chooses us.
d) You call that 'free will'

You're a contradiction.

[SassyLady]

ask me in 2000 years....

I think God makes sure we hear those things we need to hear.....just as he did 2000 years ago that may come from something spoken or written by a human.....shucks, it may even come from your neighborhood prophet....as I recall, even Balaam's ass got in a few important statements....

I think God makes sure we hear the things we need to hear also.....and some people are resistant to the Bible, some are resistant to intrepretations of the Bible, and some are resistant to Calvinism.........get my drift. God has many ways of communicating what needs to be communicated. Why should we limit ourselves to just one form - i.e., the Bible?

[PostmodernProphet]

I think God makes sure we hear the things we need to hear also.....and some people are resistant to the Bible, some are resistant to intrepretations of the Bible, and some are resistant to Calvinism.........get my drift. God has many ways of communicating what needs to be communicated. Why should we limit ourselves to just one form - i.e., the Bible?

it depends on what you say is being communicated....do you think God would go to the trouble of describing a path of salvation and passing it down in written form for everyone to see and then communicate to someone, "oh, that Jesus thing?, forget it! You can attain salvation by sucking on toxic frogs"........

theologians use the term "salvific".....arguing theology about when someone ought to be baptized has no effect on whether someone is saved, it is not salvific......arguing about whether someone needs to have faith in the saving grace of Christ?, that's salvific.........



Okay, I get it...you're more concerned about preaching Calvinism than anything. You're the kind of guy that'd fly planes into buildings because Calvin told you.

You can't reconcile the bullshit that IS calvinism:

a) Man is unable to Choose God
b) you say we have free will to do so
c) but you say we can't choose god; He chooses us.
d) You call that 'free will'

You're a contradiction.

Your understanding of Calvinism shows it to be a contradiction.....I don't know where you came up with your twisted version of it, but I have no intention of playing your game any more......and when you get to the point where you tell me to stop calling myself a Christian, then I get to the point of telling you to fuck off.....I'll stick to debating with the rational posters....

[Noir]

I'll stick to debating with the rational posters....

Gee PMP, more and more of us are becoming irrtional. You wana be carefull you don't end up being the only rational person around...

[darin]

^^^ Absolutely.

Calvinism - this is been covered in this thread...but, here we go again:


Unconditional election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon foreseen faith (especially a mere decisional faith). God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15, 21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4–8).

Now, of course we have PMP who will scream and stomp his feet saying "Calvinism isn't like that!!"

Because Calvin removes our free will from the equasion on 'whom is saved' (from hell) I argue Calvin's version of God does not operate in LOVE, because LOVE cannot be forced upon somebody. Even those 'elect' God has somehow chosen cannot bemade to decide to accept Him and still remain Loving.

http://www.theopedia.com/Calvinism

[BoogyMan]

Well yes, books from it's have been cut from the bible.

And ofcourse the Sinaticus itself is the interpretation of 4 men, who where inperpreting the works of other mens writtings on god (which therefore must be man made themselves), and yet you somehow think there is no man-made opinion in any of it?

And that is before you get anywhere near modern Bibles and modern translations.

The books of the men who have been inspired by God were included in the whole work. The apocrypha nowhere have been shown to be inspired.

We have the original Greek texts, Noir. We can KNOW that what we are reading is true to the text. If you were honest about this, or even cared about being honest about it, you might be able to see that.

EVERY bit of YOUR religion is written by men who deny inspiration and depend wholly upon themselves for their folly. Your continued condemnation of religion based on this simple premise is hypocritical folly.

[Missileman]

EVERY bit of YOUR religion is written by men who deny inspiration and depend wholly upon themselves for their folly. Your continued condemnation of religion based on this simple premise is hypocritical folly.

What religion and texts is it that you refer to?

[BoogyMan]

What religion and texts is it that you refer to?

You know EXACTLY what I am referring to, MM. You guys try to call it science, but it is simply humanist doctrine.

[Missileman]

You know EXACTLY what I am referring to, MM. You guys try to call it science, but it is simply humanist doctrine.

I know what I call science and it hasn't anything to do with religion. I can understand why science has your panties in a twist though. Every new scientific discovery makes your dogma less and less feasible. It's no wonder that you are terrified of science.

[chloe]

Calvinism generally refers to five doctrinal points – Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (or TULIP) – that were established after John Calvin died. Scholar Allen Guelzo, putting his interpretation on TULIP, says the doctrines explain the most basic questions any theology or philosophy can ask:
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/USA/Society/2010/0327/Christian-faith-Calvinism-is-back)
<!-- /pod --><!-- /podBrder --><!-- /podStoryRel --><!-- Anchor skipper link. Should be placed at the end of the Related Items pod and before the next paragraph -->•Why are people the way they are? Total depravity – you're fully corrupted by sin.

•How can people ever change? Unconditional election – God chose some people to be saved without regard to their behavior or character.

•Who benefits from this change? Limited atonement – only God's chosen.

•How does this change happen? Irresistible grace – you can't thwart God's effort to save you.

•What guarantees the change lasts? Perseverance of the saints – once saved, you'll continue in faith.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0327/Christian-faith-five-points-of-New-Calvinism

So does everyone agree this is accurate the 5 points of calvinism?

[PostmodernProphet]

Gee PMP, more and more of us are becoming irrtional. You wana be carefull you don't end up being the only rational person around...

irrationality demonstrates itself.....if I am cursed with remaining the only rational person, it will be the burden I have to bear....


God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself"

Because Calvin removes our free will from the equation

and how do you spin this into a removal of free will......do you see some hidden text that says "and he forces them into believing"?.....



So does everyone agree this is accurate the 5 points of calvinism?

no.....why doesn't anyone want to see what Calvinism says about the five points of Calvinism....

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism

[darin]

and how do you spin this into a removal of free will......do you see some hidden text that says "and he forces them into believing"?.....




Has been pointed out repeatedly in this convo - but again...because you keep dodging:

God CHOOSES us...we don't CHOOSE Him. We are UNABLE to 'not-choose' him.

If GOD SELECTS those upon whom "Salvation" is granted, and the opposite is NOT true (Opposite means: People decide to Believe. Decide to foster their relationship with God, and some choose to not do those things) the element of free will is removed.

It's NOT hard, and I'm sorry, truly sorry Calvinism sucks...but it sucks.

[-Cp]

it depends on what you say is being communicated....do you think God would go to the trouble of describing a path of salvation and passing it down in written form for everyone to see and then communicate to someone, "oh, that Jesus thing?, forget it! You can attain salvation by sucking on toxic frogs"........

theologians use the term "salvific".....arguing theology about when someone ought to be baptized has no effect on whether someone is saved, it is not salvific......arguing about whether someone needs to have faith in the saving grace of Christ?, that's salvific.........



Your understanding of Calvinism shows it to be a contradiction.....I don't know where you came up with your twisted version of it, but I have no intention of playing your game any more......and when you get to the point where you tell me to stop calling myself a Christian, then I get to the point of telling you to fuck off.....I'll stick to debating with the rational posters....

Heya PmP - have you EVER experienced the OVERWHELMING LOVE of God?

[BoogyMan]

I know what I call science and it hasn't anything to do with religion. I can understand why science has your panties in a twist though. Every new scientific discovery makes your dogma less and less feasible. It's no wonder that you are terrified of science.

LOL, more over-reaction from the reactionaries who cannot stand anyone questioning their religion of "science."

Every new "discovery" when twisted and mangled makes it more and more likely that the scientific faithful will deny anything they cannot understand or that their self agrandisation will not allow them to admit.

[Noir]

LOL, more over-reaction from the reactionaries who cannot stand anyone questioning their religion of "science."

Every new "discovery" when twisted and mangled makes it more and more likely that the scientific faithful will deny anything they cannot understand or that their self agrandisation will not allow them to admit.


You know it is science that has given you everything that you take for granted, but sure why need you care about it, because it's going to be there no matter how much you moan about it.

Maybe your lack of faith in science will be pegged back when you realise where you'd be without science.

[Missileman]

LOL, more over-reaction from the reactionaries who cannot stand anyone questioning their religion of "science."

Every new "discovery" when twisted and mangled makes it more and more likely that the scientific faithful will deny anything they cannot understand or that their self agrandisation will not allow them to admit.

The over-reaction is yours...trying to equate science with Christianity. What specific branch of science is it you have a problem with btw? Are you accusing chemists of worshipping the elements? Maybe botanists are actually secretly worshipping the dandelion. :laugh2:

As I said...you're terrified.

[SassyLady]

it depends on what you say is being communicated....do you think God would go to the trouble of describing a path of salvation and passing it down in written form for everyone to see and then communicate to someone, "oh, that Jesus thing?, forget it! You can attain salvation by sucking on toxic frogs"........

theologians use the term "salvific".....arguing theology about when someone ought to be baptized has no effect on whether someone is saved, it is not salvific......arguing about whether someone needs to have faith in the saving grace of Christ?, that's salvific.........




Originally Posted by mrskurtsprincess

I think God makes sure we hear the things we need to hear also.....and some people are resistant to the Bible, some are resistant to intrepretations of the Bible, and some are resistant to Calvinism.........get my drift. God has many ways of communicating what needs to be communicated. Why should we limit ourselves to just one form - i.e., the Bible?

PMP - you didn't answer my question. I could care less what "theologians" use or say ..... I would just like a straight answer from your own heart .... and not something you've read or been taught .... what do you believe? Do you believe a person is accepted into God's grace if they have never read the Bible? If they've never heard a word of scripture? Do you believe it's possible that people all over the world, for all time, will be loved and accepted by God whether they know he exists or not? My grandson is only six months old and at this point cannot fathom anything that is said to him about God and/or Jesus. If he should die tomorrow are you saying he will not be accepted?

[darin]

^^ right on.

I've met muslims whom I swear, based on their heart for others, MUST know God. They Love God, and Love their neighbor as themselves.

[Missileman]

My grandson is only six months old and at this point cannot fathom anything that is said to him about God and/or Jesus. If he should die tomorrow are you saying he will not be accepted?

If being born and living here on Earth is supposed to be some kind of test to get into heaven, then the question is raised...what of the babies who didn't get time to be tested? Do they get a free pass? Do they go to hell? Do they get a do-over and get born into a different body?

Any of those answers make so little sense that the concept of being tested becomes unbelievable IMO.

[SassyLady]

If being born and living here on Earth is supposed to be some kind of test to get into heaven, then the question is raised...what of the babies who didn't get time to be tested? Do they get a free pass? Do they go to hell? Do they get a do-over and get born into a different body?

Any of those answers make so little sense that the concept of being tested becomes unbelievable IMO.

I agree.

[Noir]

If being born and living here on Earth is supposed to be some kind of test to get into heaven, then the question is raised...what of the babies who didn't get time to be tested? Do they get a free pass? Do they go to hell? Do they get a do-over and get born into a different body?

Any of those answers make so little sense that the concept of being tested becomes unbelievable IMO.


Indeed, I beleive it was Hitchens that I heard making a simalar point, that to believe in a theist God, such as the Abrhamic ones, you must accept that if the human species has been around for 100,000 years (a conservitive estimate) you must accept that for 96,000 of those years heaven watched on with indifference, when people would rarly live past 25 years old, when children would commonly die before birth, when we were at the whim of disease that was carried in biology we had no idea existed, and lived in fear of what caused earthquakes and thunderstorms ect.
And through all those thousands of years heaven did nothing. Until God decided he wanted to be worshiped, and got involved.
Who would want this to be true?

[-Cp]

I would just like a straight answer from your own heart ....

I'm afraid you're mistaken - PmP doesn't have a heart - it's been replaced by religion...


:P:lol:

[PostmodernProphet]

Heya PmP - have you EVER experienced the OVERWHELMING LOVE of God?

???....do you for some reason believe I have something against the love of God?.....if so, why?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP - you didn't answer my question.

is this your question?


Why should we limit ourselves to just one form
we don't set the limits.....we don't get to choose what brings about salvation....if God has told us that believing in Jesus Christ is necessary to be saved, what right to we have to say this is too limiting, that we should have other choices?.....


Do you believe a person is accepted into God's grace if they have never read the Bible?
...if they have never read the Bible because they have chosen not to read the Bible then yes they have rejected God and his grace.....if they have never read the Bible because they live somewhere where they have been prevented from reading the Bible, then I expect he will work it out another way.....


If he should die tomorrow are you saying he will not be accepted?obviously he has made no choices....he has not rejected God....

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm afraid you're mistaken - PmP doesn't have a heart - it's been replaced by religion...


instead of trying to play this as an injustice against third world tribes and six month old infants, please recognize you're just trying to justify the rejection of God by people who do have the knowledge and have made their choices.....you're criticizing me because I say God won't let people into heaven who HAVE rejected his existence......why should someone who refuses to believe he IS think it's wrong that they aren't included?......

[revelarts]

...
No issue is ever settled forever.
They can only be proven To be settled with the understanding we have.

Put simply, science tells you to never stop asking questions. Religion tells you it already has all the answers.
You can chose which side you want to rely on to satisfy your curiosity.

