Six Facts Plainly Revealed in The Gospel

[93JC]

It is a false religion and pantheon, if it is real then those are lesser deities than my God.

May Hel have mercy on your in the afterlife.

 

[Lark]

Well, when the Bible speaks to how God is Love especially, but I agree that God can punish as well. The Divine message being that God is the three O's...When that is supported in the Bible, I concur, and enjoy reading it. But when the Bible says something completely antithetical to how I know or feel God to be, then, yeah, I have to go with my own interpretation. Such as there needing to be one way for salvation only--through Christ, etc. Or that the be all, end all of believing in God is to get to Heaven. I think the point is to create Heaven on earth inasmuch as that is possible. At least it's a nice goal. The way the Bible holds Heaven up as the pinnacle of Utopia, makes me just think of dangling carrots....for the masses, and is but another example which makes me feel like the early authors/disciples were missing the whole point of God (at times).

My beliefs ^

I would also venture the beliefs of many of those who crafted the bible, although the bible is not the only core text of christianity, not in my opinion and I'd include a number of books personally which the Church wouldnt but which I believe are divinely inspired too (even one or two by atheists, bizzaro as that may sound).

 

[Lark]

May Hel have mercy on your in the afterlife.

It would be such an adventure to discover all that norse mythology was true, I'd be rescued by Jesus and co eventually I'm sure but I'd be able to see what the warriors table was like and feast for a bit.

 

[KDude]

I think the point is to create Heaven on earth inasmuch as that is possible. At least it's a nice goal. The way the Bible holds Heaven up as the pinnacle of Utopia, makes me just think of dangling carrots....for the masses, and is but another example which makes me feel like the early authors/disciples were missing the whole point of God (at times).

Agreed.

One of my favorite Christian figures said the same thing. Ended up getting shot for it. His name was Martin Luther King Jr. His ideas, were in turn, inspired by Gandhi.. who was in turn inspired by Leo Tolstoy (yeah, the novelist). Tolstoy wrote a cool book called "The Kingdom of God is Within You" (a quote by Jesus in some versions of the bible), which served as a sort of manifesto for Tolstoy's political and activist ideals.. that creating "heaven" started in the here and now. If you were capable of it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Agreed.

One of my favorite Christian figures said the same thing. Ended up getting shot for it. His name was Martin Luther King Jr. His ideas, were in turn, inspired by Gandhi.. who was in turn inspired by Leo Tolstoy (yeah, the novelist). Tolstoy wrote a cool book called "The Kingdom of God is Within You" (a quote by Jesus in some versions of the bible), which served as a sort of manifesto for Tolstoy's political and activist ideals.. that creating "heaven" started in the here and now. If you were capable of it.

I will have to get that book. Thanks.

 

[Rasofy]

Aprox. 30% of the posts of this thread are Lark's.
2 theories:
a) He knows a lot.
b) He just talks a lot.

 

[Beorn]

I hope I dont seem sectarian in saying this but I think within Protestant theology there is a terrible sort of AA style rehabilitative pattern going on, people live a life, they then get on a terrible guilt trip and decide to change their ways, it even goest to the reading of the bible.

That's probably a legitimate concern where patterns of repentence are distorted. In baptist circles you're practically expected to have a good come to Jesus story where you turned away from the most deplorable of sins. Presbyterians tend to not focus on testimony as much.

God of the old testament seems like a bit of a tyrant, in the new testament he's either a totally different guy or a guy who has undergone the same sort of bizarro change of heart and personality doing just about anything to make amends, including offering his son for sacrifice, like what he once asked of Abraham.

He's not a tyrant. He's a suzerain king. He swoops down and rescues Adam, Noah, and Abraham and makes covenantal agreements with them which are not based on a mutual exchange, but rather upon the very grace of God.

The same thing happens in the new testament where Jesus swoops down, dies on the cross, and pays the debts of all the church thus making a covenant with the church based on his grace and not the works of the church.

