geisha779

The bargaining routine was more a study of God's righteousness (don't look Garth) and God's mercy. Abraham was the first person in scripture specifically mentioned by God to be righteous. He had just finished confirming, for the third time, His covenant to Abraham, that He would be the father of many nations. There was a defining contrast between the unrighteous people of Sodom and Abraham. Abraham had a clear understanding of God's character. . . . that God is just. Part of justice is judgment. . . . scripture speaks to this all over the place. . . . it is basically the whole point. Sets people's teeth on edge. . . . . we will be judged according to what we do, how we live, and the decisions we make. That is life baby! Unless one is perfect that is why we need a savior. Abraham knew God and also was known by God. . . . He had an acute understanding of God's mercy. But, God does not abide sin forever and the time for judgment was coming. Abraham acted as intercessor. He wasn't really playing games with God. The outcry of the city against god had reached heaven. Abraham asked for the city, all the people, if there were righteous. . . . notice God let him bargain it to ten. . . . also notice that Lot was not a totally perfect person. . . . he was tainted by what was going on in Sodom. The righteous and the wicked are not dealt with in the same manner by God. " Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from you! Shall not the judge of all the earth do justice? What is just? Abraham knew what was going down. He also knew God would show mercy to the righteous and for the righteous sake. . . well, why can't we understand these concepts of good and evil. How much plainer can God be? Yet, He would have spared the city. As far as there being innocent women and children destroyed. . . . where do you get that? Scripture actually isn't saying that. It mentions only Lot's two daughter because it says all the young and the old and ALL the people from every quarter surrounded Lot. Now. . . . why Lot? Why were they so angry with him? Because, they said "this one came in as an alien and already he is acting like a judge. . . . now we will treat YOU worse than them" People do NOT like to have their sins exposed, be it scripture, preaching, conviction. . . . it sets some people to extreme anger. Teeth gnashing anger. Most people like John 3:16 but, they don't like verse 19. Even after they were blinded they still were trying. What were they trying to do BTW? Rape! Lot was going to get worse than rape. It isn't like Abraham was stalling or trying to get a FEW of the righteous out. . . God was going to spare the entire city if there were even ten righteous. . . . they couldn't even find five. I have had all these same questions SS. I do understand. . . but the more you look at it in light of God being God it becomes clearer I think :) Hope I made sense. . . I do ramble all over the place. . . I know what I want to say . . I just have a difficult time articulating.

Ummm okay. . . except I don't think I was offering you a "song and dance". In truth, I didn't start this thread with you in mind at all. I get the distinct impression exploring scripture is not one of your main pastimes. Call me crazy. . . . just a hunch. This is actually the only thread I have ever started here other than when some people in my life died and I put something in the Memorial threads. How to discuss this topic without offending you. . . . hmmm . . . . if you have any suggestions I am open. . . . but, other than that, I may have to mention God's mercy as I contrast it against God's wrath. Hope it is okay here in the doctrinal section. . .. where we discuss doctrine. . . . sometimes biblical. . . . and as you are aware . . . on occasion the bible does mention God's mercy. Please don't take it as any kind of offering to you. . . . I assure you it isn't one.

Casino gambling, drinking, crab legs and twig. . . . wow. . . dang, and to think I am not Corps. A couple of those things I really enjoy. Oops . . . no one will see this post from the WC only site will they? I wouldn't want to be perceived as having an opinion. . . . :) <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

With all the current threads. . . This seems to fit somewhere in the mix.