Is that why you started a Thread "Irrefutable Proof of Evolution" that sounds pretty proven to me to. "Irrefutable" huh? doesn't sound like much room for debate on that issue to me Noir. If i'm curious about any other theories, bible based or not, can i go to those encouraged by the scientific community you think? I think not. I think you'd be called fool, crack pot, and not get tenure from the folks you say promote constant questioning on all issues. the scientific community your describing is a fantasy, it's propaganda. There are a broad variety of ideas available that are not considered "serious". There almost as much DOGMA in science as in religion and I think you know that.

[-Cp]

???....do you for some reason believe I have something against the love of God?.....if so, why?.....

Because of the way you deal with people - even other Christians - is not showing the love of God, so it makes me doubt you know it yourself.

One can't show God's love when they themselves have never experienced it.

[chloe]

irrationality demonstrates itself.....if I am cursed with remaining the only rational person, it will be the burden I have to bear....



and how do you spin this into a removal of free will......do you see some hidden text that says "and he forces them into believing"?.....



no.....why doesn't anyone want to see what Calvinism says about the five points of Calvinism....

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism


I want to I was just asking sorry. I will read the link you provided thanks.

[Noir]

Is that why you started a Thread "Irrefutable Proof of Evolution" that sounds pretty proven to me to. "Irrefutable" huh? doesn't sound like much room for debate on that issue to me Noir. If i'm curious about any other theories, bible based or not, can i go to those encouraged by the scientific community you think? I think not. I think you'd be called fool, crack pot, and not get tenure from the folks you say promote constant questioning on all issues. the scientific community your describing is a fantasy, it's propaganda. There are a broad variety of ideas available that are not considered "serious". There almost as much DOGMA in science as in religion and I think you know that.

Yes, it is irrefutable within are own undertstanding...thus I said "They can only be proven To be settled with the understanding we have."

Would you consider someone who believes in Thor or Apollo a crack pot?

[revelarts]

...

God CHOOSES us...we don't CHOOSE Him. We are UNABLE to 'not-choose' him.

If GOD SELECTS those upon whom "Salvation" is granted, and the opposite is NOT true (Opposite means: People decide to Believe. Decide to foster their relationship with God, and some choose to not do those things) the element of free will is removed.

It's NOT hard, and I'm sorry, truly sorry Calvinism sucks...but it sucks.

I've been trying to read these post to get at the nut of the complaint about Calvinism and , i may be wrong, but I think you've summed it up here. It seem that main issue -with you Calvin haters- is that you just don't like it. Not that it's true or false.

It seems you just plain don't like the idea.
It conflicts with your definitions of love and choice vis a vis God.

you really haven't taken any Pro Calvin Scriptures under your own position by sound argument. You've just poo pooed Calvin and the TULIP concept as you view them. No real facts or scripture just mild disgust with the Calvinist ideas.


there are a lot of things about the way the world is and the way God has dealt with them that I'm not pleased with at times but it doesn't change the facts. no matter how much i dislike the way he does his biz he's still boss and the scriptures say what they say.

[revelarts]

Yes, it is irrefutable within are own undertstanding...thus I said "They can only be proven To be settled with the understanding we have."

Would you consider someone who believes in Thor or Apollo a crack pot?

I would consider them wrong, but not necessarily a crack pot.
I think the actress Shirley McClain is kind of a crack pot who believe in Crystal power but not everyone who believes in Crystals or the new age religions are crack pots most are just mistaken average folks.

[darin]

I've been trying to read these post to get at the nut of the complaint about Calvinism and , i may be wrong, but I think you've summed it up here. It seem that main issue -with you Calvin haters- is that you just don't like it. Not that it's true or false.

It seems you just plain don't like the idea.
It conflicts with your definitions of love and choice vis a vis God.

you really haven't taken any Pro Calvin Scriptures under your own position by sound argument. You've just poo pooed Calvin and the TULIP concept as you view them. No real facts or scripture just mild disgust with the Calvinist ideas.


there are a lot of things about the way the world is and the way God has dealt with them that I'm not pleased with at times but it doesn't change the facts. no matter how much i dislike the way he does his biz he's still boss and the scriptures say what they say.

...hrm.. There's just not much scripture to back up Calvinism. I've already pointed to a couple which refute it completely. It's not about what i like or don't like - it's about who God is. God IS love. Christians can agree.

Love is NOT compatible with forced-acceptance. That has nothing to do with me or you or God even - It's a simple, absolute truth. Nobody - not even God can FORCE somebody to love them. Calvinism teaches God compels those He decides 'may' or 'will' accept Him. Because God IS love, and Love does not force itself upon others - Calvinism is anti-Love, therefore not compatible with God.

Calvinism is false by the scriptures i've shown, and by who God is.

[Missileman]

Christians can agree.


Apparently not...:laugh2:

[Noir]

I would consider them wrong, but not necessarily a crack pot.
I think the actress Shirley McClain is kind of a crack pot who believe in Crystal power but not everyone who believes in Crystals or the new age religions are crack pots most are just mistaken average folks.

Well there you are, you believe that other people are wrong (and in some case crack pots) because their religion (based on faith in the ommision of proof) does jot agree with your religion (based on faith in the ommission of proof)
However, if someone says 'the sun revolves around the earth' we know they are a crackpop/ignorent because by using science we can prove them wrong. This is a difference between science and relgion.

(but again I sate we can only know they are wrong within our own undertsanding, which we must take as a given as we can only understand what is in essence understandable. Reminds me of a quote (possibly by B. Russel), is the universe queerer than we suppose or queerer than we can suppose? However that is a very deep philosophical question and as such has no place in this topic.)

[darin]

Apparently not...:laugh2:

lol! Touche!

[revelarts]

Well there you are, you believe that other people are wrong (and in some case crack pots) because their religion (based on faith in the ommision of proof) does jot agree with your religion (based on faith in the ommission of proof)
However, if someone says 'the sun revolves around the earth' we know they are a crackpop/ignorent because by using science we can prove them wrong. This is a difference between science and relgion.

(but again I sate we can only know they are wrong within our own undertsanding, which we must take as a given as we can only understand what is in essence understandable. Reminds me of a quote (possibly by B. Russel), is the universe queerer than we suppose or queerer than we can suppose? However that is a very deep philosophical question and as such has no place in this topic.)

let me be clear, being wrong and being a crack pot are 2 totally separate things. At least in my thinking. And we got here because you made the claim that science was so superior to religion because it is open to questioning, but in a real world practical sense you know science is not.


"Based on Faith and the Ommission of proof" Um ... I think you added that part.
I'm not sure you will not accept evidence that substantiates religion because it's "religion". I could give you plenty of historical, medical and deductive evidences but your not really an unbiased seeker. seems You've made up your mind. If someone prayed for a person to rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus in front you and they did rise, I suspect you'd give it a scientific explanation and if none where available you'd leave it open for further scientific inquiry.

Sure my position admits to the idea of some people being wrong or right. But it's open to conversation "come let us reason together says the Lord" "the Brearans where more NOBLE" because the studied the scriptures to see if the things that Paul spoke of were so. I can debate a mormon about facts of there historical records, or J. Wittnesses about there fail prophesies, on a factual basis as well as the origin of there holy books. The fact may convince them maybe not but it doesn't make them crazy. Human beings have lots of motivations and triggers, Facts sadly aren't the only ones or the highest on the list.

But you say you can NEVER be sure..... BUT where current science says so, your not allowed to says science is wrong on certain points, but if you do your an idiot crack pot. Sounds like a bad religion with a changing scriptures to me.

At least my position gives people dignity to be wrong but not necessarily stupid or nuts. Yours makes people wrong, idiots and nigh on crazy if you don't believe the current "level of understanding" scientific position.

[SassyLady]

is this your question?


we don't set the limits.....we don't get to choose what brings about salvation....if God has told us that believing in Jesus Christ is necessary to be saved, what right to we have to say this is too limiting, that we should have other choices?.....


...if they have never read the Bible because they have chosen not to read the Bible then yes they have rejected God and his grace.....if they have never read the Bible because they live somewhere where they have been prevented from reading the Bible, then I expect he will work it out another way.....

obviously he has made no choices....he has not rejected God....

I totally disagree. Rejecting the Bible is not rejecting God. It is only rejecting a group of people's ideas about God.


instead of trying to play this as an injustice against third world tribes and six month old infants, please recognize you're just trying to justify the rejection of God by people who do have the knowledge and have made their choices.....you're criticizing me because I say God won't let people into heaven who HAVE rejected his existence......why should someone who refuses to believe he IS think it's wrong that they aren't included?......

I disagree with you because these are the premises upon which I base my belief system:


Nine New Revelations
The new revelations are contained in a series of nine statements that the book offers for readers to consider as they explore the possibility of changing their present beliefs about God and about Life.

These nine statements are:

1) God has never stopped communicating directly with human beings. God has been communicating with and through human beings from the beginning of time. God does so today.

2) Every human being is as special as every other human being who has ever lived, lives now, or ever will live. You are all messengers. Every one of you. You are carrying a message to life about life every day. Every hour. Every moment.

3) No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the “one true religion”, no people are “the chosen people”, and no prophet is the “greatest prophet.”

4) God needs nothing. God requires nothing in order to be happy. God is happiness itself. Therefore, God requires nothing of anyone or anything in the universe.

5) God is not a singular Super Being, living somewhere in the Universe or outside of it, having the same emotional needs and subject to the same emotional turmoil as humans. That Which Is God cannot be hurt or damaged in any way, and so, has no need to seek revenge or impose punishment.

6) All things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing That Is.

7) There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. There is only What Works and What Does Not Work, depending upon what it is that you seek to be, do or have.

8) You are not your body. Who you are is limitless and without end.

9) You cannot die, and you will never be condemned to eternal damnation.

From "The New Revelations" by Neale Donald Walsh, author of Conversations with God

[PostmodernProphet]

Because of the way you deal with people - even other Christians - is not showing the love of God, so it makes me doubt you know it yourself.

One can't show God's love when they themselves have never experienced it.

???....is there something in this thread that leads you to this conclusion......is it wrong to correct errors?......have I not demonstrated that what I have said is true, using linked sources?.....


I totally disagree. Rejecting the Bible is not rejecting God. It is only rejecting a group of people's ideas about God.
obviously, refusing to read about the God described in the bible is a rejection of the God described in the bible....you would therefore be considering only another group of people, or your own, ideas about God.....my own gut reaction is that a God capable of creating the universe would be capable of assuring that the Bible contained what he wanted it to......



I disagree with you because these are the premises upon which I base my belief system:
Do you believe that God will accept those who refuse to believe he exists?......


There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. There is only What Works and What Does Not Work, depending upon what it is that you seek to be, do or have.
Did Auschwitz "work"?........

[-Cp]

???....is there something in this thread that leads you to this conclusion......


Yes.. there is..... this little chestnut of "love":


.and when you get to the point where you tell me to stop calling myself a Christian, then I get to the point of telling you to fuck off.....I'll stick to debating with the rational posters....

[BoogyMan]

The over-reaction is yours...trying to equate science with Christianity. What specific branch of science is it you have a problem with btw? Are you accusing chemists of worshipping the elements? Maybe botanists are actually secretly worshipping the dandelion. :laugh2:

As I said...you're terrified.

I am? Wow, no clue I was terrified. I use scientific methodologies on a daily basis to do my work, and yet, here I am defending religion.

What I am equating is your FAITH in science as the answer to all things. There is a difference

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes.. there is..... this little chestnut of "love":

lol....so I haven't experienced God's love unless I embrace those who tell me I'm not fit to call myself a Christian?......

[Missileman]

I am? Wow, no clue I was terrified. I use scientific methodologies on a daily basis to do my work, and yet, here I am defending religion.

What I am equating is your FAITH in science as the answer to all things. There is a difference

As I've said, and you've argued against, faith is belief where no evidence exists. My belief in scientific principles is not a matter of faith. Science has yet to, and maybe it never will derive the answers to everything. That isn't a license to insert child-like, weak-minded superstition as a substitute for "we don't know".

[BoogyMan]

As I've said, and you've argued against, faith is belief where no evidence exists. My belief in scientific principles is not a matter of faith. Science has yet to, and maybe it never will derive the answers to everything. That isn't a license to insert child-like, weak-minded superstition as a substitute for "we don't know".

But your use of, how did you phrase it, "child-like, weak-minded superstition" is fine eh? Most of the scientific community today seems ill content to claim "we don't know." Consider the falsification of the peer review process in the climate change debacle as an excellent example of this.

I see the hypocriticality of your position and it amuses me.

[Missileman]

But your use of, how did you phrase it, "child-like, weak-minded superstition" is fine eh? Most of the scientific community today seems ill content to claim "we don't know." Consider the falsification of the peer review process in the climate change debacle as an excellent example of this.

I see the hypocriticality of your position and it amuses me.

You keep calling me a hypocrite when I've made no statement to justify it...are you hoping if you say it often enough it will become true?

[-Cp]

lol....so I haven't experienced God's love unless I embrace those who tell me I'm not fit to call myself a Christian?......

Did Christ not embrace EVERYONE? Even those who killed him? How can you call yourself a "christian" (Christ-like) if you don't show love those whom you even despise?

[SassyLady]

???...
obviously, refusing to read about the God described in the bible is a rejection of the God described in the bible....you would therefore be considering only another group of people, or your own, ideas about God.....my own gut reaction is that a God capable of creating the universe would be capable of assuring that the Bible contained what he wanted it to......

