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.
It is a false religion and pantheon, if it is real then those are lesser deities than my God.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well, at least Lark and Beefeater made something out of this thread. It's rather interesting.
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.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'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.
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.
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.