Oakspear. . . a little more. . . . http://jmm.aaa.net.a...icles/18656.htm Studies of Corinth have abounded recently, and for our purposes amount to the obvious and major conclusion: Corinth was a thoroughly pagan city, typical of many in the ancient world.3 This did not, of course, mean merely that most of the inhabitants went from time to time to worship at pagan shrines and temples. It meant that the world view of the entire town was dominated by pagan assumptions, that the visual appearance of the town was dominated by pagan symbolism, that the normal mind set of the average Corinthian was dominated by pagan ideas, pagan hopes, and pagan motivations, and that the normal life style was dominated by pagan practices. Although the modem Western world is, I believe, moving towards a rediscovery of paganism at quite an alarming rate, it still requires something of a mental effort to reconstruct the picture of a city such as Corinth.4 There was, of course, a sizeable Jewish population in the town, as was true pretty well all around the Mediterranean. How influential this community was we have no means of knowing. Nor is it clear to what extent the Jewish community in Corinth would have clung to some kind of Pharisaic orthodoxy in their belief and behavior, or to what extent they would have been open to new, perhaps Hellenistic, ideas. It is clear, though, that their twin beliefs, monotheism and election, cut clean across all the normal assumptions of paganism. It is in this clash between Judaism and paganism that we find the true background to Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians, not least in chapters 8-10. Jewish monotheism in this period was not a speculative doctrine about the inner being of the one true god.5 It was the polemical belief that there was only one god, the creator of the whole world, and that all other gods were simply idols, human inventions with possible demonic associations. This belief is to be clearly distinguished from other ancient varieties of monotheism, notably Stoic pantheism. There is all the difference in the world between saying that there is one god because everything that exists is god, and saying that there is one god who made everything that exists. And this Jewish creational monotheism was linked closely with the belief that this one creator god had called Israel to be his special people. Israel's central theology thus equipped her to face the ravages of pagan oppression in the period between the Babylonian exile and the first century, and indeed the events of this period served to strengthen her grip on the belief in her god as the one true god, who would eventually vindicate his name and his people against all other gods and their adherents. The choices facing Jews in the pagan world were therefore quite stark. One option was to withdraw from contact with the world, to retreat into the ghetto. The problem with this was the strong Jewish belief in the goodness of creation: treating large areas of the world as off limits went against the grain (for instance) of the Psalms with their celebration of the created order. Retreat into dualism, though it often happened, could never represent a wholeheartedly Jewish solution. The other option was of course to assimilate. Jews from that day to this have faced this possibility, and we may presume that then as now some would lose their identity completely, while others would find various compromise solutions. But at the heart of the whole issue we will always find the theological and ethical questions which serve as shorthand for these large socio-cultural issues. Questions of monotheism versus polytheism, questions of the identity of the people of the one God, and questions of behavior with respect to food, drink and sex: these are not merely matters of an abstract theology or ethics, but relate to the entire world view, the entire way of being-in-the-world, of people in the ancient, and I believe the modern world. III. THE HEART OF PAUL'S RESPONSE: CHRISTOLOGY With this, we turn to the substantive issue that faced Paul. Should Christians in Corinth eat meat that had been offered to idols? We should be clear how far-reaching the question actually was. Though there is some debate about details, it seems likely that almost all the meat available in a city like Corinth would have been offered at some shrine or other; and idol-temples served not only as butcher's shops but also as restaurants.6 To avoid idol meat altogether might, then, mean de facto vegetarianism (an option forced on some in any case by economic circumstances). For a Jew, facing this question would pose quite sharply the options we just noted. One major Jewish position regarded pagan worship as idolatry, and insisted that genuine monotheists must not flirt with it. Another major Jewish tradition said that idols were non existent and irrelevant, and that the one creator god claimed as his own all that idols have usurped. This second way may well have been helped by the kind of speculative Jewish gnosis according to which one's relationship to the one true god elevated one above the problems of the pagan world.7 The first way could lead to dualism, the second to assimilation. Paul carves out a way which avoids both. He refuses to discuss the question in terms merely of a practical agenda. He goes (much more readily than some of his commentators) to the substantive issue that lies behind it all, that is, monotheism and idolatry. He does not work with the categories of a post-Reformation agenda, asking whether the "law" is a good thing or a bad thing, debating earnestly about whether "ethics" and "morality" somehow compromise the gospel of free grace. And, despite some recent writers who have suggested that he is simply shooting from the hip, offering haphazard and inconsistent solutions to problems as they come up, I suggest that his solution is actually clear, theologically grounded, and strikingly relevant.8 He offers the church a redefinition of monotheism and election, both achieved by means of his central Christology; and he shows how this redefinition of fundamental Jewish theology enables the church not merely to survive and maintain its identity vis-a-vis paganism but to take on paganism and, in a sense, beat it at its own game. He offers, in short, an incarnational theology for a church in a pagan environment. This helps to explain the beginning of the argument (8:1-3). Paul responds to the claim to gnosis by insisting on the primacy of Jewish style allegiance to the one true god, as expressed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shema ("'Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God."); Concerning idol meat, we know that "we all have gnosis." Gnosis puffs you up, but love builds you up. Anyone who claims to "know" something does not yet have the necessary "knowledge"; but anyone who "loves God" is known by God. (vv. 1-3) Paul is about to quote the Shema explicitly, in v. 4, but he clearly has it in mind already. The question at stake in the discussion of idol meat is, who are the people of God? The Jewish answer is: who says the Shema? Paul begins by affirming this answer, before introducing a striking new dimension: Concerning meat offered to idols, then, we know that "there is no idol in the world," and that "there is no god but one" (v. 4). Monotheism is what matters. But this credal statement by itself hardly addresses the situation on the street in Corinth, so he co. . . . . . . .