That would be like me saying that if you refuse to read Conversations With God, then you are refusing to accept God.....because I am sure that he is also capable of making sure it contains what he wants it to be. So, if one reads it, and not the Bible, and accepts what CWG has to say about God, then your premise of accepting God is valid, even though the individual might have never read the Bible....correct??



Do you believe that God will accept those who refuse to believe he exists?......

Yes .... because God has never rejected them to begin with, therefore, there is no rejection.



Did Auschwitz "work"?........

In whose eyes? For a time it was working for some people and not working for others .... eventually it was eradicated and the majority of the world would say it didn't work, which is why it is no longer in existence. What is your point?

Does always turning the other cheek "work", or does it sometimes lead to demise of the human body, even though it is considered a good thing to do? Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

[BoogyMan]

Did Christ not embrace EVERYONE? Even those who killed him? How can you call yourself a "christian" (Christ-like) if you don't show love those whom you even despise?

Christ accepted those who came to Him on His terms, not their own. Big difference.

[darin]

Christ accepted those who came to Him on His terms, not their own. Big difference.

Point of order...Christ embraced those before they made even ONE STEP towards him. Christ threw his love towards people...without any demands.

[-Cp]

Christ accepted those who came to Him on His terms, not their own. Big difference.

Really? Can you please give me some examples of that in scripture?

[BoogyMan]

Really? Can you please give me some examples of that in scripture?

Certainly. I would recommend that you read the book of Acts in the New Testament and consider the cases of conversion listed there.

Those on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had to change.
Those in Samaria in Acts 8 had to change.
The Eunuch in Acts 8 had to change.
Saul in Acts 9 had to change.
Cornelius in Acts 10 had to change.

You could also read about Lydia (Acts 16) and the Jailor (Acts 6) and those in Corinth (Acts 18), etc.

Christ NEVER told anyone that they could simply stay in sin and be acceptable to Him.

[-Cp]

Certainly. I would recommend that you read the book of Acts in the New Testament and consider the cases of conversion listed there.

Those on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had to change.
Those in Samaria in Acts 8 had to change.
The Eunuch in Acts 8 had to change.
Saul in Acts 9 had to change.
Cornelius in Acts 10 had to change.

You could also read about Lydia (Acts 16) and the Jailor (Acts 6) and those in Corinth (Acts 18), etc.

Christ NEVER told anyone that they could simply stay in sin and be acceptable to Him.

We're not talking about sin or not.. we're talking about Christ showing love to everyone..

[BoogyMan]

We're not talking about sin or not.. we're talking about Christ showing love to everyone..

We were talking about Christ accepting people. Acceptance is found in salvation which is on Christ's terms, not the terms of man.

[-Cp]

We were talking about Christ accepting people. Acceptance is found in salvation which is on Christ's terms, not the terms of man.

Sorry.. this is what sux about having discussions via text...

This started off talking about PmP's lack of loving spiriting coming thru in some of his posts.

I contend that if we claim to KNOW LOVE (God) - then that love will ooze out of us and not be telling folks to "f-off" etc.. You know.. talking to people the way Christ would..

[Abbey Marie]

Point of order...Christ embraced those before they made even ONE STEP towards him. Christ threw his love towards people...without any demands.

I just had to say, I love this turn of phrase. :clap:

[BoogyMan]

Sorry.. this is what sux about having discussions via text...

This started off talking about PmP's lack of loving spiriting coming thru in some of his posts.

I contend that if we claim to KNOW LOVE (God) - then that love will ooze out of us and not be telling folks to "f-off" etc.. You know.. talking to people the way Christ would..

I have never said any such thing?!?! Are you claiming that I have?

Which love are you speaking of in the New Testament, there are several kinds.


Point of order...Christ embraced those before they made even ONE STEP towards him. Christ threw his love towards people...without any demands.

Christ gave himself up for Man as was the plan of His Father, that does not mean that man does not have a part to play as well. Salvation isn't like a disease, you don't catch it and you don't get it on you like a stain. You have to want it.

[darin]

Christ went to people in their condition and showed them Love. (note the period). That's the beauty of who He is...and the ultimate illustration of His plan. Our part? Accept his Love.

Adding stipulations to it just cheapens things.

[BoogyMan]

Christ went to people in their condition and showed them Love. (note the period). That's the beauty of who He is...and the ultimate illustration of His plan. Our part? Accept his Love.

Adding stipulations to it just cheapens things.

Christ showed his love for a reason. That is to make a way of salvation for man. There is no addition being made, just a repeating of what the Bible already teaches.

Man is not saved against his will, he has to desire salvation.

[SassyLady]

Christ went to people in their condition and showed them Love. (note the period). That's the beauty of who He is...and the ultimate illustration of His plan. Our part? Accept his Love.

Adding stipulations to it just cheapens things.

Very well said dmp!

[PostmodernProphet]

Did Christ not embrace EVERYONE? Even those who killed him? How can you call yourself a "christian" (Christ-like) if you don't show love those whom you even despise?

no....I distinctly remember him telling the disciples that when they found a place where they were rejected they were to wipe the dust from their feet and leave.....he didn't embrace those who refused him.....as for calling myself a Christian, I do so because I believe in Jesus as the Christ.....if those who sin cannot be called Christians, there are no Christians in the world.....


That would be like me saying that if you refuse to read Conversations With God, then you are refusing to accept God....
I would certainly be rejecting the God described in Conversations With God if I refused to read about him.....I wouldn't (and don't) know who he is.....how could I be said to accept him?.....



Yes .... because God has never rejected them to begin with, therefore, there is no rejection.
that may be true about the God described in CWG.....it is not true about the God described in the Bible....that God has stated the only way to him is through Jesus Christ....thus it would appear he rejects those who choose to make their own pathway that doesn't include Jesus Christ...



In whose eyes? For a time it was working for some people and not working for others .... eventually it was eradicated and the majority of the world would say it didn't work, which is why it is no longer in existence. What is your point?
the point should be obvious.....Auschwitz was immoral, yet it accomplished exactly what the people who built it, built it for....it "worked", by your definition, it was moral....


Does always turning the other cheek "work", or does it sometimes lead to demise of the human body, even though it is considered a good thing to do? Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
if the obverse of your statement is true then that which didn't work would be immoral.....if turning the other cheek doesn't work, it would be immoral?.....

[SassyLady]

I would certainly be rejecting the God described in Conversations With God if I refused to read about him.....I wouldn't (and don't) know who he is.....how could I be said to accept him?.....

Perhaps you should read the book..just as you would like others to read the Bible.



that may be true about the God described in CWG.....it is not true about the God described in the Bible....that God has stated the only way to him is through Jesus Christ....thus it would appear he rejects those who choose to make their own pathway that doesn't include Jesus Christ...

Yes ... this is what a very human person said that God said --- maybe he heard wrong? All I know is that I was taught from the Bible and I read CWG and I intuitively believe CWG .... hard to explain .... other than it just feels right that the creator loves all of us.



the point should be obvious.....Auschwitz was immoral, yet it accomplished exactly what the people who built it, built it for....it "worked", by your definition, it was moral....

Nope .... never said it was moral .... this is what I referenced:

"There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. There is only What Works and What Does Not Work, depending upon what it is that you seek to be, do or have."


if the obverse of your statement is true then that which didn't work would be immoral.....if turning the other cheek doesn't work, it would be immoral?.....

No; turning your cheek either "Works or Doesn't Work" - depending upon what one is seeking.

[PostmodernProphet]

other than it just feels right that the creator loves all of us.

/shrugs, and it feels wrong that some of us don't love the creator....




"There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. There is only What Works and What Does Not Work, depending upon what it is that you seek to be, do or have."

perhaps I made an assumption......does "what works" equal right and "what does not work" equal wrong?.....if so, then from what you have said, killing people in mass at Auschwitz was "right", because that was what Hitler sought to do.....

look, I'm not trying to make you look like a Nazi, I'm trying to show you why your definition sucks.......

[SassyLady]

perhaps I made an assumption......does "what works" equal right and "what does not work" equal wrong?.....if so, then from what you have said, killing people in mass at Auschwitz was "right", because that was what Hitler sought to do.....

look, I'm not trying to make you look like a Nazi, I'm trying to show you why your definition sucks.......

It may suck, but it is true..........things work for some and not for others. What works for some (right) doesn't work for others (wrong).....so according to the God of CWG - there is no right or wrong .....just humans trying to work out for themselves what works and what doesn't.

For some turning their cheek works and for others it doesn't work......do we classify "turning your cheek" as right or wrong? Is it right all the time or just when it works? What about the time one turns their cheek and are killed anyway .... were they right or wrong .......... because it didn't work.

Nothing equals right or wrong - there is only what works and what doesn't work. Takes the charge of judgement off the action.....and allows the action to be defined as an action that is furthering the cause or hindering it. Not using the words, right/wrong, moral/immoral takes the emotional charge away and gives a chance to look at the action itself to see if it is gaining the desired results.


/shrugs, and it feels wrong that some of us don't love the creator....

That is true - some don't love the creator but the creator is not vindictive or vengeful and doesn't need our love to be complete or to love us. It truly is unconditional love.

[BoogyMan]

That is true - some don't love the creator but the creator is not vindictive or vengeful and doesn't need our love to be complete or to love us. It truly is unconditional love.

God loves all, but He expects us to come to Him on His terms, not our own.


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Man has something to do in the scenario above, "come to repentance."

I would not speak to freely about God not being vengeful either, as He has a righteous vengeance on those who deny Him.


For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

[SassyLady]

God loves all, but He expects us to come to Him on His terms, not our own.
According to your belief system. In mine I have always been with God and there is no "come to him on his terms".



I would not speak to freely about God not being vengeful either, as He has a righteous vengeance on those who deny Him.

Once again this is what you've been taught and believe. I choose to not believe it.

Which of us do you think goes through their day happier and more relaxed....you, who fears upsetting God or me, who knows that my God realizes we all make mistakens and loves me anyway.

Directions to San Jose as Metaphor for finding way to God.

A woman once asked God how to get to San Jose and he showed her a couple of ways to get from here to there. When asked what would happen if jshe took the first way he said there will be many traffic problems and delays. And the second way? No traffic but twice as long and you will have to leave early and spend most of the day getting there. Either way, you will get there. It is your choice. She knew she wanted to get to San Jose and made the choice about what she was willing to experience on the way. But who really cares which way she went other than her. Why is it our duty to convince her that one way is better than the other?

Coming to terms with God is like getting to San Jose. There are different ways and it is our choice how to get there as long as we stay on track to where we know we want to be. And, I'm sure there'll be people on the way that only heard God telling us how to use the first route and what we would have to deal with to get there...(my scriptures vs your scriptures, etc.) .....and there are people who heard the second way and think it would be stupid for anyone to pass up the relaxation just in order to get there earlier. Neither way is incorrect....it's just what kind of journey do you want for yourself on the way.

[BoogyMan]

According to your belief system. In mine I have always been with God and there is no "come to him on his terms".




Once again this is what you've been taught and believe. I choose to not believe it.

Which of us do you think goes through their day happier and more relaxed....you, who fears upsetting God or me, who knows that my God realizes we all make mistakens and loves me anyway.

Directions to San Jose as Metaphor for finding way to God.

A woman once asked God how to get to San Jose and he showed her a couple of ways to get from here to there. When asked what would happen if jshe took the first way he said there will be many traffic problems and delays. And the second way? No traffic but twice as long and you will have to leave early and spend most of the day getting there. Either way, you will get there. It is your choice. She knew she wanted to get to San Jose and made the choice about what she was willing to experience on the way. But who really cares which way she went other than her. Why is it our duty to convince her that one way is better than the other?

Coming to terms with God is like getting to San Jose. There are different ways and it is our choice how to get there as long as we stay on track to where we know we want to be. And, I'm sure there'll be people on the way that only heard God telling us how to use the first route and what we would have to deal with to get there...(my scriptures vs your scriptures, etc.) .....and there are people who heard the second way and think it would be stupid for anyone to pass up the relaxation just in order to get there earlier. Neither way is incorrect....it's just what kind of journey do you want for yourself on the way.

Kind lady, you are not arguing with me, you are denying scripture and therefore your argument is with God, not me.

John 14:6 points out the fact that there is but one way, truth, and life, and that no-one comes to the father except through Christ. I would also ask you to consider what proverbs 1:7 has to say about the fear of the lord.

[darin]

Christ showed his love for a reason. That is to make a way of salvation for man. There is no addition being made, just a repeating of what the Bible already teaches.

Man is not saved against his will, he has to desire salvation.

Christ 'saved' people long before the Bible was written. He left countless to their own devices in terms of 'growing' as a Christian. I'd doubt any of Christ's disciples had access to scripture other than the OT. My point is - When Christ healed somebody's heart - he gave them no instruction on behavior except something like "...and cut that shit out."

There's a solid argument made saying just as I had no real say in the sin Adam and Eve brought to my human nature - I had no choice - Christ served as the substitutional atonement regardless if I desire it or not.

Fodder for a different thread I suppose.

[BoogyMan]

Christ 'saved' people long before the Bible was written. He left countless to their own devices in terms of 'growing' as a Christian. I'd doubt any of Christ's disciples had access to scripture other than the OT. My point is - When Christ healed somebody's heart - he gave them no instruction on behavior except something like "...and cut that shit out."

