[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Timely XKCD cartoon I thought
So CB tell us how your really feel. You are neither, so I am implying what the girl in the cartoon is saying.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - and I come back to find we are discussing “prosperity” theology! nice . . .[/quote]
Yeah…can’t say much in that category except, I want the “too much money” problem. It’d be a nice change.[/quote]
So instead of praying for rain all the time, go out and prepare the field for the rain. Then you might see that the rain is coming.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Timely XKCD cartoon I thought
So CB tell us how your really feel. You are neither, so I am implying what the girl in the cartoon is saying.[/quote]
I am atheist and the cartoon is definitely directed at me, that is why I found it funny.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…but you [plural] do understand how this [widespread] [american] phenomenon shapes and influences people’s perception of christianity? People like Hinn are quacks, snake oil merchants, who will suck your last penny from your wallet if you allow it. And there are so many people who fall for it! Why is that, do you think? [/quote]
Very much so. Sadly the American church is full of apathetic unthinking people who do very little outside of warm a seat once a week. They are looking for something of substance and taking the very first thing that has an appearance of that. It is a sad state of affairs,
but the American church as a whole is in that position. People can go to church their whole life and never learn the principles of how to study the Bible, but they do learn that it is inerrent. So if it says it then it must be true. Which makes them easy pray to someone twisting the text like Benny does. They never learn to actually try and understand the message of its original intent, as well as principles of interpretation, and application. In my opinion the Church has failed when it comes to this, and this is the reaping of what we have sown.
That class that I told you about earlier will start with a six week session on studying the Bible. I wish a class like that would have been available to me when I was a teenager. Instead I had to figure it out on my own. While it has been rewarding in itself, it would have been nice to have had someone steering me in the right direction. Instead my youth at church was full or pep rally’s trying to get you excited for Jesus. That is great in a way, but they usually lack any real substance.
So you are not the only one who is disgruntled by the images portrayed by his ilk.
There are well known people though that speak out openly about those guys
and are doing great work to expose them.
/rant[/quote]While the written Word will never become life giving truth without the indwelling presence of the living Word, understanding the bible beyond “Jesus loves me this I know” requires work. You do not lay your hands on the page and wait for God to impart the bread of life to your soul. Truth is modern Americans are intellectually lazy AND obsessed with themselves and the church populations are no better in too many cases.
Far from being dry, dull, snobbish and unnecessary, sound theology bound in a heart crying “here am I Lord send me” is the safeguard against being led into the ever expanding catalog of smooth seductive modern deceptions. But that takes effort and people will only put effort into what’s important to them.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< If this is true, why wouldnt God just skip the first state, have people be born into the “transformed” state, and not put in them the original state which leads to sin?[/quote]See the passage above I quoted from the 9th of Romans.
[/quote]
Not gonna lie, not exactly sure what its all about. Basic message: God can do as god wants?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…but you [plural] do understand how this [widespread] [american] phenomenon shapes and influences people’s perception of christianity? People like Hinn are quacks, snake oil merchants, who will suck your last penny from your wallet if you allow it. And there are so many people who fall for it! Why is that, do you think? [/quote]
Very much so. Sadly the American church is full of apathetic unthinking people who do very little outside of warm a seat once a week. They are looking for something of substance and taking the very first thing that has an appearance of that. It is a sad state of affairs,
but the American church as a whole is in that position. People can go to church their whole life and never learn the principles of how to study the Bible, but they do learn that it is inerrent. So if it says it then it must be true. Which makes them easy pray to someone twisting the text like Benny does. They never learn to actually try and understand the message of its original intent, as well as principles of interpretation, and application. In my opinion the Church has failed when it comes to this, and this is the reaping of what we have sown.
That class that I told you about earlier will start with a six week session on studying the Bible. I wish a class like that would have been available to me when I was a teenager. Instead I had to figure it out on my own. While it has been rewarding in itself, it would have been nice to have had someone steering me in the right direction. Instead my youth at church was full or pep rally’s trying to get you excited for Jesus. That is great in a way, but they usually lack any real substance.
So you are not the only one who is disgruntled by the images portrayed by his ilk.