 

[Lark]

That's probably a legitimate concern where patterns of repentence are distorted. In baptist circles you're practically expected to have a good come to Jesus story where you turned away from the most deplorable of sins. Presbyterians tend to not focus on testimony as much.



He's not a tyrant. He's a suzerain king. He swoops down and rescues Adam, Noah, and Abraham and makes covenantal agreements with them which are not based on a mutual exchange, but rather upon the very grace of God.

The same thing happens in the new testament where Jesus swoops down, dies on the cross, and pays the debts of all the church thus making a covenant with the church based on his grace and not the works of the church.

Here the presbytarians do, here all the protestant churches tend to foster that, some of the RCC congregations foster it too and of course the AA cultural factor influenes and cuts across all the divisions. I dont think its a good thing but I see how it has become a tradition and I see why and how it could from the first principles and precepts you describe and I've read about in Calvin and Luther, I dont believe in their conclusions or the second part of your post.

 

[Beorn]

This was Mark who was asleep at the time?

The testimony was that it was said a stones throw away from the disciples and that it was at the end of the prayer they were found asleep.

Do you think mark (and Luke) lied or do you believe people filled in testimony later?

 

[KDude]

The testimony was that it was said a stones throw away from the disciples and that it was at the end of the prayer they were found asleep.

Do you think mark (and Luke) lied or do you believe people filled in testimony later?

The usual theory is that Mark got a lot of his material from Peter's oral storytelling, I think. Mark was a later follower of Peter's, I think? The whole style of the Gospel has the mark of quick, oral storytelling to it as well. It's short, connects a lot of events with "and then.."... "and then". Not much actual teaching or dialogue in it. Most of the gospel plays out like an eyewitness account to actions and events.

 

[Beorn]

Here the presbytarians do, here all the protestant churches tend to foster that, some of the RCC congregations foster it too and of course the AA cultural factor influenes and cuts across all the divisions. I dont think its a good thing but I see how it has become a tradition and I see why and how it could from the first principles and precepts you describe and I've read about in Calvin and Luther, I dont believe in their conclusions or the second part of your post.

I've noticed a significant difference between American Presbyterians and UK Presbyterians. Especially when it comes to alcohol. I remember in 'a river runs through it' Normon MacLean mentions that good scotch Presbyterians never drink when they fish in Montana. Later when he and his brother are cooling beers in the river he explains that drinking beer is not considered drinking.

I think the "AA culture" is actually a result of the tent revival culture in the UK that has been maintained much more so in the UK than in America. Specifically, the Keswick tent revivals which emphasized not only a come to Jesus moment of salvation, but also a second consecration where people get down to srs bsns and REALLY act good. I don't think that's a correct biblical understanding of salvation and sancification and leads to the problems you mentioned of people being on a continual guilt-rehabilitation cycle where they try to FINALLY get things right.

I actually went to a Keswick tent meeting in NI. It wasn't quite as bad a theology as they used to teach, but I think you're still seeing the effects from that teaching 100 years ago, because it was so prevalent.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, at least Lark and Beefeater made something out of this thread. It's rather interesting.

 

[Beorn]

Heh, after a bit of googling it appears that I was right about AA and keswick theology.

AA was founded by Bill W. after he joined and was influenced by the Oxford Group which was founded by Frank Buchman who had a conversion experience in... Dun, dun, dun... Keswick, England.

 

[Mole]

Facts and Poetry

In addressing the topic Six Facts Plainly Revealed in the Gospels, I note there is revelation and science.

And whereas revelation depends on no empirical evidence, science does depend on empirical evidence.

So science gives us verifiable facts, while revelation gives us poetry.

And it is a sin against the Holy Spirit to confuse facts with poetry.

And you note that the Oz Branch of Wikileaks, Poetry Section, reveals a new poem every day, as well as revealing the voice and visage of the poet.

 

[Mole]

Just as there are claims there are facts revealed in the gospels, so there are claims there are facts revealed in mbti.

But facts are based on empirical evidence and reason, while the gospels are based on revelation, just like mbti.