If you are really interested, N.T. Wright is really the one to read to put this is some kind of context for you. I know it is not your thing, but you are a bright guy and seem genuinely interested in certain things Christian without ascribing to them. At least having a decided opinion about them as is noted above. Wright really illuminates the high Christology that is found within the first century church. . . . defined within scripture. . . . and explains it within the context of the pervasive Jewish thought of the day and in Jesus' self-awareness. He persuasively and in a scholarly manner really challenges your statements. Since I know you are not wedded to a theology and I am not wasting my breath here. . . I thought you might enjoy mulling over a few of his thoughts. . . . otherwise, I would not bother . . . this thread is no different than anything else here. . . pick a corner and fight to the death! :) http://www.ntwrightp... Once we recognize, the "five ways" of speaking about God-at-work-in-the-world in first-century Judaism—something which, as I must stress, neither the study of the OT nor the study of the Fathers would have taught me—then it becomes obvious that the key central christological passages of the NT are all heavily dependent on precisely this way of thinking. They offer a very high, completely Jewish, and extremely early christology, something that is still routinely dismissed as impossible, both at the scholarly and the popular level. This was not a matter, as has often been suggested, of the early Christians haphazardly grabbing at every title of honor they could think of and throwing them at Jesus in the hope that some of it might make some sense, rather like a modernist painter hurling paint at a canvas from twenty paces and then standing back to see if it said anything to him. Rather, all the evidence points to serious and disciplined theological thought on the part of the very earliest Christians. Refusing to contemplate any god other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they found themselves drawn by the Spirit to use language of Jesus, and indeed of the Spirit, which was drawn from the Jewish traditions and traditional ways of reading scripture. This language fit so well and enabled them to say so many things by way of worship, mission, proclamation, and ethics that they must have been daily encouraged to pursue the same line of thought, to turn it into hymns and layers and creedal formulae, discovering and celebrating a new dimension of something they already knew like someone who had only known melody suddenly discovering harmony. The result of all this explosion of exciting but, as I have suggested, focused and disciplined thinking about Jesus and the Spirit is that, in effect, the NT writers offer an incipient trinitarian theology without needing to use any of the technical terms that later centuries would adopt for the same purpose. What is more, when we understand how their language works, we discover that it actually does the job considerably better than the later formulations. http://www.ntwrightp..._Jesus_Self.htm It will be noted that I have come as far as the last paragraph without mentioning the resurrection. Despite a long tradition, I do not regard the resurrection as instantly 'proving Jesus' divinity'. In such Jewish thought as cherished the notion of resurrection was what would happen to everybody, or at least all the righteous. It would not constitute those raised as divine beings. Nor would the 'glorification' of Jesus, his ascension to God's right hand have that effect: Jesus had, in New Testament theology, thereby attained the place marked out from the beginning not for an incarnate being but for the truly human one (note the use of Psalm 8 in e.g. 1 Cor, 15: 27). But this is not to say that the resurrection and ascension have nothing to do with the early church's belief in Jesus' divinity. We must not short-circuit their thought-processes, even though the time involved for such thinking may have been very short. My own reading of the process goes like this. The resurrection and ascension proved, first and foremost, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. This meant, at once, that his death had to be regarded in some fashion as a victory, not a defeat, whereupon all Jesus' cryptic sayings about the meaning of his death fell into place. Within that, again very quickly, the earliest Christians came to see that what had been accomplished in Jesus' death and resurrection as the decisive climax to his public career of kingdom-inauguration, was indeed the victory of YHWH over the last enemies, sin and death. And with that they could no longer resist the sense, backed up again by Jesus' cryptic sayings, that in dealing with him they were dealing with the living—and dying—embodiment of YHWH himself, Israel's God in person. From that it is a short step—not a long haul, involving abandoning Jewish categories and embracing those of the pagan [61] world—to speaking of 'that which was from the beginning, which we heard, which we saw with our eyes, which we beheld, and which our hands touched, concerning the word of life' (1 John 1:1). The worship of Jesus in early Jewish Christianity, a worship which was not perceived as flouting monotheism but as discerning its inner heart, was indeed, as is now more regularly seen, the beginnings of Christian thinking about Jesus. But that worship was simply discerning, in the Jewish categories that he had himself made thematic, what lay at the heart of the vocation and self-understanding of Jesus himself. http://www.ntwrightp...id_June2007.htm Question: You say Jesus did not know he was God in a straightforward, propositional sense, and he would not have described his relationship to the rest of the Trinity in the terms used in the early creeds. Jesus instead "knew" his standing/role in a non-propositional sense, in terms of vocation and calling. Answer: I don't think I use the word 'propositional'; nor do I say 'non-propositional'. These are your terms to try to summarize what I say and I do not think they help. The point is this. There is of course nothing in the gospels that suggests that Jesus uses the key terms from the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds (such as homoousion etc). All the evidence suggests that when Jesus uses 'son of God' language of himself this is rooted in his firm belief that he was Israel's messiah and that he understood, within this, his sense, which he must have known was unique, of close relation with the one he called 'abba'. But there is no evidence that the notion of 'trinity' as later developed was something he reflected on or spoke about. Even in the 'trinitarian' formula at the end of Matthew we don't, of course, have any developed language about 'person', 'substance', and so on. That is what I mean by 'didn't describe his relationship to the Father or the Spirit in the terms used in the early creeds'. The question of whether 'know he was God' is even the right way of expressing the problem is itself puzzling. The later Trinitarian theologians might have said 'know he was divine' or whatever, but -- 'God' without remainder? Peculiar in such a context. Yes, I do think Romans 9.5 predicates theos of Jesus, but everyone knows that's unusual and -- in a typically Pauline way -- challenging, terse and demanding further exploration. Question: If this is the case, the(i) I wonder on what grounds the apostolic (or later) church came to believe in a high christology. If Jesus didn't have a justified, true, belief that he was in fact God, how could anyone else? One can, of course, posit that the Holy Spirit filled in the details post-resurrection in a fully propositional form, but some evidence of this would be desirable. Answer: This is very odd, very rationalistic. I am not absolutely sure I know what you mean by 'justified, true belief' (and again note the apparently non-trinitarian 'that he was in fact God'). I have said, again and again, that Jesus did indeed believe he was the one who had to do and be what in scripture YHWH says he alone can do and be. This was a justified belief -- because he really did have that vocation and really did act on it and it really did work out the way one might have expected -- the way, I think, Jesus expected – if and only if it was true; and I of course think it was indeed a true belief. But the problem seems to be that some people expect a sequence like this: (i) Jesus believed he was divine (let's not say 'God' simply; I'm too Trinitarian for that!) (ii) This belief of Jesus about himself was the reason why the early church believed similar things about him. (Already we seem to be off the point which is about knowledge, rather than belief, but still...) Whereas I have argued that when the early church -- the very early church, already well before Philippians was written! -- used language about Jesus which indicated its belief that he was somehow identified with Israel's God without denying an interplay of roles between him and the creator -- i.e. the prototrinitarianism we find not only in Phil 2 but also eg Gal 4.1-7 -- this was a way of drawing out, reflecting on the significance of, the entire work which Jesus accomplished, and the Creator's verdict on it all in raising him from the dead, coupled with the early church's mulling over Jesus' own 'sonship' language and its meaning for him and for them. In other words, it isn't a matter of Jesus believing and teaching a doctrine about himself and the early church learning this doctrine from him. That is impossibly rationalistic (again!) and cerebral and bypasses all the really important things that the NT seems to be telling us were going on... Question: (ii) If Jesus got by without this sort of propositional knowledge, on what grounds do we take it to be so important? Answer: Are you equating 'justified, true belief' with 'propositional knowledge'? If so, I think I want to shift the terms of the debate quite radically. I want to ask, do you hold some kind of hierarchy of knowledge, whereby some kinds of things are the 'real' or 'deep-level' knowledge and others less so? As you may know, I have come to the view, following Lonergan, that love is the highest mode of knowing; and love, notoriously, is difficult to tie down in propositions. That doesn't mean it isn't knowledge, or that it isn't true, or that it isn't justified, or that it isn't real. I think vocational knowledge -- knowing, in prayer, what God is saying about who you are called to be and become and do -- is quite close to love. I think knowing that two plus two equals four, while fully justified and true and real, is ultimately less significant than knowing I love and am loved, and knowing that God really is calling me to do and be certain things. And my frustration with the debate that swirls around this whole topic of 'Jesus' self-knowledge' is that people often seem to talk as though 'did Jesus know he was God' is more like 'knowing two plus two equals four' whereas I think it's much more like love or vocation. In other words, I guess I have been driven, by my years of immersing myself in the gospels and in their Jewish context, to rethink all sorts of things about knowledge itself. I'm not claiming that the way I currently put it is correct. I just know (in several senses!) that it makes very good historical sense, theological sense (within a very high Christology and full Trinitarianism), and that it does NOT (against the comment immediately below) mean in any way a 'weakening' of Jesus' self-knowledge but rather a strengthening of it. I'm grateful for the question but I would urge those who are puzzled by all this, not to give up or back off but stick with the question and consider whether their ideas of knowledge might need to be pulled about a bit. Or, if they don't want to do that, whether they are prepared to argue against the ideas of knowledge I'm finding myself driven to. Unless we have that debate, what's happening is that some people are putting my rather careful statements onto the Procrustean bed of their own late-western epistemologies -- like trying to play a Beethoven quartet on a guitar... He has a great book called "John for Everyone" in which he addresses the initial question posted on this thread along with numerous other writings. He is fun to read . . . but have a dictionary close by!