There are well known people though that speak out openly about those guys
and are doing great work to expose them.
/rant[/quote]While the written Word will never become life giving truth without the indwelling presence of the living Word, understanding the bible beyond “Jesus loves me this I know” requires work. You do not lay your hands on the page and wait for God to impart the bread of life to your soul. Truth is modern Americans are intellectually lazy AND obsessed with themselves and the church populations are no better in too many cases.
Far from being dry, dull, snobbish and unnecessary, sound theology bound in a heart crying “here am I Lord send me” is the safeguard against being led into the ever expanding catalog of smooth seductive modern deceptions. But that takes effort and people will only put effort into what’s important to them.[/quote]
absolutely, but without a doubt the church is failing at teaching people how to study the Bible. When I was growing up it was “read the Bible”. They were big on talking about going to Bible college, and fluffy sunday lessons, but when push came to shove they didn’t know how to study it either.
I agree with your points and my life proves your last paragraph. I put forth the effort because truth was important to me. So while I started with a fundamental baptist background I have contemplated most of the world relgions as well as atheism in search of that truth. I put forth the effort and rejected many things I was brought up on, as well as confirmed the orthodox belief I was raised with.
With out a doubt though not knowing how to study the Bible is a huge stumbling block for many in the church.
…so we’re past the whole morality thing, i take it? It’s nice to finally agree on something for a change, but there’s a dissonance between theory and practice i’m not done exploring yet, if you don’t mind…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If one did sin, Heaven would no longer be called so. However, one would not. So, it is a bit of a paradox, sure, but, state it this way: Humans who go to Heaven have free will. Hence, they can sin. However, because of their transformed state, they WILL NOT sin. Therefore, Heaven is without sin (literally, there is no sin in Heaven).
[/quote]
If this is true, why wouldnt God just skip the first state, have people be born into the “transformed” state, and not put in them the original state which leads to sin?[/quote]
Did you miss the part just below where you quoted to where I talk about the Real Doll?
[/quote]
Analogy doesn’t fit.
Giving people free will is one thing. Setting up the conditions for them to sin (or want to sin) is another.
By your analogy, wouldnt removing the desire and conditions for sin (in heaven) make people, effectively, into those “real dolls”?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< absolutely, but without a doubt the church is failing at teaching people how to study the Bible. When I was growing up it was “read the Bible”. They were big on talking about going to Bible college, and fluffy Sunday lessons, but when push came to shove they didn’t know how to study it either.
I agree with your points and my life proves your last paragraph. I put forth the effort because truth was important to me. So while I started with a fundamental baptist background I have contemplated most of the world religions as well as atheism in search of that truth. I put forth the effort and rejected many things I was brought up on, as well as confirmed the orthodox belief I was raised with.
With out a doubt though not knowing how to study the Bible is a huge stumbling block for many in the church.[/quote]My sometimes obtuse thought process and subsequent writing style doesn’t always serve me well. I was agreeing with you, but also exploring the personal side of the responsibility for the dearth of solid bible knowledge in modern America. No question, but that a pitiful few in this country know even basic orthodox biblical hermeneutics. I’m like you, I learned on my own. Kinda interesting how we both emerged clinging to the doctrines of grace =] Of course some would argue that that’s what happens when you study on your own without solid instruction to which I would hasten to reply that I believe that’s where the spirit leads unencumbered, so to speak, by less solid instruction (a bit tongue in cheek here, but jist a bit).
To go along with the fact that so few churches teach their people how to study and interpret the bible is the fact that so many are little more than a social club with a fully modernized fully irrelevant Christian-esque theme. Vanilla accommodation all the way baby, gotta keep those numbers up after all. No conviction of sin. No “friendship with the world is enmity with God”. No, “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,”. No “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed…”
None of that tired narrow old burdensome antique fundamentalist baggage (heavy sigh from them). If we keep all that strict bible stuff around we may end up with pews fulla transformed lives empowered by the actually real Spirit of the living God who holds the universe on the tip of His finger as it were. If we weren’t careful we may even wind up with a spiritually revived and transformed society and after all we’ve done to avoid that wadda a shame it would be to surrender now.