However the gospels do contain some good poetry, while mbti is bad poetry.

 

[tinker683]

Well, at least Lark and Beefeater made something out of this thread. It's rather interesting.

Likewise. I've rather enjoyed their exchange

 

[Eric B]

I think the "AA culture" is actually a result of the tent revival culture in the UK that has been maintained much more so in the UK than in America. Specifically, the Keswick tent revivals which emphasized not only a come to Jesus moment of salvation, but also a second consecration where people get down to srs bsns and REALLY act good. I don't think that's a correct biblical understanding of salvation and sancification and leads to the problems you mentioned of people being on a continual guilt-rehabilitation cycle where they try to FINALLY get things right.

I actually went to a Keswick tent meeting in NI. It wasn't quite as bad a theology as they used to teach, but I think you're still seeing the effects from that teaching 100 years ago, because it was so prevalent.

Yeah; Keswick theology was basically a hyperArminian view connected with "Christian perfection". That by "the power of God", you could stop sinning. Hence, the double-standard people have noticed, that they talk about grace, yet in practice, it is all about works.
Problem is, who even lives up to it? It's easy for a preacher to stand up and posture an ideal like that to an audience, but no one can see what's going on in his daily life (and the families are taught never to speak critically of the father/husband).
What's even more lethal is when this type of perfectionism mixes with Calvinism. Then, you get stuff like the Lordship movement, which goes around declaring that up to 2/3rds of evangelicals are really not saved, because of "false conversion" evidenced by lack of "fruits"; and in the background, it's really God witholding "saving grace", and yet "holding them responsible" for not believing.

 

[Lark]

I've noticed a significant difference between American Presbyterians and UK Presbyterians. Especially when it comes to alcohol. I remember in 'a river runs through it' Normon MacLean mentions that good scotch Presbyterians never drink when they fish in Montana. Later when he and his brother are cooling beers in the river he explains that drinking beer is not considered drinking.

I think the "AA culture" is actually a result of the tent revival culture in the UK that has been maintained much more so in the UK than in America. Specifically, the Keswick tent revivals which emphasized not only a come to Jesus moment of salvation, but also a second consecration where people get down to srs bsns and REALLY act good. I don't think that's a correct biblical understanding of salvation and sancification and leads to the problems you mentioned of people being on a continual guilt-rehabilitation cycle where they try to FINALLY get things right.

I actually went to a Keswick tent meeting in NI. It wasn't quite as bad a theology as they used to teach, but I think you're still seeing the effects from that teaching 100 years ago, because it was so prevalent.

I really liked that movie, its funny, I've had conversations like this with American buddies, who found that they didnt like the UK/NI protestant and Christian scene, evangelism being something different to the US but when they tried to describe what the differences were between the various protestant sects, which interests me, the fragmentation and further fragmentation just seems so weird as an outsider.

There description was in those, what I'd say cultural, terms also, they said that presbytarians may say they dont drink or make a public show of not drinking but have beers in the shed at the bottom of the garden, although baptists or methodists if they said they were teetotal probably where. Mind you he wouldnt have been that interested in the schismatic or fine tuned divisions between RC and protestant churches or between different protestant churches. He was happy to "shop around" when his own Church, a branch of the US one he was part of (assemblies of God) imploded (it was small to begin with) but his wife panicked about appearing "wishy washy" and wanted to return to a pretty traditionalist presbytarian assembly, which he refused because he felt that he didnt like the dress code and appearences snobbery (this is something I do find is more closely associated with the protestant churches than the RCC).

The cycle of guilt-rehabilitation isnt restricted to the protestant Churches, the redemptorists in the RCC used to do a tour and give sermons which guilt tripped people and had them worrying about hell, its very uncommon now though, its mainly the protestants who campaign with slogans like "Eternity where?" and stuff like that. Although a great deal of it, at least at street level, is incredibly sectarian, I dont mean that word in a prejorative sense so much as its literal meaning, people conceive of being "saved" as thinking as they do, acting as they do, sometimes even attending their Church and thinking as highly of particular ministers or members of the congregation as they do.