Because questioning, scrutiny, criticism and challenges are all worthy of a response. . . . . and people fall for lies every day Garth.

You are right, I was very condescending. I was reacting to your statement about rednecks and that tone I often hear from people about Christians. . . maybe I was wrong and misunderstood. . . either way I am sorry I was rude to you. You are one of my favorite posters. There were a couple of things in TWI that we did that I guess I am hyper aware of . . . one was being anti-semitic and two was siding with Arius based on some funky reasoning. I actually think the two go hand in hand. There is a great thread where some long gone poster just laid this stuff out so clearly. I wish he was still here. I don't even think he is a Christian. . . . but, it is the Snapping thread. Maybe I have a much different perspective because I am Christian and I think that TWI was an assault on Christianity. I see the same mindset in some of the authors presented here. . . . I have the advantage of being familiar with them and I find it so ironic. It is the same kind of assault. . . . similar reasoning. . . . the same extreme. . . albeit reactionary. . . and it baffles me. People claim to be turned off to fundamentalism. . . but, are they . . . . based on some of the same arguments we used in TWI to rewrite Christian history. We have got a really great advantage here as we were in a group like TWI. . . . we can recognize these things. . . . seems to me we should. Anyway. . . my apologies it is inexcusable. . . I do get carried away. We are to defend our faith from assault. . . but I did a poor job of it. :(