Sorry folks, there’s my boring rant for today.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< absolutely, but without a doubt the church is failing at teaching people how to study the Bible. When I was growing up it was “read the Bible”. They were big on talking about going to Bible college, and fluffy Sunday lessons, but when push came to shove they didn’t know how to study it either.
I agree with your points and my life proves your last paragraph. I put forth the effort because truth was important to me. So while I started with a fundamental baptist background I have contemplated most of the world religions as well as atheism in search of that truth. I put forth the effort and rejected many things I was brought up on, as well as confirmed the orthodox belief I was raised with.
With out a doubt though not knowing how to study the Bible is a huge stumbling block for many in the church.[/quote]My sometimes obtuse thought process and subsequent writing style doesn’t always serve me well. I was agreeing with you, but also exploring the personal side of the responsibility for the dearth of solid bible knowledge in modern America. No question, but that a pitiful few in this country know even basic orthodox biblical hermeneutics. I’m like you, I learned on my own. Kinda interesting how we both emerged clinging to the doctrines of grace =] Of course some would argue that that’s what happens when you study on your own without solid instruction to which I would hasten to reply that I believe that’s where the spirit leads unencumbered, so to speak, by less solid instruction (a bit tongue in cheek here, but jist a bit).
To go along with the fact that so few churches teach their people how to study and interpret the bible is the fact that so many are little more than a social club with a fully modernized fully irrelevant Christian-esque theme. Vanilla accommodation all the way baby, gotta keep those numbers up after all. No conviction of sin. No “friendship with the world is enmity with God”. No, “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,”. No “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed…”
None of that tired narrow old burdensome antique fundamentalist baggage (heavy sigh from them). If we keep all that strict bible stuff around we may end up with pews fulla transformed lives empowered by the actually real Spirit of the living God who holds the universe on the tip of His finger as it were. If we weren’t careful we may even wind up with a spiritually revived and transformed society and after all we’ve done to avoid that wadda a shame it would be to surrender now.
Sorry folks, there’s my boring rant for today.
[/quote]
I took it as you were agreeing with me on alot of what I wrote. I just wanted to restate what a pathetic job the Church as done in regards to this. I do agree that it is funny that we both came to the same main doctrinal conclusions. The odd thing is I originally started as opposed to the many core points in the reformed position. As I learned to actually study the Bible I found myself beginning to agree the reformed position. You may find this odd, but what actually started that leg of my journey was when I begin to rethink my eschatological view. It was those questions which forced me to learn those Bible study methods vs. Once I reconciled what I believe to be the erroneous exegesis of that view point I was then enabled to actually look at complex texts like Romans 9 and understand Paulâ??s argument in a better light. Actually it helped me to understand Romans period. The arguments which Paul put forth in that letter are incredible. It is a masterpiece in my opinion that is unrivalled in stating the condition of man with God.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…yes, that’s an absolute statement of value, just like the one i made earlier, “it’s wrong to kill another human being”…
[/quote]
Right.
And you said: [quote]For instance, “it’s wrong to kill another human being”, this in itself is an absolute statement, but as soon as you make an exception like capital punishment, war or selfdefense the statement becomes relative…[/quote]
To which I replied:
That’s simply not true. Say the value statement is, for example, “human life is exceedingly precious.”
If I take a life in revenge; if I execute in the name of justice; if I kill to prevent futher deaths, et cetera…
PLEASE NOTE MY CONCLUSION: …Each one of these^ actions aren’t exceptions. They are, in fact, affirmations of the very same value.
[/quote]
…i don’t agree that they are affirmations of the value. I think they’re exceptions. Now what?[/quote]
Ephrem, I think that’s because you’re mixing up particular practices with a culture’s set of values.
That’s why I asked (above) the following question: “what do you mean exactly by “relative to the culture” - do you mean that not all cultures share a value (say, human life) or that not all cultures practice that value in the same way?”
Now, let’s flesh out a bit two of the examples from above. And then we’ll add a historical, cross-cultural example.
-
Why would I take a life in revenge? If I didn’t value human life, and I considered it meaningless, how exactly would it be revenge? It’s precisely because I - and the victim as well as his allies, friends, family, etc. - value life immensely that the act of revenge killing has any meaning.