There's a solid argument made saying just as I had no real say in the sin Adam and Eve brought to my human nature - I had no choice - Christ served as the substitutional atonement regardless if I desire it or not.

Fodder for a different thread I suppose.

I would enjoy that discussion as I completely disagree that man has a sinful nature, especially in light of the fact that God looked at what he created and called it good.

[PostmodernProphet]

That is true - some don't love the creator but the creator is not vindictive or vengeful and doesn't need our love to be complete or to love us. It truly is unconditional love.

the way I figure, there is a God described in the Bible who has been quite specific about what he expects of us.....I figure it makes sense that if you want to be in the paradise described by the God in the Bible then you have to do what he expects......if you want to make your own path to a God who isn't described in the Bible, then you either have to take your chances that he has a "heaven" too or make your own, along with the path....


It may suck, but it is true....

only if you buy into "might makes right"....


- I had no choice - Christ served as the substitutional atonement regardless if I desire it or not.



you can refuse the substitutional atonement.....it's what every person who states "I do not believe in Christ" does.....

[SassyLady]

Kind lady, you are not arguing with me, you are denying scripture and therefore your argument is with God, not me.

John 14:6 points out the fact that there is but one way, truth, and life, and that no-one comes to the father except through Christ. I would also ask you to consider what proverbs 1:7 has to say about the fear of the lord.

Kind gentleman .... you are right....I am not arguing with you. I am stating what my belief system is (based upon my readings) and you are stating what your belief system is (based upon your readings).

However, I find it interesting that when talking about belief systems you always revert to quoting "scripture" from a book that was written by men ages ago.....as if it's the only time God has ever communicated with man, and yet you dismiss the same premise when I use it.

I have no argument with God .... he spoke with the people you choose to believe and he spoke to the people I choose to believe. He told you what you need to hear and he has told me what I need to hear.

Who cares how we get to San Jose, as long as we both get there?

[revelarts]

Kind gentleman .... you are right....I am not arguing with you. I am stating what my belief system is (based upon my readings) and you are stating what your belief system is (based upon your readings).

However, I find it interesting that when talking about belief systems you always revert to quoting "scripture" from a book that was written by men ages ago.....as if it's the only time God has ever communicated with man, and yet you dismiss the same premise when I use it.

I have no argument with God .... he spoke with the people you choose to believe and he spoke to the people I choose to believe. He told you what you need to hear and he has told me what I need to hear.

Who cares how we get to San Jose, as long as we both get there?


I take it you have some regard for the words of Jesus. I'd be very careful before i decided that other teachers word superseded his.
He said:
Matthew 7:13-15
You enter in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in that way:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[SassyLady]

the way I figure, there is a God described in the Bible who has been quite specific about what he expects of us.....I figure it makes sense that if you want to be in the paradise described by the God in the Bible then you have to do what he expects......if you want to make your own path to a God who isn't described in the Bible, then you either have to take your chances that he has a "heaven" too or make your own, along with the path....


Bingo!!


As for an alternate heaven .... remember, I don't believe in heaven or hell nor do I believe God is as described in the Bible. I guess I've read too many other sources to believe the Bible is the be all/end all regarding God.

[SassyLady]

I take it you have some regard for the words of Jesus. I'd be very careful before i decided that other teachers word superseded his.


I regard the words written in the Bible the same as I do words written anywhere. Do the words resonate with me or not? If they do then I put more emphasis on them than others. The words of the Bible do not resonate with me as much as words from other sources.

Here is an example of what resonates with me:


New Revelation #3 says "No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the one true religion. No people are the chosen people and no prophet is the greatest prophet." Now what would happen in the world today if the world simply embraced that new notion and nothing else new, just that one? If we just simply embraced that one as the one new concept that we chose to add to our old religions it would open the way for each of us to express and to experience our own religion as fully as we are today but simply stop us from making each other wrong and condemning each other for not doing their religion the same way we do ours.

http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/cwg/cwggodsaveme.htm

[-Cp]

you can refuse the substitutional atonement.....it's what every person who states "I do not believe in Christ" does.....

So by that logic, then even demons are saved, right? I mean, after all, they "Believe in Him and tremble"..

[darin]

I take it you have some regard for the words of Jesus. I'd be very careful before i decided that other teachers word superseded his.
He said:
Matthew 7:13-15
You enter in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in that way:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I know folk who throw out that scripture against anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I think it's healthy to think on a few things:

1) Is our love for the Bible limiting what God can do? (Id est, Is God BIGGER than the Bible or the other way around?)
2) Did the early church suffer by not having a Bible?
3) Did early Christians fail to "grow in Christ" without a Bible?
4) Did the early church, without a Bible, have it MORE or LESS right than the mega-church organizations we have today?

[bullypulpit]

<center><h1>BRRRRRRAAAAAAP!</h1></center>

[bullypulpit]

<center><img src=http://forcomradesandlovers.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/calvin.jpg?w=300&h=225</center>

<center><h1>ALL CAVINISTS WILL BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP THE GREAT AND MIGHTY CALVIN IF THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM!</h1></center>

[bullypulpit]

the way I figure, there is a God described in the Bible who has been quite specific about what he expects of us.....I figure it makes sense that if you want to be in the paradise described by the God in the Bible then you have to do what he expects......if you want to make your own path to a God who isn't described in the Bible, then you either have to take your chances that he has a "heaven" too or make your own, along with the path....

Ummm...How did God make his wishes known and to whom did (s)he make these wishes known?

[PostmodernProphet]

So by that logic, then even demons are saved, right? I mean, after all, they "Believe in Him and tremble"..

no, believing he exists and believing in him as your savior are distinguishable....

[PostmodernProphet]

Ummm...How did God make his wishes known and to whom did (s)he make these wishes known?

did you somehow miss this part of what you quoted from my post?......


there is a God described in the Bible

[darin]

no, believing he exists and believing in him as your savior are distinguishable....


Now you're qualifying things again. Is believing in Christ enough to be "saved", yes or no? You're saying 'no'. You're saying one must 'believe in Him as one's saviour" to be "saved"...yet infants or the mentally-challenged cannot; are they "saved"?

Have you considered maybe you aren't one of those whom christ has already chosen, despite your religion?

[revelarts]

I know folk who throw out that scripture against anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I think it's healthy to think on a few things:

1) Is our love for the Bible limiting what God can do? (Id est, Is God BIGGER than the Bible or the other way around?)
2) Did the early church suffer by not having a Bible?
3) Did early Christians fail to "grow in Christ" without a Bible?
4) Did the early church, without a Bible, have it MORE or LESS right than the mega-church organizations we have today?

Ummm,
so what do you think Jesus's words mean here?

Those are interesting questions you've posed but I don't see how they have a bearing on the content and meaning of what Jesus was saying.

I think your 1st question is the trickiest. Who/whats "bigger".

Well we would not know with clarity and collectively what God thought on many issues without it, we'd have to depend on , like some here , our feelings or better, the Holy Spirit more. But Another question is did God and Jesus mean what they said in the scriptures? Sure God is "bigger" than his word. But when he gives his word his word are binding and true. And Bigger than our opinions, feelings. His words are the Supreme judge of all faith and practice.


I regard the words written in the Bible the same as I do words written anywhere. Do the words resonate with me or not? If they do then I put more emphasis on them than others. The words of the Bible do not resonate with me as much as words from other sources.

Here is an example of what resonates with me:



http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/cwg/cwggodsaveme.htm

So it doesn't matter if it's true or false its more important to you that it "resonates"?
Is it possible that, from time to time we might only resonate with what we like and not whats true or false?
Is there any other way to test the claims made by any spiritual teacher?
here's a very important question, In your understanding, are there some spiritual forces that lie, or don't have humanity good at heart at all? How can you tell?


I know folk who throw out that scripture against anyone who doesn't agree with them.


Sadly folks can take the verses to do just that, but in some context it does apply with all the meaning and force Jesus seems to imply wouldn't you say.
I don't think I've miss used it in response to mrskurtsprincess's position.





....
2) Did the early church suffer by not having a Bible?
3) Did early Christians fail to "grow in Christ" without a Bible?
4) Did the early church, without a Bible, have it MORE or LESS right than the mega-church organizations we have today?


It's interesting that your other questions have to do with what Christians did/do without a Bible but at this point in time we do have a bible so the question becomes what are we doing WITH a Bible. Do we ignore it where it's clear for some unknown understanding of the early Christians, which all of the books of the new testaments where sent out to teach: Ephesians, Corinth, Rome etc..
Your question seems to imply that the answer is they were better off or as well off without a Bible, but I think the many times Paul, Peter and the other New testament writers wrote words like these
..For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits...Romans 11:25

shows that the earlier church had lack of information that could help them in there understanding of the ways of God (if not their walk with Him) that we do have some portion of extra clarity today by the blessing of the Bible.

[Abbey Marie]

I know folk who throw out that scripture against anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I think it's healthy to think on a few things:

1) Is our love for the Bible limiting what God can do? (Id est, Is God BIGGER than the Bible or the other way around?)
2) Did the early church suffer by not having a Bible?
3) Did early Christians fail to "grow in Christ" without a Bible?
4) Did the early church, without a Bible, have it MORE or LESS right than the mega-church organizations we have today?

This is akin to asking if late 17th Century and early 18th Century Americans suffered, or, had it more-or-less right, without witnessed stories and historical texts about the American Revolution. Those who witnessed the actual events or at least lived close enough to hear 1st hand accounts, would of course not need texts about the Revolution to experience the full story. But all who come after certainly benefit tremendously from them. It is the one sure-fire way of insuring that the most people possible can read the true accounts of what happened. Playing "Whisper Down the Lane" just once, shows us how unreliable word of mouth is.

As for the OT, Jesus Himself referred to it. He obviously believed it. For my money, the fact that the OT many times prophesied Jesus' future arrival as a Savior, alone makes it worthy of our attention and respect.

[BoogyMan]

This is akin to asking if late 17th Century and early 18th Century Americans suffered, or, had it more-or-less right, without witnessed stories and historical texts about the American Revolution. Those who witnessed the actual events or at least lived close enough to hear 1st hand accounts, would of course not need texts about the Revolution to experience the full story. But all who come after certainly benefit tremendously from them. It is the one sure-fire way of insuring that the most people possible can read the true accounts of what happened. Playing "Whisper Down the Lane" just once, shows us how unreliable word of mouth is.

As for the OT, Jesus Himself referred to it. He obviously believed it. For my money, the fact that the OT many times prophesied Jesus' future arrival as a Savior, alone makes it worthy of our attention and respect.


19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The law had a purpose and that was to bring us to the system of faith laid out in the New Testament. :)

[revelarts]

The law had a purpose and that was to bring us to the system of faith laid out in the New Testament. :)

Also penned by Paul:
2 Timothy 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[BoogyMan]

Also penned by Paul:
2 Timothy 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

You will notice that Paul is not teaching adherance to OT law, he understands that man is no longer under the schoolmaster of the old law.

[SassyLady]

So it doesn't matter if it's true or false its more important to you that it "resonates"?

True or False by whose belief system? Yours? Calvins? The authors of the scriptures? How do I know them to be either true or false? By listening to my own higher power and trusting it.

How have you determined what is true or false to you? Have you ventured out into the world of different belief systems to see how they make you feel? If you have then you know in your heart what is true and false. If you have not, and are just depending upon one line of spiritual thinking, how do you know that you have the ability to discern what is true or false. Are you making those decisions yourself or are you making them because this is how you've been taught to do it?



Is it possible that, from time to time we might only resonate with what we like and not whats true or false?

Possible - if one only tested the theory once or twice. But when researching and testing for almost 60 years on how I respond to truth and lies, I have become quite a master at listening to my inner truth. And frankly, there are too many inconsistencies in the Bible for me to find a consisent truth.



Is there any other way to test the claims made by any spiritual teacher?
here's a very important question, In your understanding, are there some spiritual forces that lie, or don't have humanity good at heart at all? How can you tell?

This is a good question. I believe that if one surrounds themselves with negative energy they will attract negative energy (spiritual forces that lie). I choose to focus on the positive aspects of spirituality and thus far have not come across a spiritual force that does not have the good of humanity at the heart of their teachings.

Resonating to a spiritual vibrational level when presented with scripture, whether it is ancient or modern is the key. Some will resonate with the Bible and some won't. This does not mean they haven't heard the same thing from a different source. The Bible seems to work for you or you wouldn't use it to validate your belief system. The Bible does not resonate with me, therefore, I do not use it to validate my belief system.

That is the basis for my part of the discussion here. Just that there are many ways to know God - not just the ancient ways.

[Abbey Marie]

You will notice that Paul is not teaching adherance to OT law, he understands that man is no longer under the schoolmaster of the old law.

I think most Christians agree on that point. Let us not forget, though, that there are parts of the OT that have nothing to do with "the law". Such as that which I had mentioned- the prophecies of Jesus' coming. That was all I was referring to in my post.

[PostmodernProphet]

Now you're qualifying things again. Is believing in Christ enough to be "saved", yes or no? You're saying 'no'. You're saying one must 'believe in Him as one's saviour" to be "saved"...yet infants or the mentally-challenged cannot; are they "saved"?

Have you considered maybe you aren't one of those whom christ has already chosen, despite your religion?

are you simply trying to pick a fight?.....are you really quibbling about what I said?.....I think you and everyone else here knows what I mean.....no, I don't think demons are saved simply because they believe (are aware) that Jesus Christ exists.....