Excellent Twinky. .. better than I could ever articulate. . . . and yes, that God taking you out part is iffy... it can be taken just like you said. . . I recant. :) Thank-you. . . . I really don't think I am good at explaining things. . . I used to have te exact same questions as SSearcher until I really started looking at it. One good thing to do is to read the OT and NT together. There are schedules floating around and certain things in the OT and NT correspond. Soul Searcher, What I meant was that God treated Israel like a father. . . . but, frankly, there were times Israel really suffered in the OT. . . . famine, exile. . . . sickness. . . . it was when they turned to idols. Whenever they repented He delivered them. . . .He warned and warned. . . . that is what all those prophet's were for. . . but, Israel was prone to turn away easily. He kept offering Himself to them and they kept going elsewhere. He chose Israel to bring Himself to the rest of the people as well. . . . He was not just for Israel. . . . but, that is how people came to Him. Does that sound familiar? :) If the God of the heavens and earth offers Himself to us. . . . promises fellowship and joy. . . . and we say no thanks. . . what are we turning to? If the bible is about life, purpose, creation, and the plan of mankind. . . . what else is there. What kind of God must He be. . . . to speak and from nothing there is something. A magnificent something. A friend who works in Cosmology said to me. . . . "I don't know how much is science and how much is just ART". What kind of being must He be? The bible tells us He is holy. When you start contemplating that one. . . it makes a bunch more sense. It tells us He is just. . . well, that concept is sometimes lost in our society, but justice is a real thing. . . many of us long for it. . . . although I am fairly careful on that one and plead the blood of Jesus. So, no, Sodom was punishment for sin. What are we speaking of here though. . . . gay couples adopting unwanted children from other countries and going to PTA meetings. No, that is not what was happening in Sodom. What do we as a society do when someone rapes, murders, or hurts a child? We lock them up and sometimes execute them. They are punished. Pedophiles are repeat offenders. . . . there is very little room for recovery. Even still God removed the righteous. But, how great was Lot? What did he end up doing? Yet, God still had mercy on him. I will think about the other question, but Twinky fairly nailed it. Oddly, I am off to a prison today to speak to people about repentance and forgivness. LOL

I forgot to mention this is in response to a question Soul Searcher had upstairs in a thread. I am sure there are others here who remember what TWI taught better than I do. Here was his question: "What about this from Joshua 10 on the battle against Gibeon? As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites. (Joshua 10:11, NIV) The Lord helped avenge the Israelites time and again. And he didn't fool around -- most of the time He made sure that everyone (including women and children) was killed, even those that got away. So... Love your enemies? Turn the other cheek? According to Jesus or according to the LORD? I know this is off-topic but your comment about emulating Jesus caught my attention. Is there a thread that discusses the God of the OT? Because I have lots of questions. " "I was recently introduced to those "teachings" on classes from CES/STF and CFFM and I have to tell you: it doesn't do it for me as far as explaining the difference between God's behavior in the OT vesus the NT. And I wonder how much of what you just described is original WAY doctrine and how much of it came from other places? The dispensationalism, for example (along with four crucified and six denials) comes from Bullinger, no?"

Soul Searcher, I started a topic in the doctrinal so that maybe someone can help you with your questions. Don't think I am too qualified, but I gave it a go. . . . that way brainy's topic doesn't get sent below. :)

If there is a God. . . . why does He allow evil people to prosper? Why does He allow evil things to happen? Why doesn't He do something? Ever hear those questions asked today? Well, they were also asked time and time again in the Old Testament. The cry of the book of Habakkuk is "Where is the judgment of God?" especially against the Babylonians who were more wicked than the Judeans. Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh and preach judgment because he didn't think they even deserved a warning. The psalms are filled with David's plaintive cry of "How long oh Lord?" Jeremiah was sent to a people who refused his whole life to listen to him. . . . no one repented under Jeremiah. Noah preached for 120 years and no one believed him. He warned and warned. Abraham played Let's Make a Deal with God over how many righteous for Sodom and Gomorrah . . . and yet they couldn't even find ten people. No one would listen. Israel's kings just got progressively worse. . . . each one worse than all their predecessors combined. People suffered under these kings. Adam and Eve had a murderer for a son and God gave him a mark so no one would touch him. And between the recordings of the Old and New Testament there was a 400 year period of darkness when there was no voice of God. So what was the question? Why does the God of the Old Testament seem wrathful and Jesus all about love in the New Testament? The servants of the OT complained God wasn't wrathful enough. Old Jonah sat on that hillside just waiting for God to take out the city of Nineveh. Never happened. He then complained to God. . . that God was too merciful! Both God's love and wrath are revealed in the old and new testament. Every single account of Jesus with the Pharisees in a public setting was a scathing rebuke of God's judgment against them. Jesus consigned them to hell, called them children of the devil, and brood of vipers to mention a few terms. On the other hand, when He met privately with them, like Nicodemus, or Matthew's friends. . . . He lovingly accepted them. Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity. Joel 2:13 In the same way that God deals with His children in the NT He also dealt with Israel. . . . always giving them a chance to return to Him and repent. . .. sometimes to the extreme dismay of others like Jonah or David. God always delivered them from their trials once they had repented. In the New Testament the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and punishes every son whom He receives. Why does any father? Our days are numbered. . .it is always basically God who takes you out anyway. .. Same God. . . Scripture says God is unchanging. Not every scripture tells the same thing about God, but it is all there in the OT and the NT. For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. . . . Why wrath? " God's wrath is not an uncontrollable destructive emotion directed against those He dislikes. Wrath describes His just, holy response to sin and rebellion. From a human perspective shaped in a world permeated by sin and injustice, wrath and love are seen as polar opposites. In god, however there is no conflict between His great love and terrible wrath. Most human beings know that something is wrong with the world, and there is a deep longing that it be put right. (The multiplicity of religions and sects give a variety of explanations of why the world isn't as it should be. They also prescribe a variety of logically incompatible solutions to right the wrong.) Both God's love and His wrath are the guarantors that what is wrong will be put right. To deny or minimize God's wrath is to obscure what He revealed in the death of His son who bore God's wrath in our place." And don't forget love. . . . Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. There is an option. . .