-
How does executing in the name of justice have any meaning, unless all parties to the execution value human life? It is precisely because life is so precious that the judgement and action of an execution is the highest form of secular punishment.
Does that make sense or not?
Okay, say, the Aztecs - they were among many tribes/cultures that sacrificed young men and women. Once again, however, a sacrifice only has meaning in so far as what is being sacrificed is of extreme value.
Now, I know you probably don’t agree with these practices - but see, that’s another question.
Behind all of these practices, as well as many more we might name - and engrained in all cultures - is a deep reverence for life.
[/quote]
…you are confusing semantics with content, katz. The value, “human life is exceedingly precious” has no intrinsic meaning unless you act in a way that reflects your intent. By that i mean i don’t know how your behaviour is governed by this value. You could still kill another human being, defending that act with whatever justification you can think of, all the while maintaining the position that, “human life is exceedingly precious”…
…i also think it’s too vague a statement. Let’s get real here and say, “it’s wrong to kill a human being”. This implies that under no circumstance it is right to kill another human being. If you act in concordance with this statement, and if everybody else in the whole wide world believes this, and acts in concordance with this statement, then you’d have an absolute value…
…but because this is not true; because in every society people are killed wilfully, eventhough many people would agree witht the sentiment that it’s wrong to kill another human being, a value like this is not absolute. It is not equally true for everybody, no matter the circumstance…
…but perhaps it’s best that you explain to me what you think absolute and relative means in regards to values…
[/quote]
Ephrem, I love you dude…no gay, but I do. But really, your response goes far beyond the normal ducking and twisting. It’s full of so many red herrings, strawmen, non sequitors, et cetera it’s truly almost a work of art. It’s frankly admirable.
You really didn’t address my points at all - but pretended to on the basis of an alleged confusion between semantics and content - a sentence that is filled with so much irony because (for me at least) it is surely one of the most meaningless sentences I’ve read in some time. But I digress partner. 
First of all, we are not yet talking about moral directives (things like “thou shalt not kill”) - we were talking about fundamental values that all human beings hold, and hold absolutely. You know this I think.
Second, as I mentioned above, you were confusing practice and a culture’s set of values. I don’t see how you can deny that you were. Clearly, someone can have a value (preciousness of human life, etc.) and put that value into practice in a way that you (or I) find abhorrent.
We are talking about something so fundamental that it governs much of what we do. We need to start here before we can move onto the moral directive question.
Third, I proposed a “value” off the top of my head. And now, because it works, you don’t like it? hehehehe! Dat funny!
I described above how that “value” governs behavior; and how, moreover, it must be guiding that behavior.
I think you need to read the prior post again.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - and I come back to find we are discussing “prosperity” theology! nice . . .[/quote]
Yeah…can’t say much in that category except, I want the “too much money” problem. It’d be a nice change.[/quote]
So instead of praying for rain all the time, go out and prepare the field for the rain. Then you might see that the rain is coming. [/quote]
Confucuis say what?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem, I love you dude…no gay, but I do. But really, your response goes far beyond the normal ducking and twisting. It’s full of so many red herrings, strawmen, non sequitors, et cetera it’s truly almost a work of art. It’s frankly admirable.
You really didn’t address my points at all - but pretended to on the basis of an alleged confusion between semantics and content - a sentence that is filled with so much irony because (for me at least) it is surely one of the most meaningless sentences I’ve read in some time. But I digress partner.
First of all, we are not yet talking about moral directives (things like “thou shalt not kill”) - we were talking about fundamental values that all human beings hold, and hold absolutely. You know this I think.
Second, as I mentioned above, you were confusing practice and a culture’s set of values. I don’t see how you can deny that you were. Clearly, someone can have a value (preciousness of human life, etc.) and put that value into practice in a way that you (or I) find abhorrent.
We are talking about something so fundamental that it governs much of what we do. We need to start here before we can move onto the moral directive question.
Third, I proposed a “value” off the top of my head. And now, because it works, you don’t like it? hehehehe! Dat funny!