[Abbey Marie]

Now you're qualifying things again. Is believing in Christ enough to be "saved", yes or no? You're saying 'no'. You're saying one must 'believe in Him as one's saviour" to be "saved"...yet infants or the mentally-challenged cannot; are they "saved"?

Have you considered maybe you aren't one of those whom christ has already chosen, despite your religion?

I think these are two different things and common sense applies. Those who have the capacity to understand should naturally be held to a higher standard than those who do not- infants and those who are mentally deficient.

[BoogyMan]

I think most Christians agree on that point. Let us not forget, though, that there are parts of the OT that have nothing to do with "the law". Such as that which I had mentioned- the prophecies of Jesus' coming. That was all I was referring to in my post.

Very true, but the important part is that you see the distinction, many do not.

[Abbey Marie]

Very true, but the important part is that you see the distinction, many do not.

That's true.

Does anyone know if Muslims debate the Koran as much as we do the Bible? I would challenge anyone who thinks Christians follow their religion blindly, to think about threads such as these. :)

[darin]

are you simply trying to pick a fight?.....are you really quibbling about what I said?.....I think you and everyone else here knows what I mean.....no, I don't think demons are saved simply because they believe (are aware) that Jesus Christ exists.....

The problem is - you get pretty bitchy. I want to understand your point of view so I am going by-the-numbers and asking you specifics about your brand of faith.

Because you know belief in christ's existance isn't enough -nor belief in his purpose enough - would you allow there are means beyond the Bible by which Christ "saves" people?

[-Cp]

no, believing he exists and believing in him as your savior are distinguishable....

They are?

"All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"....

Where does the Bible state that you must "believe in Him as your savior" in order to be saved?

Did the thief on the cross say "Hey dude, I believe in you as my savior!"? No, in fact, he never did ask for forgiveness or anything... he just said "Hey man, when you come into your kingdom, can you please remember me"?

[darin]

This is akin to asking if late 17th Century and early 18th Century Americans suffered, or, had it more-or-less right, without witnessed stories and historical texts about the American Revolution. Those who witnessed the actual events or at least lived close enough to hear 1st hand accounts, would of course not need texts about the Revolution to experience the full story. But all who come after certainly benefit tremendously from them. It is the one sure-fire way of insuring that the most people possible can read the true accounts of what happened. Playing "Whisper Down the Lane" just once, shows us how unreliable word of mouth is.

As for the OT, Jesus Himself referred to it. He obviously believed it. For my money, the fact that the OT many times prophesied Jesus' future arrival as a Savior, alone makes it worthy of our attention and respect.

It's very good to study and know the Bible. It's bad to worship the Bible. It's terrible to quote scripture without context.

I'm trying to reach agreement on one principle: God doesn't need the Bible - or what's contained therein - to act. As an aside, it'd be nice for folk to understand He isn't regulated to our interpretation of what 'saved' means, either.

[PostmodernProphet]

Because you know belief in christ's existance isn't enough -nor belief in his purpose enough - would you allow there are means beyond the Bible by which Christ "saves" people?
I would say that people who have knowledge of the choices described in the Bible do NOT have an alternate method available for attaining salvation....I believe that God will make an alternate method available for those who have not had an opportunity to gain knowledge of those choices, either because they have never been exposed to them or could never be exposed to them....


The problem is - you get pretty bitchy.

considering some of the things you've said to me this week, what do you expect?....



"All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"....

Where does the Bible state that you must "believe in Him as your savior" in order to be saved?

John 3 comes to mind...
look, the Devil is aware that Jesus is who he says he is.....are you going to argue that the Devil is saved because of that knowledge?


As an aside, it'd be nice for folk to understand He isn't regulated to our interpretation of what 'saved' means, either.

isn't saying there is more than one path to God exactly that?...attempting to bind God to YOUR interpretation of 'saved'?......what's your argument going to be on judgment day?...."Here's the way it is, God...... I decided in order to be saved I needed to eat a quart of vanilla ice cream every day....I did it, now you do your part!"........

[darin]

I would say that people who have knowledge of the choices described in the Bible do NOT have an alternate method available for attaining salvation....I believe that God will make an alternate method available for those who have not had an opportunity to gain knowledge of those choices, either because they have never been exposed to them or could never be exposed to them....


That just seems a little convienent - sorta like saying "just so I wont have to agree with you, or seriously consider you're point, I'll just trust God will "work something out".



considering some of the things you've said to me this week, what do you expect?....

I never cussed you or threatened or bitched at you. I never attacked YOU in this thread. Your bitchiness comes from your heart. You can't use ME or anything I've said or written to excuse your display of 'missing the Love part of Christianity'.



isn't saying there is more than one path to God exactly that?...attempting to bind God to YOUR interpretation of 'saved'?......what's your argument going to be on judgment day?...."Here's the way it is, God...... I decided in order to be saved I needed to eat a quart of vanilla ice cream every day....I did it, now you do your part!"........

Not saying that at all. Not even close. You're actually going beyond reasonable discussion and going straight to 'silly' now.

I'm saying "Christ is the path to God. How Christ represents Himself to an individual is absolutely 100% up to Christ." Christ won't make Himself a liar by contradiction - but it's absolutely plausible Christ brings somebody to knowledge of God through means which might NOT be articulated in the bible.

[PostmodernProphet]

That just seems a little convienent - sorta like saying "just so I wont have to agree with you, or seriously consider you're point, I'll just trust God will "work something out".

lol....you call THAT convenient?....you've taken the position that EVERYONE's salvation is something we can trust God to "work out"....





I never cussed you or threatened or bitched at you. I never attacked YOU in this thread. Your bitchiness comes from your heart. You can't use ME or anything I've said or written to excuse your display of 'missing the Love part of Christianity'.
lol.....you've never attacked me?....yet in the same paragraph you tell me I am missing God's love.....not to mention telling me I had no business calling myself a Christian?....



Not saying that at all. Not even close. You're actually going beyond reasonable discussion and going straight to 'silly' now.

I'm saying "Christ is the path to God. How Christ represents Himself to an individual is absolutely 100% up to Christ." Christ won't make Himself a liar by contradiction - but it's absolutely plausible Christ brings somebody to knowledge of God through means which might NOT be articulated in the bible.
the "many paths to God" argument is used by those who say Islam and native spirit animism and Wicca are all equally valid means to attain righteousness before God....if you're going to use that language you have to recognize that people are going to assume that's what you're arguing.....and that's what I am responding to....

[darin]

lol....you call THAT convenient?....you've taken the position that EVERYONE's salvation is something we can trust God to "work out"....


No - I take the position Everyone's salvation is between THEM and GOD to work out.



lol.....you've never attacked me?....yet in the same paragraph you tell me I am missing God's love.....not to mention telling me I had no business calling myself a Christian?....

So - yeah - NEVER attacked you. Based on your bitchiness I can tell you might have never experienced God's Love; thus, you don't know how to show it. You think that's me attacking you? Hrm...Well - if you wanna do chicken-and-egg - you turned into a bitch in this thread first. :) And that last part - PRETTY sure I said that privately to you; Discussing what's said, without concent, via PM or Reputation comment in a PUBLIC way is a violation of board policy and can lead to banning. So - please don't do that.


the "many paths to God" argument is used by those who say Islam and native spirit animism and Wicca are all equally valid means to attain righteousness before God....if you're going to use that language you have to recognize that people are going to assume that's what you're arguing.....and that's what I am responding to....

Except...as I've said...there is ONE path to God - Christ Jesus. (try www.hop.com - seriously - you must not be reading here).

I'm saying I find it absurd to think what YOU understand Christ to be IS and MUST BE the same as who I understand Him to be...You're saying how Christ 'talks to you' MUST be the same for how He talks to others.

Ever watch "Blue Lagoon"? Imagine you are 5 years old, and get shipwrecked on an island. No Bible anywhere. Do you think Christ could reveal God and God's love to you?

[BoogyMan]

It's very good to study and know the Bible. It's bad to worship the Bible. It's terrible to quote scripture without context.

I'm trying to reach agreement on one principle: God doesn't need the Bible - or what's contained therein - to act. As an aside, it'd be nice for folk to understand He isn't regulated to our interpretation of what 'saved' means, either.

I have seen no-one worshiping the Bible. I have seen a great deal of dismissal of Biblical principle in order to justify man's view of God, which is exactly what you seem to be defending and condemning at different points in this discussion. Man needs the Bible as it is God's instruction to man for how to live a Godly life and be pleasing in His sight.

2nd John 9-11 is pretty clear on the importance of keeping the doctrine of Christ.


9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

[darin]

I'm saying - again - not sure how I can make this more clear....

But - the Bible is not the authority - not hte final word - on who God is. God is so vastly bigger and better and more complex than the books of the bible we choose to consider.

[BoogyMan]

I'm saying - again - not sure how I can make this more clear....

But - the Bible is not the authority - not hte final word - on who God is. God is so vastly bigger and better and more complex than the books of the bible we choose to consider.

The Bible is given so that we can know the will of God for man. Who is man to look at His word and claim it to be anything less?

The Bible tells us that it is sin to lie. Is that instruction not valid by your particular dogma because you may not choose to accept that proclamation?

God is no respecter of persons, claiming His word invalid would make God exactly that if your view were to hold up, DMP.

[bullypulpit]

did you somehow miss this part of what you quoted from my post?......

No, I didn't miss anything. You, however, did.

How did this omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, but unknowable to us mere mortals being make his/her will know and to whom does (s)he make it known?

[darin]

The Bible is given so that we can know the will of God for man. Who is man to look at His word and claim it to be anything less?

The Bible tells us that it is sin to lie. Is that instruction not valid by your particular dogma because you may not choose to accept that proclamation?

God is no respecter of persons, claiming His word invalid would make God exactly that if your view were to hold up, DMP.

What have I written which would/might cause you to think I'm invalidating the Bible?

The Bible provides a VERY LIMITED VIEW of who God is. How can that last sentence be interpreted by you as "dmp thinking parts of the bible aren't valid"?

As an aside - there IS a lot in the Bible which is NOT valid in terms of getting to know God better...or said another way - there's a lot of stuff God gave/told to people in a particular situation which is NOT 'valid' as proper guidance suggesting the instruction was meant for EVERY believer...do you agree with that?

[SassyLady]

I'm saying "Christ is the path to God. How Christ represents Himself to an individual is absolutely 100% up to Christ." Christ won't make Himself a liar by contradiction - but it's absolutely plausible Christ brings somebody to knowledge of God through means which might NOT be articulated in the bible.

:clap::clap:

[BoogyMan]

What have I written which would/might cause you to think I'm invalidating the Bible?

The Bible provides a VERY LIMITED VIEW of who God is. How can that last sentence be interpreted by you as "dmp thinking parts of the bible aren't valid"?

The Bible provides us all that we need to be prepared to serve God. You keep speaking of how the Bible is not a definitive source for men to gain knowledge of the true God. The scripture completely disagrees with that notion, my friend.


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


As an aside - there IS a lot in the Bible which is NOT valid in terms of getting to know God better...or said another way - there's a lot of stuff God gave/told to people in a particular situation which is NOT 'valid' as proper guidance suggesting the instruction was meant for EVERY believer...do you agree with that?

2 Tim 2:15 addresses this concern and shows it to be inconsistent with the facts.


15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

How can we be approved of God if we do not know Him? We can and do know the truth through the word of God as delivered in the Bible.


31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[SassyLady]

I'm saying - again - not sure how I can make this more clear....

But - the Bible is not the authority - not hte final word - on who God is. God is so vastly bigger and better and more complex than the books of the bible we choose to consider.

BINGO!!! Couldn't have said it better DMP!

[SassyLady]

The Bible provides us all that we need to be prepared to serve God. You keep speaking of how the Bible is not a definitive source for men to gain knowledge of the true God. The scripture completely disagrees with that notion, my friend.

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:



Perhaps the Bible is not enough anymore?!

[-Cp]

The Bible provides us all that we need to be prepared to serve God.

How do you know?

And what'd Christians do BEFORE the printed Bible was around? I guess they were screwed eh?

[HogTrash]

I never understood why an all powerful, all knowing entity would demand to be worshiped by a weak insignificant species like humans.

I believe that maybe this is a misconception by those who fear anything they perceive to hold power and control over their existance.

It is said that God loves us as his children...Although I may demand that my children obey me, I would never demand they worship me.

[PostmodernProphet]

And that last part - PRETTY sure I said that privately to you; Discussing what's said, without concent, via PM or Reputation comment in a PUBLIC way is a violation of board policy and can lead to banning. So - please don't do that.
this is not a good time to be pulling that shit.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No, I didn't miss anything. You, however, did.

How did this omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, but unknowable to us mere mortals being make his/her will know and to whom does (s)he make it known?

why are you asking again?.....I've already answered it, the God described in the Bible used the Bible to make himself known.....that's why I referred to him as the God described in the Bible.....because he's described there.....in it.....etc......

[SassyLady]

I never understood why an all powerful, all knowing entity would demand to be worshiped by a weak insignificant species like humans.

I believe that maybe this is a misconception by those who fear anything they perceive to hold power and control over their existance.

It is said that God loves us as his children...Although I may demand that my children obey me, I would never demand they worship me.