Thanks for sharing that Rascal, I too know of people who have died with the words "simply amazing" or similar wonderment. . . . passing away in awe of something. I don't know. It makes you wonder. A woman at our church who died on the operating table. . . . she had a stroke. . . . told me what happened to her. . . she said she met the Lord. Talked to Him. He sent her back . . . . according to her. I don't think she is crazy and she truly believes it. . . . she was dead and revived. Who knows? May your friend RIP.

I will tell you up front. . . my politics are left leaning. . . . I am moved by the plight of the Palestinian people. . . .they are a warm and beautiful people. But, do you know what road I want to be very careful not to ever travel down again? I never want to be sucked into the vortex of revisionist history with an agenda or anything that is remotely Anti-Semitic. I have been there and that is one of the greatest shames I have from TWI. . . . I understand what happened to me. Someone had an agenda. . . a viewpoint. . . and the ability to persuade me to it with their slant on history. Much like scripture. . . history can be molded to reflect what we want it to. . . TWI was an anti-semetic group . . . . .an extreme mindset. . . . with an agenda. . . look at the kind of fringe revisionist history we bought hook, line and sinker. Reading and nodding as if it were gospel I suppose. .. . Was that something in us? I don't know. . . but, I know I don't ever want to revisit that again.

You? No way. . . . I am thrilled whenever you share any insight into yourself and how you think. . . . but, then again, I have a tiny advantage of knowing just a bit about the way you live as a person. I am actually a big fan. I love your attitude. . . . and I highly doubt you would turn away even a rabid dog from your door if they turned up looking for help! Yesterday I talked to another ex-way person who has a different reaction to the bible than me. . . . she is one of the most grounded and sensible people. . . . Christian or not. . . I have chatted with in a long time. She and her significant other are just so darn likable. So together. I have consigned no one to outer darkness lately, it was an observation. . . and it struck me as funny on here. . . all the usual suspects. . . all the usual worldview responses. :) Me too though, I include myself. Some I think are really crusading to enlighten others here to their worldview. . . . but, I do it too. Just seems some are so easily swayed to embrace one thing to the next to the next. . . without some critical thinking. My opinion anyway. I really empathize with ex-way. It was a pretty ugly thing to belong to or try to overcome. . . . . and this is about the only place I can go to talk about it. . . . I don't tell anyone in "Polite" society I was ever in a cult. . . .. the few times I did. . . . It became the topic and everything I said. . . . I could see being weighed against that freakish bit of info.

And so it begins. . . . each person picking their corner and staying there. I could have written most of these posts myself. . . . even people here who claim to be opposed to some kind of dogma . . . religiously and blindly cling to one in varying forms. . . . . perhaps not TWI dogma . . . but, some ideology they have adopted. We have, atheists, skeptics, New Agers, cynics, crusaders, nihilists, Pagans . . . Christians(a very few :) ) and more. . . . all enlightened and bent on enlightening the rest. . . . me included. Although in "truth" the point I try to get across here more than not is that TWI was not Christian. It had a form of Christianity, the lingo, the book. . . . but it was a perversion. Most people here are just as extreme as they ever were in TWI. . . . even if it is in apathy. . . . .it doesn't seem many who regularly post have really moved all that far. . . . and most are reactionary positions IMO. . . . . . . TWI still holding some kind of sway over our spiritual journey. Even if it is a journey to prove a former belief system wrong. . . . I hate TWI with a true passion. Pawtucket said something fairly profound on another thread. .. . "The Way has managed to turn many away from God. Many of these people will never even attempt a relationship with God again." I would add the bible too . . . and that many will still try and apply the standard learned in TWI to the bible only to turn away as well. . . . it is not great feat to to find that faulty. . . it was an impossible standard and we worshiped a book. All this talk of critical thinking on here fairly bemuses me. . . . as I have really yet to really see it. . . . I see reaction. Not a slam. . . just an opinion. I believe the bible to be true brainy. . . . but, it is just a book. . . a collection of ancient writings. . . not some mystical or magic potion. . . . an unfolding story about life, meaning, and purpose, in relationship to a fairly hidden God. Why He is hidden would probably end us up in the doctrinal. . . To me, truth is found in the creation . . . . within relationships. . . . and also in the realities of suffering and pain in this life. . . . they are all part of the package too. The truth about what it means to be human. That is why I look at the person the bible talks about. He shows me what it means to be human. I want to be like Him. . . . boy, do I fail. He doesn't tell me how to "find myself" He tells me who I really am. . . . He nails it too. .. then He offers a better way. Look around you. . . . there is good and there is evil or bad. . . . and most of the time we all just try to dwell right down the middle. I love the bible. . . . not as an object of worship or something that must be held above all else. . . I hold it in esteem because it offers me healing in the knowledge of Jesus and what He shows us about being human and what life can be. It offers me hope. . . .