I described above how that “value” governs behavior; and how, moreover, it must be guiding that behavior.
I think you need to read the prior post again.
[/quote]
1 …it doesn’t matter that you try to change the tables here katz, because it doesn’t change my point at all. The guiding force that drives humanity is survival and procreation; that is the bare bones mechanism for each of us. Society tries to provide a framework wherein survival and procreation is guaranteed by making behaviour either wanted or unwanted. Is this something you agree with as a barebones description of what drives human behaviour?
…where we part ways is that you seem to believe that a set of rules were handed down by a moral absolute: God. I on the other hand believe that sets of rules evolved with society, and that the succesful sets survived. These sets of rules are relative to the cultures they evolved in…
2 …i don’t think you can say, “we were talking about fundamental values that all human beings hold, and hold absolutely”, and still be talking about “life is precious” when it’s obvious that all human beings don’t hold that value [absolutely]; just think Darfur, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, DPRNK, Laos and the list goes on and on and on and on. There’s a dichotomy between what you say is truth, and what is actually happening. How do you reconcile that?
3 …so why did you differantiate between cultural practices and it’s values, if some values are so basic that it actually governs what we do [practices]?
4 …so, to be clear: you said that “life is exceedingly precious” and you say this value governs, and guides, behaviour. How exactly should it be clear to me that:“(…)someone can have a value (preciousness of human life, etc.) and put that value into practice in a way that you (or I) find abhorrent.”, if that value is NOT relative but an absolute? Explain that to me, please?
…there are 4 straight questions in this reply, and the only thing you have to do is to answer them katz. I’m honestly interested in your answers…
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…yes, that’s an absolute statement of value, just like the one i made earlier, “it’s wrong to kill another human being”…
[/quote]
Right.
And you said: [quote]For instance, “it’s wrong to kill another human being”, this in itself is an absolute statement, but as soon as you make an exception like capital punishment, war or selfdefense the statement becomes relative…[/quote]
To which I replied:
That’s simply not true. Say the value statement is, for example, “human life is exceedingly precious.”
If I take a life in revenge; if I execute in the name of justice; if I kill to prevent futher deaths, et cetera…
PLEASE NOTE MY CONCLUSION: …Each one of these^ actions aren’t exceptions. They are, in fact, affirmations of the very same value.
[/quote]
…i don’t agree that they are affirmations of the value. I think they’re exceptions. Now what?[/quote]
Ephrem, I think that’s because you’re mixing up particular practices with a culture’s set of values.
That’s why I asked (above) the following question: “what do you mean exactly by “relative to the culture” - do you mean that not all cultures share a value (say, human life) or that not all cultures practice that value in the same way?”
Now, let’s flesh out a bit two of the examples from above. And then we’ll add a historical, cross-cultural example.
-
Why would I take a life in revenge? If I didn’t value human life, and I considered it meaningless, how exactly would it be revenge? It’s precisely because I - and the victim as well as his allies, friends, family, etc. - value life immensely that the act of revenge killing has any meaning.
-
How does executing in the name of justice have any meaning, unless all parties to the execution value human life? It is precisely because life is so precious that the judgement and action of an execution is the highest form of secular punishment.
Does that make sense or not?
Okay, say, the Aztecs - they were among many tribes/cultures that sacrificed young men and women. Once again, however, a sacrifice only has meaning in so far as what is being sacrificed is of extreme value.
Now, I know you probably don’t agree with these practices - but see, that’s another question.
Behind all of these practices, as well as many more we might name - and engrained in all cultures - is a deep reverence for life.