Must spread rep! :clap:

[Abbey Marie]

I never understood why an all powerful, all knowing entity would demand to be worshiped by a weak insignificant species like humans.

I believe that maybe this is a misconception by those who fear anything they perceive to hold power and control over their existance.

It is said that God loves us as his children...Although I may demand that my children obey me, I would never demand they worship me.

With respect, HT, it does not surprise me that we do not understand all of God's ways or reasons. I am confident that once we see Him, all will make sense and be revealed.

[darin]

What have I written which would/might cause you to think I'm invalidating the Bible?

The Bible provides a VERY LIMITED VIEW of who God is. How can that last sentence be interpreted by you as "dmp thinking parts of the bible aren't valid"?

The Bible provides us all that we need to be prepared to serve God. You keep speaking of how the Bible is not a definitive source for men to gain knowledge of the true God. The scripture completely disagrees with that notion, my friend.

I honestly can't buy that. IF that were true, folks who grew up, say, shortly after Christ's death, were NOT prepared to serve God. The ONLY SINGLE ASPECT of GOD we need to know is this: Love God and your Neighbors. That's what Christ said was the key - the most-important aspect of 'commands' from God. In fact, the only folk I can recall being chewed-out by Christ himself were those steeped in knowledge of scripture.
That's not to say study is bad - it IS to say basing one's life completely on what they read, without applying love and context, will only lead to Churchianity - Religiousity.





16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


First off - King James scripture is horrible.

Let's look at something more up-to-date: Here's Wycliff:


For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

17 that the man of God be perfect, learned to all good work [learned to all good works].


That said For all 'God-inspired' scripture is profitable to teach. Not "All Scripture IS God-inspired".

And here's the Key. Paul likely did NOT consider his letter to Timothy as being part of the Bible. At the time of Paul's writing, the OT was the only scripture.




As an aside - there IS a lot in the Bible which is NOT valid in terms of getting to know God better...or said another way - there's a lot of stuff God gave/told to people in a particular situation which is NOT 'valid' as proper guidance suggesting the instruction was meant for EVERY believer...do you agree with that?

2 Tim 2:15 addresses this concern and shows it to be inconsistent with the facts.


15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Here's that verse in English we speak:


Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

That has nothing to do with use as a counter-point to the fact the Bible isn't always relevant in our daily lives. The Bible doesn't answer all our questions - such as...I dunno...how about "Is Rock-n-Roll music of the Devil!" (something from my childhood).





How can we be approved of God if we do not know Him? We can and do know the truth through the word of God as delivered in the Bible.


31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We can be approved by God by LOVING people. We know God's love based on our hearts. Based on Accepting his Love and following his lead. If one has never experienced God's love, I believe they will be unable to keep "the greatest commandment"

As another aside: Here's something just a bit down which I think you're on-top-of. You DO this and it's appreciated and noted.


22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26


You're discussing this - unlike everyone in this thread - reasonably and without bitterness nor bitchiness. Makes it better for everyone when people can simple TALK about things like this without wearing their hearts on their sleeves.


I never understood why an all powerful, all knowing entity would demand to be worshiped by a weak insignificant species like humans.

I believe that maybe this is a misconception by those who fear anything they perceive to hold power and control over their existance.

It is said that God loves us as his children...Although I may demand that my children obey me, I would never demand they worship me.

We are NOT insignifigant. God CREATED us special from the rest of Creation.

[bullypulpit]

why are you asking again?.....I've already answered it, the God described in the Bible used the Bible to make himself known.....that's why I referred to him as the God described in the Bible.....because he's described there.....in it.....etc......

By whom is (s)he described?

[bullypulpit]

With respect, HT, it does not surprise me that we do not understand all of God's ways or reasons. I am confident that once we see Him, all will make sense and be revealed.

By the every definition I've read , God is unavailable to human perception, and thus cannot be "seen".

[BoogyMan]

Perhaps the Bible is not enough anymore?!

Where does man get any kind of authority to go outside of the Bible?


How do you know?

And what'd Christians do BEFORE the printed Bible was around? I guess they were screwed eh?


What argument does this support? We have the printed Bible and should be thankful that we do.


Here's that verse in English we speak:

That has nothing to do with use as a counter-point to the fact the Bible isn't always relevant in our daily lives. The Bible doesn't answer all our questions - such as...I dunno...how about "Is Rock-n-Roll music of the Devil!" (something from my childhood).

The Bible is fully able to guide us though our daily problems, pointing out ones inability to read the Bible and apply it's teaching does not negate the fact that the instruction is there. The scripture I presented you with is entirely relevant.

[darin]

The Bible is fully able to guide us though our daily problems, pointing out ones inability to read the Bible and apply it's teaching does not negate the fact that the instruction is there. The scripture I presented you with is entirely relevant.


Okay - can you help me decide if going to a movie is sinful? What about listening to non-christian music? I'd also love scripture which guides me thru the decision to have a vasectomy or not.

Thanks man. :)

[BoogyMan]

Okay - can you help me decide if going to a movie is sinful? What about listening to non-christian music? I'd also love scripture which guides me thru the decision to have a vasectomy or not.

Thanks man. :)

Why would you ask me this when the point is that the Bible is what we are discussing as setting the standard for us, not me.

What is "non-Christian music?" Where in the New Testament are we ever told to listen to "Christian music" as entertainment?

What would you point to in scripture that might make you think that getting a vasectomy IS sinful, my friend? Especially when we see discussion about husband and wife not holding back from one another in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians.

[PostmodernProphet]

By whom is (s)he described?

by himself....

[darin]

Why would you ask me this when the point is that the Bible is what we are discussing as setting the standard for us, not me.

What is "non-Christian music?" Where in the New Testament are we ever told to listen to "Christian music" as entertainment?

What would you point to in scripture that might make you think that getting a vasectomy IS sinful, my friend? Especially when we see discussion about husband and wife not holding back from one another in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians.


You're making my point - The point is, the bible doesn't tell us 'everything we need to know' about being a Christian. The bible doesn't cover everything we need to know - often, frequently, we learn more about who God is based on failing, and him restoring us.

God is much bigger, more broad, and more loving than what we have in the Bible. That's my point.

[BoogyMan]

You're making my point - The point is, the bible doesn't tell us 'everything we need to know' about being a Christian. The bible doesn't cover everything we need to know - often, frequently, we learn more about who God is based on failing, and him restoring us.

God is much bigger, more broad, and more loving than what we have in the Bible. That's my point.

Actually it is you who is making my point. If I were to send you to the store to purchase a loaf of bread you would be sent with a purpose. You would not return with a box of fish sticks nor would you return with a steak, you would return with a loaf of bread if you wished to follow my instruction. You could bring white bread, wheat bread, rye bread, etc...as long as you returned with a loaf of bread.

Why would the instruction of God be exempted from common sense? When God's word says "do no murder," you are bound by a set rule that would preclude you from tossing someone off the top floor of a skyskraper as well as running them down in the road with your car. When God's word says that liars will be in hell fire, you should understand that a lie is a lie, no matter what man might say about little lies vs big lies.

I do believe that in the end you are making things much more complicated than they really are in trying to claim that the Bible doesn't represent God's will for man.

[bullypulpit]

by himself....

And who transcribed that description?

[darin]

Actually it is you who is making my point. If I were to send you to the store to purchase a loaf of bread you would be sent with a purpose. You would not return with a box of fish sticks nor would you return with a steak, you would return with a loaf of bread if you wished to follow my instruction. You could bring white bread, wheat bread, rye bread, etc...as long as you returned with a loaf of bread.

Why would the instruction of God be exempted from common sense? When God's word says "do no murder," you are bound by a set rule that would preclude you from tossing someone off the top floor of a skyskraper as well as running them down in the road with your car. When God's word says that liars will be in hell fire, you should understand that a lie is a lie, no matter what man might say about little lies vs big lies.

I do believe that in the end you are making things much more complicated than they really are in trying to claim that the Bible doesn't represent God's will for man.


...So...is the bible full of knowledge or guidance for everything we do? No. It's not. The Bible is a snapshot (or series of snapshots) which gives us insights into Him. If you think the Bible contains enough information for you to know everything about God, you're in for a huge surprise.

[PostmodernProphet]

And who transcribed that description?

the people he chose to do so.....

[BoogyMan]

...So...is the bible full of knowledge or guidance for everything we do? No. It's not. The Bible is a snapshot (or series of snapshots) which gives us insights into Him. If you think the Bible contains enough information for you to know everything about God, you're in for a huge surprise.

Yes.....it is.


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible contains everything I need to know about His will in order to be saved and how to be pleasing to Him.

[darin]

Yes.....it is.

As I've illustrated, it's simply not the case. And it doesn't HAVE to be.




The Bible contains everything I need to know about His will in order to be saved and how to be pleasing to Him.


You're limiting GOD there, bro. There are perhaps thousands? Millions? Of people who learned to please Him without the aide of a Bible whatsoever.

And your verse is wrong - once more:



16 For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,


Thus - For all scripture inspired of God...not "ALL Scripture IS inspired by God".

There's a sublte yet important difference. Things like 'geneology' in scripture isn't neccessarily God-breathed. When people wrote of God's specific instruction to specific people for a specific reason, we can't assume that's God's instruction to us without contextual understanding. There's SO MUCH MORE than "Well..if it's in the Bible..." because God doesn't LIVE in the Bible.

[Abbey Marie]

By the every definition I've read , God is unavailable to human perception, and thus cannot be "seen".

And neither are we, after death. How we "see" in the spiritual world is unknown to us at this time. Very similar to the point I was making, and doesn't change anything.

[bullypulpit]

the people he chose to do so.....

People...Now we get to the heart of the matter. Is the Bible the word of God? Or is it simply a compilation of the writings of men? And that is the problem with revealed religion.

Regardless of any claims to divine inspiration, the Bible was written by men. It is the product or human perception and conception, and is thus subject to the same limitations as human perception and conception. The prejudices, the misperception, the preconception, the memories, the ignorance, the superstitions...All limit human perception and the concepts that arise from it. And unless one is aware of those limitations, one can be led to distorted, misleading or simply wrong conclusions. And so it is with revealed religions.

To whom is this "revelation" granted? Being an entirely subjective experience, it is not open to objective examination and independent validation. We have only the word of the individual that it was revealed to them by some divine authority...An authority which, itself, is not subject to objective and independent verification.

Ah, well none of this will convince you. You will not listen to the reality which contradicts your faith.

[PostmodernProphet]

none of this will convince you.

truly spoken.....

[bullypulpit]

And neither are we, after death. How we "see" in the spiritual world is unknown to us at this time. Very similar to the point I was making, and doesn't change anything.

You speak of something unknown to us as if it were an established fact...utterly devoid of any evidence of the existence of a "spiritual" world we can somehow "see".

[darin]

You speak of something unknown to us as if it were an established fact...utterly devoid of any evidence of the existence of a "spiritual" world we can somehow "see".

..sorta like the whole "Homos are born that way"... but I digress..

[BoogyMan]

As I've illustrated, it's simply not the case. And it doesn't HAVE to be.

The only thing you have illustrated is that you place no value on the Bible.


You're limiting GOD there, bro. There are perhaps thousands? Millions? Of people who learned to please Him without the aide of a Bible whatsoever.

When the Bible clearly points out that the only way to be pleasing to God is through Christ, that Christ has all authority over the church, and that man should study in order to show himself approved unto God, you really don't have much to stand on with regard to man being able to be pleasing to God without His word given to man through the Apostles. I am not limiting God because he gave us exactly what we needed to know to be pleasing to Him, did He tell us everything about Himself? No. He did however present to man a plan of salvation whereby we, if we are faithful and obedient, may spend an eternity in His service.


And your verse is wrong - once more:

Thus - For all scripture inspired of God...not "ALL Scripture IS inspired by God".

There's a sublte yet important difference. Things like 'geneology' in scripture isn't neccessarily God-breathed. When people wrote of God's specific instruction to specific people for a specific reason, we can't assume that's God's instruction to us without contextual understanding. There's SO MUCH MORE than "Well..if it's in the Bible..." because God doesn't LIVE in the Bible.

You are digging a hole in which to bury your argument, my friend. You are actually going to try an denigrate the text over a "that depends on what the meaning of is is" kind of argument? That is a distressing turn I never expected you to take. The content of the text is not changed with the word is.

[Abbey Marie]

You speak of something unknown to us as if it were an established fact...utterly devoid of any evidence of the existence of a "spiritual" world we can somehow "see".

Well, not totally unknown, as Jesus spoke of it. But on the whole, yes, that's why it is called faith. :)

[bullypulpit]

truly spoken.....

Umm...as to addressing the rest, cant?...Or won't?

[PostmodernProphet]

Umm...as to addressing the rest, cant?...Or won't?

oh, sorry....I simply ignored it as foolishness....you believe it to be true, I don't....it isn't that complicated....

[darin]

The only thing you have illustrated is that you place no value on the Bible.



I place APPROPRIATE value on the Bible. I don't worship the Bible. I know God is MUCH bigger and more complex than the snippets of information contained in the Bible.




When the Bible clearly points out that the only way to be pleasing to God is through Christ, that Christ has all authority over the church, and that man should study in order to show himself approved unto God, you really don't have much to stand on with regard to man being able to be pleasing to God without His word given to man through the Apostles. I am not limiting God because he gave us exactly what we needed to know to be pleasing to Him, did He tell us everything about Himself? No. He did however present to man a plan of salvation whereby we, if we are faithful and obedient, may spend an eternity in His service.