You are a good honest man. Rare breed these days. Although. . . you don't always answer your phone. . . . are you home yet? Or just have caller ID? :)

For me. . . . truth is a person . . . I learn about Him in the scriptures. . . what I see blows me away more than anything I have ever heard before. How He interacted with people, loved them, understood them, and reached out to heal them. . . moves me to worship and praise. That is my truth. . . .and I have looked around. . .I am now one of those sold out committed Jesus freaks. . . who are rare to emerge from the Way.

Christian fundamentalist arose as a movement to combat liberal theology which got away from the most basic tenets of our faith. . . . they also arose in opposition to groups like TWI. Fundamentalist would not claim TWI in their ranks for anything. On the other hand. . . . having basic Christian fundamentals is unavoidable as a follower of Jesus Christ. . . no? The term has morphed into something else. . . taken on a new meaning, but for the purposes of this thread. . . is it a bible believing Christian. . . or a cult like TWI? I have yet to figure it out. Lets just lump all "believers" together. . . generalize and call names. We did that in TWI with the rest of Christianity. . . why deviate now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When are you guys who call yourselves Christians on here ever going to learn your faith? When? Do you have a Pastor? A qualified trained Pastor to guide you? Do you have a church? If not, please go find an actual annointed Pastor to chat with. . . . from a basic bible believing church. . . . one who knows the gospel? If you have one. . . go talk to him about the difference between a cult and a fundamentalist. . . . please You call yourself a Christian? Great . . . I certainly recognize that in you. . . . I also recognize the struggles formerly being in a bible cult presents. . . .particularly TWI. . . I recognize the branch in the road that presents itself when people come to the realization that we worshiped the scriptures and the VP interpretation. It is that. . . well, dang. . . . now what? Here is a thought. . . . the actual gospel message. The thing we denied in the first place. God is vast? Really? Well, no kidding. What is the message? I can assure you it is not that God is so vast there is no way to know Him. You cannot think of one narrow way in which God defined Himself for us outside of scripture? Not one way? One narrow way where He did manifest Himself for us? One very specific way He did reveal Himself to us? And not just to us, but all mankind? Maybe in a person? Possibly? Sound at all familiar? A person in which He brought Himself down to our level to relate to us? The scriptures were also made in documentary form. Who starred in the role? Who is the intercessor? Well, heck now, lookee here. . . . it is actually a man now isnt it? How narrow minded is the view that Jesus is Lord and God? That is the real question. And we learn about this from the scriptures as we were born 2000 years too late to see Him manifest in the flesh. We, as Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, BELIEVE the scriptures and put our faith in the PERSON! Fundamentalist hold a narrow view because they do not deviate from this belief to accept any other paths. They believe in the truth presented in the scriptures. In the reliability of scripture. . . . but, not only because it can be historically verified to a point we will accept it. . . . there is that I suppose, but then you get into a whole huge world of academics, but also because what it says SPEAKS TO OUR HEARTS!! Christianity 101 here. It is a fundamental tenet of our faith. . . . I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me. For us as CHRISTians. . . it begins and ends there. That is it. . . . He is the way we know God, relate to God, reach God, fellowship with God. . .. and He is the only way for anyone to know God. There is your narrow view. Here is one for you. . . . For God who said "Let light shine out of darkness" that vast creator God of the universe. . . . that we cannot define. . . . "made His light to shine in our hearts to give the light of the KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the FACE of Jesus Christ." We have this treasure in earthen vessels. . . . so that we do not laud ourselves. . . . but Him. . . .You ever listen to a Christian? They just blah blah blah about what? The scriptures? NO Jesus Christ. . . . TWI put their faith in their knowledge OF the scriptures to know God. . . in the scriptures themselves. . . . .it began and ended right there. . . they DENIED Jesus. They worshiped the bible. . . very similar to the way the Pharisees did. . . . the Pharisees even quoted scripture at Him. He said. . . . "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, but they are they which testify of ME" "And you will NOT come to me that you may have life" It is not any different than what we did in TWI. God's plan of salvation is not the scriptures. . . . it is how we learn about the person. Deny the person you are NOT a Christian. The ink and paper was held in higher esteem than Jesus Himself in TWI. . . . We are using terms interchangeably here. Fundamentalist Christians hold to the basic fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. . . the reliability of scripture, Jesus as savior for all mankind, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the trinity, Sola Scriptura. . . . Which of those don't you believe? And . . it doesn't mean there is no truth in other faiths. . . . there is. . .and plenty of morality too but, Christians believe in God's plan of redemption. . . through the person of Jesus, revealed in the what? The Bible. . . or scriptures. What part of that narrow view do you have a problem with as a Christian?. . . You must confess Jesus as Lord in your life and follow Him. . . . right? He must reveal Himself to you. . . you must have a PERSONAL relationship with Him if you worship God. Did I say faith is a personal relationship with Jesus and that we worship and relate with other Christians? Yep I did. Do you have an issue with the reliability of the scriptures? Then why is He your Lord??? We have 90% down pretty good. . . the other 10% does not effect doctrine. . . . it is the most copied book in ancient history. . . we can recreate the NT from the church fathers writings alone to within a handful of verses. . . . and if you believe that any of the Caesars lived. . . you are going on thousands of less bits of info written during or after their lifetimes. . . So, what is the narrow view you are rejecting? TWI's. . . . me too. . . . because they denied the most basic tenets of the faith in favor of bible worship. . . or breaking it down. . . . cult of personality worship. They are not Christian!! Is it the interpretation that Jesus is Lord. . . the only path to God? I have to tell you. . . . there are specific things that make you a follower of Jesus Christ. . . . and on the other hand denying certain things makes you something else. If He is not the way to God. . . why would you yield your life to His Lordship. . . confess Him as Lord. . . and follow Him? Why are you a Christian? You tell me. Look to people. . . you are going to get people. . . look to Jesus and you are going to get God. Hopefully reflecting His glory in some small manner. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord. . . knows Him or is known by Him. What is a fundamentalist Christian in your definition and how are you a Christian without the most basic fundamental Christian tenets found in scripture.? It is a book ABOUT Jesus Christ. He Himself claimed to be a narrow way. . . . what. . . He didn't mean it? Wrongly copied down. . . . misinterpreted? What? It wasn't good enough or clear enough. . . . that way which God made at great cost . . . wasn't enough? Why do YOU think Jesus spoke so much of hell? Just a theory here, but such a sacrifice. . . such a way . . . . such a Savior. . . when denied. . . the alternate plan is. . .Allah? Because Jesus isn't good enough? Define the terms please. . . . call yourself whatever you want. . . move away from the fundamentals of the Christian faith. . . namely Jesus Christ. . . who is revealed to us through scripture. . . .as the only path to God. . . . and you are what? A Christian? If you doubt the reliability of scripture. . . why believe in the subject matter? If you put your faith in some guys theorizing about what the scriptures says about Jesus. . . you get a problem. . . put your faith in the right person. . . you are a Christian. ______________________________ There you go RR. . . hope I didn't disappoint.