[/quote]
…you are confusing semantics with content, katz. The value, “human life is exceedingly precious” has no intrinsic meaning unless you act in a way that reflects your intent. By that i mean i don’t know how your behaviour is governed by this value. You could still kill another human being, defending that act with whatever justification you can think of, all the while maintaining the position that, “human life is exceedingly precious”…
…i also think it’s too vague a statement. Let’s get real here and say, “it’s wrong to kill a human being”. This implies that under no circumstance it is right to kill another human being. If you act in concordance with this statement, and if everybody else in the whole wide world believes this, and acts in concordance with this statement, then you’d have an absolute value…
…but because this is not true; because in every society people are killed wilfully, eventhough many people would agree witht the sentiment that it’s wrong to kill another human being, a value like this is not absolute. It is not equally true for everybody, no matter the circumstance…
…but perhaps it’s best that you explain to me what you think absolute and relative means in regards to values…
[/quote]
Ephrem, I love you dude…no gay, but I do. But really, your response goes far beyond the normal ducking and twisting. It’s full of so many red herrings, strawmen, non sequitors, et cetera it’s truly almost a work of art. It’s frankly admirable.
You really didn’t address my points at all - but pretended to on the basis of an alleged confusion between semantics and content - a sentence that is filled with so much irony because (for me at least) it is surely one of the most meaningless sentences I’ve read in some time. But I digress partner.
First of all, we are not yet talking about moral directives (things like “thou shalt not kill”) - we were talking about fundamental values that all human beings hold, and hold absolutely. You know this I think.
Second, as I mentioned above, you were confusing practice and a culture’s set of values. I don’t see how you can deny that you were. Clearly, someone can have a value (preciousness of human life, etc.) and put that value into practice in a way that you (or I) find abhorrent.
We are talking about something so fundamental that it governs much of what we do. We need to start here before we can move onto the moral directive question.
Third, I proposed a “value” off the top of my head. And now, because it works, you don’t like it? hehehehe! Dat funny!
I described above how that “value” governs behavior; and how, moreover, it must be guiding that behavior.
I think you need to read the prior post again.
[/quote]
I think he is confusing situational relativity with moral relativity. Of course there are situations where killing a person may be necessary. If someone has a gun to your daughter’s head and you have a chance to kill him, you do it. But that is a static truth independent of societal rules or acceptances. It may or may not be acceptable to the contextual society you live in, but it was the right move even though it caused the death of another person. That doesn’t make it intrinsically good either, just necessary.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think he is confusing situational relativity with moral relativity. Of course there are situations where killing a person may be necessary. If someone has a gun to your daughter’s head and you have a chance to kill him, you do it. But that is a static truth independent of societal rules or acceptances. It may or may not be acceptable to the contextual society you live in, but it was the right move even though it caused the death of another person. That doesn’t make it intrinsically good either, just necessary.[/quote]
…i think it’s about how i apply absolute/relative in the real world, where you say that morality is absolute just because you believe it’s source is an absolute source of morality…
Stated,
“…but you [plural] do understand how this [widespread] [american] phenomenon shapes and influences people’s perception of christianity? People like Hinn are quacks, snake oil merchants, who will suck your last penny from your wallet if you allow it. And there are so many people who fall for it! Why is that, do you think?”
Ran across this article by Lee Grady:
"Al Capone once controlled all of Chicago. The notorious 1920s gangster bribed the city’s mayor, bought the police and presided as king over an empire of casinos, speakeasies and smuggling operations. He dodged bullets for years and lived above the law-and earned the nickname “untouchable” because no one could bring him to justice.
Before Capone finally went to prison in 1932, he justified his crimes by saying: “All I do is satisfy a public demand.” He didn’t take responsibility for the pain he caused because he knew mayors, policemen, community leaders and bootleggers supported him the whole way.
I hate to compare any minister of God to a gangster. But the sad truth is that today there are a handful (well, maybe more) of unscrupulous preachers who share some of Capone’s most disgusting traits. They are notoriously greedy. They are masters of deception and manipulation. They have bought their way into the charismatic religious subculture and used their uncanny hypnotic ability to control major Christian TV networks.
And, like Capone, their days are numbered. Justice will soon catch up with them.
These false prophets probably all started out with a genuine call from God, but success destroyed them. They were lured away from true faith by fame and money, and when their ministries mushroomed they resorted to compromise to keep their machines rolling. Now, in the midst of the Great Recession, God is closing in on them.
But before we rejoice that these imposters are being removed from their pulpits and yanked off the airwaves, let’s hit the pause button and reflect. How did these false preachers ever achieve such fame? It couldn’t have happened without help from us.