Well - you're a contradiction. Man can't be 'saved' thru works, yet you believe to please God we have to study scripture. What did Christ say was the most important aspect of God? Loving HIM and others as yourself.

The scripture Paul? wrote of in the scripture you mention was the Old Testament. Remember, The New Testament wasn't published when Paul was writing much of it - AND there's not a shred of evidence Paul KNEW he was writing 'the Bible'.

Further, your insinuation is those who never have a Bible won't find themselves in a situation where God is pleased with them. That doesn't pass - that shouldn't pass - anyone's common-sense test.



You are digging a hole in which to bury your argument, my friend. You are actually going to try an denigrate the text over a "that depends on what the meaning of is is" kind of argument? That is a distressing turn I never expected you to take. The content of the text is not changed with the word is.


JUST READ WHAT IS THERE. Very simple, really...the position of the words CHANGES the meaning. Literal translations aren't clear. And remember, the scripture 'breathed' by God didn't likely include the writer's works...because we have no evidence the writer knew or thought he was writing anything more than a letter to a brother in Christ.

You're simply dismissing my arguments now. Do you think it's ungodly to question what a lot of us might have been taught?

[BoogyMan]

I place APPROPRIATE value on the Bible. I don't worship the Bible. I know God is MUCH bigger and more complex than the snippets of information contained in the Bible.

God is certainly much bigger than what is revealed, but that doesn't limit His ability to convey to us His will in the Bible so that we can be saved. You don't seem to get the idea that you will not know what has not been revealed.


Well - you're a contradiction. Man can't be 'saved' thru works, yet you believe to please God we have to study scripture. What did Christ say was the most important aspect of God? Loving HIM and others as yourself.

This is so wrong that I don't know a better way to rebut it than to simply quote the text.


17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

We are certainly to love each other, but I would ask that you define what kind of love you are speaking of and lets see if it is the kind discussed in the text of the New Testament.


The scripture Paul? wrote of in the scripture you mention was the Old Testament. Remember, The New Testament wasn't published when Paul was writing much of it - AND there's not a shred of evidence Paul KNEW he was writing 'the Bible'.

Paul was inspired of God, do you question that?


Further, your insinuation is those who never have a Bible won't find themselves in a situation where God is pleased with them. That doesn't pass - that shouldn't pass - anyone's common-sense test.

Read Hebrews chapter 11 and then lets discuss the error in this comment, dmp. :)


JUST READ WHAT IS THERE. Very simple, really...the position of the words CHANGES the meaning. Literal translations aren't clear. And remember, the scripture 'breathed' by God didn't likely include the writer's works...because we have no evidence the writer knew or thought he was writing anything more than a letter to a brother in Christ.

The men writing the letters that you show such disdain for were inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, are you denying that fact? Are you denying that God has a plan for man?


You're simply dismissing my arguments now. Do you think it's ungodly to question what a lot of us might have been taught?

If your argument cannot be supported with scripture it is unworthy of serious consideration, my friend.

[darin]

I place APPROPRIATE value on the Bible. I don't worship the Bible. I know God is MUCH bigger and more complex than the snippets of information contained in the Bible.

God is certainly much bigger than what is revealed, but that doesn't limit His ability to convey to us His will in the Bible so that we can be saved. You don't seem to get the idea that you will not know what has not been revealed.

You honestly believe EVERYTHING we can know about God, He's put in the books humans decided should be in the Bible? That's what you're saying. I'm saying being "Saved" is hardly everything we need or should know about God. I get the idea we WILL know more about God when we see him face to face, and I suspect some things - perhaps a LOT of things - we THOUGHT we understood about God will be blown out of the water, and we might feel foolish.



Well - you're a contradiction. Man can't be 'saved' thru works, yet you believe to please God we have to study scripture. What did Christ say was the most important aspect of God? Loving HIM and others as yourself.

This is so wrong that I don't know a better way to rebut it than to simply quote the text.


17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

We are certainly to love each other, but I would ask that you define what kind of love you are speaking of and lets see if it is the kind discussed in the text of the New Testament.

Keep in mind, King James is the WORST source to turn to when trying to understand scripture...let's translate that part into something useful:


14-17Dear friends, do you think you'll get anywhere in this if you learn all the right words but never do anything? Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it? For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, "Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!" and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn't it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?

18I can already hear one of you agreeing by saying, "Sounds good. You take care of the faith department, I'll handle the works department."

Not so fast. You can no more show me your works apart from your faith than I can show you my faith apart from my works. Faith and works, works and faith, fit together hand in glove.

19-20Do I hear you professing to believe in the one and only God, but then observe you complacently sitting back as if you had done something wonderful? That's just great. Demons do that, but what good does it do them? Use your heads! Do you suppose for a minute that you can cut faith and works in two and not end up with a corpse on your hands?

That scenario has nothing to do with my point. I'm saying, IF somebody has LOVE they will DO those things. They won't do those things unless they obey the 'greatest commandment' which is "...love others as yourself." Put another way, One cannot DO the works and wait for the love to happen - One can't go thru the motions of giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, and otherwise being a good guy and expect the Love to somehow be there. In fact, "Many will say 'Lord, did we not heal the sick, feed the hungry and teach in YOUR name??? And he'll say 'Depart from me - I never knew you'".

There's No action or work that can be done apart from Love that will matter. Unless one HAS Love, no action or work will be done right. Just doesn't work that way.



The scripture Paul? wrote of in the scripture you mention was the Old Testament. Remember, The New Testament wasn't published when Paul was writing much of it - AND there's not a shred of evidence Paul KNEW he was writing 'the Bible'.

Paul was inspired of God, do you question that?


Of course - Paul was given the wisdom - from God - to handle the situations he was presented. That's not to say everything Paul said to everybody applies carte-blanch to the rest of the world. If it were, I believe Paul might have written "Everything I write to you which is God-breathed..." Paul likely didn't know hundreds of years later people would gather his letters and call them "Bible".

For instance - one of the most-misused scriptures reads something like "Women should be silent in the assembly..."

How many assheaded people have used that to remove women from places of participation in our churches? I'd guess hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions.

Them applying that specific point of instruction across every situation is sin in my opinion.

See - without Love and without understanding it's easy to cherry pick scriptures given as specific points of instruction and try really hard to 'follow the rules' one finds.

The 'silent in the church' comment MEANS: The women of the church he was writing should not 'disturb' the service. Where there wasn't disturbance among the women, his instruction obviously wouldn't apply.




Further, your insinuation is those who never have a Bible won't find themselves in a situation where God is pleased with them. That doesn't pass - that shouldn't pass - anyone's common-sense test.

Read Hebrews chapter 11 and then lets discuss the error in this comment, dmp. :)

So - why do you place vital importance on the Bible in terms of us 'pleasing God'??

It's CLEAR there are people whom God Loved and with whom he was well-pleased who had nothing in terms of a Bible....




JUST READ WHAT IS THERE. Very simple, really...the position of the words CHANGES the meaning. Literal translations aren't clear. And remember, the scripture 'breathed' by God didn't likely include the writer's works...because we have no evidence the writer knew or thought he was writing anything more than a letter to a brother in Christ.

The men writing the letters that you show such disdain for were inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, are you denying that fact? Are you denying that God has a plan for man?

Excuse me? Why are you doing that? disdain for? Stop doing that shit, okay? You're pulling up wild, crazy, completely off topic 'statements of fact' and assigning them to me without ANY indication it's appropriate. You're just trying to change the topic now.



You're simply dismissing my arguments now. Do you think it's ungodly to question what a lot of us might have been taught?

If your argument cannot be supported with scripture it is unworthy of serious consideration, my friend.

Not everything can be supported with scripture. I don't need scripture to know sending somebody an 'ugly' text (Texting is NOT mentioned in the Bible) is wrong. I don't need scripture to know how to Love. In fact, reading scripture will do NOTHING to help me Love people. Nobody can be educated to the point they Love. Simply impossible. Love happens not thru education but through practical teaching and experience. The Bible gives up a little bit of knowledge about who God is - has wonderful stories of people who were very close to God - examples to follow and guidance on big-ticket items surrounding our relationships with the Creator - but it's seriously wrong to assume what we have in the Bible is everything there is to know about God. It's short-sighted.

What you're doing is throwing around scripture and calling my arguments defeated when nothing you have posted does anything close to that. I think you're afraid to let go of the Bible, just a little bit, and try to experience God's Love in a very personal, non-biblical-referenced way.

[BoogyMan]

You honestly believe EVERYTHING we can know about God, He's put in the books humans decided should be in the Bible? That's what you're saying. I'm saying being "Saved" is hardly everything we need or should know about God. I get the idea we WILL know more about God when we see him face to face, and I suspect some things - perhaps a LOT of things - we THOUGHT we understood about God will be blown out of the water, and we might feel foolish.

God gave us everything we need to know in this life to be pleasing to Him, not everything we can know, but all that we need to know.


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Keep in mind, King James is the WORST source to turn to when trying to understand scripture...let's translate that part into something useful:

What you have done here is intentionally lean on something other than the text of the New Testament. You have translated nothing, what you have done is CHANGED the text.


That scenario has nothing to do with my point. I'm saying, IF somebody has LOVE they will DO those things. They won't do those things unless they obey the 'greatest commandment' which is "...love others as yourself." Put another way, One cannot DO the works and wait for the love to happen - One can't go thru the motions of giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, and otherwise being a good guy and expect the Love to somehow be there. In fact, "Many will say 'Lord, did we not heal the sick, feed the hungry and teach in YOUR name??? And he'll say 'Depart from me - I never knew you'".

What kind of love, dmp. There are many kinds spoken of in the New Testament, do you know?


There's No action or work that can be done apart from Love that will matter. Unless one HAS Love, no action or work will be done right. Just doesn't work that way.

What kind of love? Are you speaking of agape, eros, philia, storge? Do you know?


Of course - Paul was given the wisdom - from God - to handle the situations he was presented. That's not to say everything Paul said to everybody applies carte-blanch to the rest of the world. If it were, I believe Paul might have written "Everything I write to you which is God-breathed..." Paul likely didn't know hundreds of years later people would gather his letters and call them "Bible".

This is quite simply false teaching, dmp.


5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.
6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.


For instance - one of the most-misused scriptures reads something like "Women should be silent in the assembly..."

How many assheaded people have used that to remove women from places of participation in our churches? I'd guess hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions.

What is wrong with the teaching that women should not hold positions of authority in the church? If you continue with the foul language you will soon be speaking to no-one but yourself.


Them applying that specific point of instruction across every situation is sin in my opinion.

I will take the scripture over your 'opinion' EVERY time, my friend.


See - without Love and without understanding it's easy to cherry pick scriptures given as specific points of instruction and try really hard to 'follow the rules' one finds.

You admitted above you are working on opinion, not understanding. Understanding comes from truth, not your opinion.


The 'silent in the church' comment MEANS: The women of the church he was writing should not 'disturb' the service. Where there wasn't disturbance among the women, his instruction obviously wouldn't apply.

More of your opinion, as there is a clear pattern in the Bible that shows men and women have different roles. Modern sensibilities that get applied to biblical ideologies claim that this is oppressive to women, your bringing it up simply shows a desire to distract from the point.


So - why do you place vital importance on the Bible in terms of us 'pleasing God'??

Are you kidding me? Because it is the word of God!


It's CLEAR there are people whom God Loved and with whom he was well-pleased who had nothing in terms of a Bible....

What people would those be?



Excuse me? Why are you doing that? disdain for? Stop doing that shit, okay? You're pulling up wild, crazy, completely off topic 'statements of fact' and assigning them to me without ANY indication it's appropriate. You're just trying to change the topic now.

My point stands firm, you have and show a complete disdain for the Bible. The continued use of foul language here isn't helping you prove anything either.


Not everything can be supported with scripture. I don't need scripture to know sending somebody an 'ugly' text (Texting is NOT mentioned in the Bible) is wrong. I don't need scripture to know how to Love. In fact, reading scripture will do NOTHING to help me Love people. Nobody can be educated to the point they Love. Simply impossible. Love happens not thru education but through practical teaching and experience. The Bible gives up a little bit of knowledge about who God is - has wonderful stories of people who were very close to God - examples to follow and guidance on big-ticket items surrounding our relationships with the Creator - but it's seriously wrong to assume what we have in the Bible is everything there is to know about God. It's short-sighted.

Without scripture you know nothing of God, period. Once again you try the childish tactic of claiming that I said the Bible contains everything there is to know about God. This is pure falsehood on your part as anyone reading the thread can see that what I am claiming is that it holds all we need to know in this life to be pleasing to God, the point is quite different than what you are twisting it to be.

I will ask again, what kind of love are you speaking of, do you know?


What you're doing is throwing around scripture and calling my arguments defeated when nothing you have posted does anything close to that. I think you're afraid to let go of the Bible, just a little bit, and try to experience God's Love in a very personal, non-biblical-referenced way.

Egads.

[PostmodernProphet]

You honestly believe EVERYTHING we can know about God, He's put in the books humans decided should be in the Bible?