I remember interrogating protestants as to all the various reasons why they personally believed that I could not be "saved" and remain a practicing Roman Catholic, most of the time they were not sure and admitted that they had not the information I had or engaged in the deep down contrasting of theology and reading of Erasmus, Luther, Calvin etc. as they had. They were just sure that you could not be "saved" and sometimes could not describe the process or its consequences, besides maintaining it was a mystical experience and was something not available to or occuring to others, especially Roman Catholics, who would not abandon their belief system.

The process of guilt-rehabilitation is one thing which I dislike, in any form, there's examples besides religion, for instance the post-9/11 "liberals" who saw the light of Neo-Conservatism or something like it. There were varieties of this in the fragmented, not yet dead, left wing of the nineties who had fierce, fierce disputes, I mean I was thrown out of or asked to leave meetings more than once (yes, I am just the same in person) and tempers were very frayed about it, until I got a bit older and realised that the opinions of groups of about six people really didnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

Another thing I dont like, which I do think arises in religion too is the confusion of humility or being humble with humiliation, the sort of sado-masochism of everyday life which Erich Fromm traces as beginning in Calvinism and Lutherism and being reinvented by the modern political ideologies and with each generation. The kiss up and piss down character structure, which I think is implicit or explicit in some religious writings, like the one about sinners in the hands of an angry God, not sure of the authors name, it reveres the authoritarian God king and despises sinners and is a bit self-congratulatory to the elect of believers at the same time.

To me there's a mess of contradictions in a lot of it, although it also is reflective of sociology, memes, all that stuff which atheists thing IS religion, rather than just bad religion.

 

[Lark]

Yeah; Keswick theology was basically a hyperArminian view connected with "Christian perfection". That by "the power of God", you could stop sinning. Hence, the double-standard people have noticed, that they talk about grace, yet in practice, it is all about works.
Problem is, who even lives up to it? It's easy for a preacher to stand up and posture an ideal like that to an audience, but no one can see what's going on in his daily life (and the families are taught never to speak critically of the father/husband).
What's even more lethal is when this type of perfectionism mixes with Calvinism. Then, you get stuff like the Lordship movement, which goes around declaring that up to 2/3rds of evangelicals are really not saved, because of "false conversion" evidenced by lack of "fruits"; and in the background, it's really God witholding "saving grace", and yet "holding them responsible" for not believing.

Well that is logical if you do believe in the election theories of Calvin, I find that's all incredible given that it appears to be based upon the literal interpretation of single verse about names being written in the "book of life", why is that more important than either the passages about judgement in Mark or Matthew?

I just think that the theory of election or a choosen people is totally unreconcilable with salvation being contingent upon either faith or works.

I can understand salvation by faith rather than works in isolation, in so far as God being the author of all things doesnt need anything, you cant make gifts to God and you cant barter with God, that's fine, I understand and accept and believe that. That's something which was once referred to as the "good pagans failure". I can understand salvation as an unconditional gift from God and I can also understand, and consider supportable, the idea that it was ignorance of this gift, and anxiety and fearfulness consequent of this, which causes suffering in the existential angst sense. The bible and religion are "good news" in the sense that they should provide relief of that angst.

However I dont believe that you can have faith or proclaim faith and act in a way that's contrary to that and remain pleasing to God, its not belief that God is cracked up about in the bible in the final instance but faith which results in certain actions. The book of James is pretty clear on that point and I refer anyone who believes that works are besides the point to it.

 

[Lark]

In addressing the topic Six Facts Plainly Revealed in the Gospels, I note there is revelation and science.

And whereas revelation depends on no empirical evidence, science does depend on empirical evidence.

So science gives us verifiable facts, while revelation gives us poetry.

And it is a sin against the Holy Spirit to confuse facts with poetry.

And you note that the Oz Branch of Wikileaks, Poetry Section, reveals a new poem every day, as well as revealing the voice and visage of the poet.

:facepalm:

The thread has been Victored!