We were the gullible ones. When they said, “The Lord promises you untold wealth if you will simply give a thousand dollars right now,” we went to the phones and put the donations on our credit cards. God forgive us.
We were the undiscerning ones. When they said, “I need your sacrificial gift today so I can repair my private jet,” we didn’t ask why a servant of God wasn’t humble enough to fly coach class to a Third World nation. God forgive us.
We were the foolish ones. When it was revealed that they were living in immorality, mistreating their wives or populating cities with illegitimate children, we listened to their spin doctors instead of demanding that ministry leaders act like Christians. God forgive us.
We were the naive ones. When they begged for $2 million more in donations because of a budget shortfall, we didn’t feel comfortable asking why they needed that $10,000-a-night hotel suite. In fact, if we did question it, another Christian was quick to say, "Don’t criticize! The Bible says, “Touch not the Lord’s anointed!'” God forgive us.
We have treated these charlatans like Al Capone-as if they were untouchable and as a result their corruption has spread throughout charismatic churches like a plague. Our movement is eaten up with materialism, pride, deception and sexual sin because we were afraid to call these Bozos what they really are-insecure, selfish, egotistical and emotionally dysfunctional.
If we had applied biblical discernment a long time ago we could have avoided this mess. There is no way we can know how many unbelievers rejected the gospel because they saw the church supporting quacks who swaggered, bragged, lied, flattered, bribed, stole and tearfully begged their way into our lives-while we applauded them and sent them money.
When well-meaning Christians quote 1 Chronicles 16:22 (“Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm,” NASB) to cover up corruption or charlatanism, they do horrible injustice to Scripture. This passage does not require us to stay quiet when a leader is abusing power or deceiving people.
On the contrary, we are called to confront sin in a spirit of love and honesty-and we certainly aren’t showing love to the church if we allow the charismatic Al Capones of our generation to corrupt it."
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - and I come back to find we are discussing “prosperity” theology! nice . . .[/quote]
Yeah…can’t say much in that category except, I want the “too much money” problem. It’d be a nice change.[/quote]
So instead of praying for rain all the time, go out and prepare the field for the rain. Then you might see that the rain is coming. [/quote]
Confucuis say what?[/quote]
Secretary not part of office until screwed on desk?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If one did sin, Heaven would no longer be called so. However, one would not. So, it is a bit of a paradox, sure, but, state it this way: Humans who go to Heaven have free will. Hence, they can sin. However, because of their transformed state, they WILL NOT sin. Therefore, Heaven is without sin (literally, there is no sin in Heaven).
[/quote]
If this is true, why wouldnt God just skip the first state, have people be born into the “transformed” state, and not put in them the original state which leads to sin?[/quote]
Did you miss the part just below where you quoted to where I talk about the Real Doll?
[/quote]
Analogy doesn’t fit.
Giving people free will is one thing. Setting up the conditions for them to sin (or want to sin) is another.
By your analogy, wouldnt removing the desire and conditions for sin (in heaven) make people, effectively, into those “real dolls”?[/quote]
I say this without the slightest bit of animosity, but I am tired of repeating myself.
Go back and read our dialogue, if you care enough to, and see what I actually said, and what you started by implying. Now read your post here again and see how you’ve taken what you originally implied and turned it into what I’ve “said.” Not so.
One last time:
First, for the sake of argument, we are assuming there is a Heaven and a God, are we not?
If so, then…
The Real Doll never has a thought in the first place. She is an empty vessel.
The human thinks from the start. She can choose this or that. If she chooses that, one thing happens. If she chooses this, another. After her choice is made, all is revealed, one way or the other, and what is revealed is pure, absolute, unadulterated Truth. ALL of the truth. Once you have ALL of the truth, “free will” as we humans perceive it can no longer be the same thing as the free will that exists in Heaven.