I think it's an invalid assumption to claim that God isn't capable of making sure what he wanted in the Bible ended up in the Bible.....it isn't simply a matter of 'humans decided".....

second "everything we can know"......do you understand that as everything there is to know or everything we have been informed of.....we can only know what we've been informed of....I think there is a big difference between that information that a couple of billion people agree is something revealed to us by God and that which an individual concludes God told him personally....

[SassyLady]

Without scripture you know nothing of God, period. Once again you try the childish tactic of claiming that I said the Bible contains everything there is to know about God. This is pure falsehood on your part as anyone reading the thread can see that what I am claiming is that it holds all we need to know in this life to be pleasing to God, the point is quite different than what you are twisting it to be.

I will ask again, what kind of love are you speaking of, do you know?

Egads.

I understand that you, Boogeyman, totally believe that the Bible contains everything you need to know of God and to please God. This belief system works for you and millions of others.

I read the Bible and at some core level knew there was more for me to know about God .... that the God I felt inside me wanted me to learn and experience more than what was in the Bible. That my life was more than just narrowing myself to what he was able to get translated during the time the Bible was written.

So I've been on a journey to discover more.........and found that the intent of the Bible was to give me a foundation for learning more.........and not to be used as a tool of stifling others from asking and seeking more.

However, I know there will be many who need things to be black and white and that works for them and helps them get through the day-to-day stuff of life. I wanted to know God in a more profound way and moved beyond the Bible and started applying what I knew to see what new worlds would open up for me. I didn't use the Bible to box myself in to a small little world of belief.

I found that God did not limit his message or means of touching his creations to just one source .... the Bible. It's a good source for some, but he knew it would not be the only source.

I found that anyone can know God without knowing scripture. Anyone can please God without knowing scripture. Anyone who has never heard/seen the Bible can both know/please God. To think only the people who have read the Bible are acknowledged and seen by God is a very narrow view, which I don't believe is God's intent.

And, I'm sure you'll come back to my post and take each and every paragraph and find a verse from the Bible to counter my belief ..... and that's OK. Because that is how you define your world.......and it's OK. It's not about how is wrong or right.....it's about whether we have God in our heart or not. How he got there is not important.......just that he's there.

[darin]

And, I'm sure you'll come back to my post and take each and every paragraph and find a verse from the Bible to counter my belief ..... and that's OK. Because that is how you define your world.......and it's OK. It's not about how is wrong or right.....it's about whether we have God in our heart or not. How he got there is not important.......just that he's there.


http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif


You honestly believe EVERYTHING we can know about God, He's put in the books humans decided should be in the Bible? That's what you're saying. I'm saying being "Saved" is hardly everything we need or should know about God. I get the idea we WILL know more about God when we see him face to face, and I suspect some things - perhaps a LOT of things - we THOUGHT we understood about God will be blown out of the water, and we might feel foolish.

God gave us everything we need to know in this life to be pleasing to Him, not everything we can know, but all that we need to know.[/quote]

That's patently false. If we have scripture, but have not Love, we have nothing.

(note the period)




16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Keep in mind, King James is the WORST source to turn to when trying to understand scripture...let's translate that part into something useful:

What you have done here is intentionally lean on something other than the text of the New Testament. You have translated nothing, what you have done is CHANGED the text.


16 For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

17 that the man of God be perfect, learned to all good work [learned to all good works].

You have a problem with the translation, talk to the good folks at Wycliff.

I changed NOTHING - READ what's there.



That scenario has nothing to do with my point. I'm saying, IF somebody has LOVE they will DO those things. They won't do those things unless they obey the 'greatest commandment' which is "...love others as yourself." Put another way, One cannot DO the works and wait for the love to happen - One can't go thru the motions of giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, and otherwise being a good guy and expect the Love to somehow be there. In fact, "Many will say 'Lord, did we not heal the sick, feed the hungry and teach in YOUR name??? And he'll say 'Depart from me - I never knew you'".




What kind of love, dmp. There are many kinds spoken of in the New Testament, do you know?


There's No action or work that can be done apart from Love that will matter. Unless one HAS Love, no action or work will be done right. Just doesn't work that way.

What kind of love? Are you speaking of agape, eros, philia, storge? Do you know?

Not going to follow your red herring.



Of course - Paul was given the wisdom - from God - to handle the situations he was presented. That's not to say everything Paul said to everybody applies carte-blanch to the rest of the world. If it were, I believe Paul might have written "Everything I write to you which is God-breathed..." Paul likely didn't know hundreds of years later people would gather his letters and call them "Bible".

This is quite simply false teaching, dmp.


5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.
6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Thanks - your scripture backs up what I've said. It talks about how much MORE THAN THE BIBLE people need if they want to know God's heart. It mentions developing a relationship with Him. It means knowing the verses does NOTHING to bring somebody into a relationship with Him. It only makes them 'educated'. Very glad to see I might be reaching through - and these words are breaking down barriers. Woot!



For instance - one of the most-misused scriptures reads something like "Women should be silent in the assembly..."

How many assheaded people have used that to remove women from places of participation in our churches? I'd guess hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions.

What is wrong with the teaching that women should not hold positions of authority in the church? If you continue with the foul language you will soon be speaking to no-one but yourself.

...because that teaching is false. It's not Godly. It's not True. It's people afraid of the truth. People who won't ask common-sense questions like "What was the CONTEXT of that writing, or that scripture??"

When you remove context you betray the intent of the Author. Taking that 'women should be silent' crap and TEACHING people women have no place teaching or preaching in the church is ungoldy.





Them applying that specific point of instruction across every situation is sin in my opinion.

I will take the scripture over your 'opinion' EVERY time, my friend.

Yet you have no problem with misusing scripture to fulfill an agenda? That's sad bro.



See - without Love and without understanding it's easy to cherry pick scriptures given as specific points of instruction and try really hard to 'follow the rules' one finds.

You admitted above you are working on opinion, not understanding. Understanding comes from truth, not your opinion.

And tulips come from bulbs. and milk comes from cows and other mammals. wow.




The 'silent in the church' comment MEANS: The women of the church he was writing should not 'disturb' the service. Where there wasn't disturbance among the women, his instruction obviously wouldn't apply.

More of your opinion, as there is a clear pattern in the Bible that shows men and women have different roles. Modern sensibilities that get applied to biblical ideologies claim that this is oppressive to women, your bringing it up simply shows a desire to distract from the point.

It's NOT MY OPINION. It's LITERARY FACT. Do a modicum of research bro. Learn what was written - LEARN context...wowowowowo....Do a little googlilng on "laleo and lego" Be careful - you might challenge what you already believe with the truth of what the Bible teaches ;) (in that one church...under those circumstances....).





It's CLEAR there are people whom God Loved and with whom he was well-pleased who had nothing in terms of a Bible....

What people would those be?


Hrm...Mathew...Paul...the thief on the cross next to Him. Mary, his mother...just off the top of my head...





Excuse me? Why are you doing that? disdain for? Stop doing that shit, okay? You're pulling up wild, crazy, completely off topic 'statements of fact' and assigning them to me without ANY indication it's appropriate. You're just trying to change the topic now.

My point stands firm, you have and show a complete disdain for the Bible. The continued use of foul language here isn't helping you prove anything either.


Here's the filter for what you just wrote: "My point stands firm. You have and show a complete disdain for long-held traditions of the Church. You won't bend to agree with me, either! You, while not specifically name-calling, nor directed towards anyone in particular used the word 'ass'. "

I'm sorry, I owe it to Truth to not waffle. I owe it to Truth to not bend to false teaching and undue guilt, tradition, and 'the way we've always done it!"



Not everything can be supported with scripture. I don't need scripture to know sending somebody an 'ugly' text (Texting is NOT mentioned in the Bible) is wrong. I don't need scripture to know how to Love. In fact, reading scripture will do NOTHING to help me Love people. Nobody can be educated to the point they Love. Simply impossible. Love happens not thru education but through practical teaching and experience. The Bible gives up a little bit of knowledge about who God is - has wonderful stories of people who were very close to God - examples to follow and guidance on big-ticket items surrounding our relationships with the Creator - but it's seriously wrong to assume what we have in the Bible is everything there is to know about God. It's short-sighted.

Without scripture you know nothing of God, period. Once again you try the childish tactic of claiming that I said the Bible contains everything there is to know about God. This is pure falsehood on your part as anyone reading the thread can see that what I am claiming is that it holds all we need to know in this life to be pleasing to God, the point is quite different than what you are twisting it to be.



You have no biblical basis for your opinion. 'Tradition' or how you were taught isn't good enough.



I will ask again, what kind of love are you speaking of, do you know?


I will again refrain from following your red herring.




What you're doing is throwing around scripture and calling my arguments defeated when nothing you have posted does anything close to that. I think you're afraid to let go of the Bible, just a little bit, and try to experience God's Love in a very personal, non-biblical-referenced way.

Egads.

I know - I'm beating my head against a wall here because you refuse to consider perhaps what you were taught might be flawed. You're myopic view of scripture holds you from the liberation that comes from merely LOVING God. You might be one of those folks who want to educate yourself into a knowledge of Him. It won't work, bro.

[BoogyMan]

dmp, since you obviously cannot define love you obviously do not know how it is used nor do you understand that there are different kinds of love as referenced in the original Greek texts.

The God of Heaven is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34) and He will not make your path to salvation different from mine as we are both required to follow His will to be saved and we do not get to redefine it.

You have a serious problem with the will of God, not with me, my friend.

You talk about loving God, the New Testament tells us how to do that.


15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[BoogyMan]

Christ has all authority over the church and it is His to direct in His will. He does that through the works left for us in the Bible. You are correct that I can take your comments apart with scripture as they stand in opposition to the word of God delivered in the New Testament.

You have presented me with a great deal of opinion here, opinion based on nothing more than what you would like the truth to be. I can show you the truth of the New Testament, and my own opinion has nothing to do with what is taught there.



I understand that you, Boogeyman, totally believe that the Bible contains everything you need to know of God and to please God. This belief system works for you and millions of others.

I read the Bible and at some core level knew there was more for me to know about God .... that the God I felt inside me wanted me to learn and experience more than what was in the Bible. That my life was more than just narrowing myself to what he was able to get translated during the time the Bible was written.

So I've been on a journey to discover more.........and found that the intent of the Bible was to give me a foundation for learning more.........and not to be used as a tool of stifling others from asking and seeking more.

However, I know there will be many who need things to be black and white and that works for them and helps them get through the day-to-day stuff of life. I wanted to know God in a more profound way and moved beyond the Bible and started applying what I knew to see what new worlds would open up for me. I didn't use the Bible to box myself in to a small little world of belief.

I found that God did not limit his message or means of touching his creations to just one source .... the Bible. It's a good source for some, but he knew it would not be the only source.

I found that anyone can know God without knowing scripture. Anyone can please God without knowing scripture. Anyone who has never heard/seen the Bible can both know/please God. To think only the people who have read the Bible are acknowledged and seen by God is a very narrow view, which I don't believe is God's intent.

And, I'm sure you'll come back to my post and take each and every paragraph and find a verse from the Bible to counter my belief ..... and that's OK. Because that is how you define your world.......and it's OK. It's not about how is wrong or right.....it's about whether we have God in our heart or not. How he got there is not important.......just that he's there.

[SassyLady]

Christ has all authority over the church and it is His to direct in His will. He does that through the works left for us in the Bible. You are correct that I can take your comments apart with scripture as they stand in opposition to the word of God delivered in the New Testament.

You have presented me with a great deal of opinion here, opinion based on nothing more than what you would like the truth to be. I can show you the truth of the New Testament, and my own opinion has nothing to do with what is taught there.

It is my truth Boogyman - it is the truth I have lived and will continue to live. I have not tried to convince you to follow my truth....just that my truth is different than yours.

I have lived your truth and found it to be lacking...for me. It works for you and you should be at peace with it working for you .... you are positive you know the way and that is all that should matter to you ..... not that I don't accept what you believe to be the truth.

Unfortunately, each person will interpret the words of God to fit their own truth and then will expend vast amounts of energy and time trying to convince others that their truth is the only truth.

It must be exhausting to always be in judgement of others.

[BoogyMan]

It is my truth Boogyman - it is the truth I have lived and will continue to live. I have not tried to convince you to follow my truth....just that my truth is different than yours.

I have lived your truth and found it to be lacking...for me. It works for you and you should be at peace with it working for you .... you are positive you know the way and that is all that should matter to you ..... not that I don't accept what you believe to be the truth.

Unfortunately, each person will interpret the words of God to fit their own truth and then will expend vast amounts of energy and time trying to convince others that their truth is the only truth.

It must be exhausting to always be in judgement of others.

Can you show me where you have any right to your own "truth?"

[SassyLady]

Can you show me where you have any right to your own "truth?"

You would have to have the ability to look "into" my heart, into my soul, to find where I derive my right to my own truth. As a child of God I have been given the right to discern my truth and not depend upon the truth as interpreted by others.

Perhaps this says it better:


Words may help you understand something. Experience allows you to know. Yet there are some things you cannot experience. So I have given you other tools of knowing. And these are called feelings. And so too, thoughts.

Now the supreme irony here is that you have all placed so much importance on the Word of God, and so little on the experience.

In fact, you place so little value on experience that when what you experience of God differs from what you've heard of God, you automatically discard the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around.

Conversations With God