I said this earlier in the thread, but our view, our perception and even ability to imagine what happens after death, particularly if there really is a God and a Heaven, are severely limited and distorted. By mortality, bias, misconception, ignorance, pride, desire, temptation, jealousies, fears. I’m not saying that the Truth cannot be gleaned from all of this, or, at least, slivers of Truth, but we have to be careful not to assume that “life” in Heaven is going to be anything like it is here, now.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - and I come back to find we are discussing “prosperity” theology! nice . . .[/quote]
Yeah…can’t say much in that category except, I want the “too much money” problem. It’d be a nice change.[/quote]
So instead of praying for rain all the time, go out and prepare the field for the rain. Then you might see that the rain is coming. [/quote]
Confucuis say what?[/quote]
Secretary not part of office until screwed on desk?[/quote]
LOL!! Now that I understand…Correct too.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< I took it as you were agreeing with me on alot of what I wrote. I just wanted to restate what a pathetic job the Church as done in regards to this. I do agree that it is funny that we both came to the same main doctrinal conclusions. The odd thing is I originally started as opposed to the many core points in the reformed position. As I learned to actually study the Bible I found myself beginning to agree the reformed position. You may find this odd, but what actually started that leg of my journey was when I begin to rethink my eschatological view. >>>[/quote]Yep, that is different I’ll say. lol. Eschatology remains my weakest area of study. I know what I don’t believe, but still haven’t put my stake down on exactly where I’m at there.[quote]haney1 wrote:<<< It was those questions which forced me to learn those Bible study methods vs. Once I reconciled what I believe to be the erroneous exegesis of that view point I was then enabled to actually look at complex texts like Romans 9 and understand PaulÃ??Ã?¢??s argument in a better light. Actually it helped me to understand Romans period. The arguments which Paul put forth in that letter are incredible. It is a masterpiece in my opinion that is unrivaled in stating the condition of man with God. [/quote]Calvin called the book of Romans “The Gospel According to Paul”. That one epistle represents a lifetime of study all by itself. That ol boy met Jesus in a truly awe inspiring way and I’m not even talkin about the road to Damascus.
Here we have a guy with EVERYTHING going for him. He has brains, status, money, education and was probably married early on. He grew up at the feet of that giant of Judaism Gamaliel. He’s a pillar of the religious Jewish community smiled upon both by them and Rome. He has dedicated his life to eradicating the heretical idolatrous followers of this kook from Galilee. He has absolutely no earthly reason to be dissatisfied with anything about his truly ideal life for that time and place.
He is on his way to arrest Christians at Damascus (acts ch. 9 Acts 9 NASB 1995) when he is overcome by light and winds up on the ground addressing whoever this exactly is demanding an explanation for his persecutions as “Lord”. He is told by the risen Christ Himself what he is gonna do next and where to go get further instructions. While he is in the house of a man named Judas the Lord appears to a Damascan disciple named Ananias and tells him to go to the house and lay hands on this man Saul of Tarsus so that he may regain his sight because “he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
This man with everything to live for is now found in the SYNAGOGUES preaching the gospel that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ using their own scriptures in which he was eminently qualified to have an opinion by their own recognition. Imagine what people were thinking. Talk about the backfire of all time!!! “Just an upside down minute here!!! I thought this was supposed to be the guy Jerusalem sent to stop these fanatics?!?! What is he doing here filling Damascus and our synagogues with the teaching of this name Jesus saying He IS the Son of God?!?!?”
Saul would go on to become the Apostle Paul and write at least 13 books of the NT including the mighty epistle to the Romans. (I doubt the Pauline authorship of Hebrews despite that also being a magnificent book)
He would also go on to fulfill the Lord’s word to Ananias that he would greatly suffer saying in 2nd Cor.11:22-29 the following:[quote]“23-Are they servants of Christ?Ã?¢??I speak as if insaneÃ?¢??I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24-Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. 25-Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26-I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27-I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28-Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches. 29-Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern?”[/quote] The same Paul who also said this in Romans 8:15-19:[quote]15-For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16-The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17-and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. 18-For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19-For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.[/quote]This stalwart blue blood of position, prestige and power counted it all loss for Christ’s sake and went from a life of opulent comfort to one of unimaginable earthly suffering only to rejoice in the fact that all that pain could not even compare to the glory he knew was coming. Yes, it is of the highest likelihood that 2 Corinthians was written before Romans or about the same time.
Alright folks, I’ll really try n climb down from this pulpit now. I really don’t mean to get so carried away.