Garth, Ohhh you called me "Lady" . . . . last time you called someone "Lady" was Linda Z. . . . I think she disagreed with you too. . . . have not seen her since. . . . you charmer . . . you do have a way with the Ladies.

I do not consider myself a fundamentalist . . . . that was the point. There is no clear definition. I am a Christian and the nature of my faith is Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. It is the message people do not like. . . . the rest is just. . . dressing. I also do not buy Bart Ehrmans arguments or Karen Armstrongs. . . . I have a Masters in history. . . and am just not moved. If someone is talking about a group like TWI. . . . I am in. . . . but, once we start extrapolating out into Christianity, based on subjective arguments, while classifying groups of people, and making broad judgments. . . . count me out. The irony is. . . it is exactly what the people claim they are standing against. Telling someone they are wrong because they hold a narrow view of God, assumes you know what is right. You cannot get away from it. There is no crusade. . . .there is a message. Take it, leave it. . . it is a free-will choice, but, please do not make broad assumptions about nameless, faceless people. . . . because they put their faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior. I put names, faces, and lives to many of those people. . . . and they are wonderful. . . . and many of them would give you the shirt off their backs or the last dollar from their pockets.

Listen to yourself. . . . I don't see things the way you think I should and somehow. . . I don't care to admit it! There is something wrong with me? That is rich and INCREDIBLY hypocritical. As that is the "problem" you seem to have with all these "fundies" who are apparently bothering you day and night. . . . giving you no peace. What a joke. People like you apparently feel some right in calling people NAMES, generalizing, and characterizing individuals you don't even KNOW. . . . based on your limited past experiences... . . and forgive me, but if you know the difference between a cult like TWI and the Christian faith . . . . you have yet to articulate it here. That doesn't stop you from calling names though. Now, how you get get "I will preach the gospel to you whether you like it or not" from someone sharing their faith in conversation, in a CHURCH, on a network designed for just such purpose, or in a DOCTRINAL section of a discussion forum, is just a leap. Unless I am knocking down your door or badgering you at your workplace. . . . last time I checked, I am free to believe and speak as I want. Just as you are and just as you seem to avail yourself of this right (ad nauseum). . . . so will I. You are in the wrong country Garth, there are places where Christians are imprisoned and tortured for their belief in Jesus, for not repudiating Him. . . . even executed, but that is not here. Yet. . . . . Funny, the attitude and justification for such things is painfully similar to your attitude. Filled with some rage are we? Oddly enough, this IS a discussion about fundamentalists. . . and from what you are saying. . . . the first time someone expresses confidence in their belief system within a thread talking about fundamentalism the sky is falling. But, we can have page after page of generalization and pathetic attempts at intellectualizing a REACTIONARY response. A reaction to something we don't like. I go to places I am INVITED and meet with people who seek me out. . . . people, who most of society shun. . . . and if you want to do something about it. . . . I suggest you get your a$ down to your local prison and preach intolerance for Christians your own damn self. Otherwise. . . . you are going to have to learn to live with people who believe differently than you. . . . like a grown-up. Like I do. I even manage to love them. What is your excuse again? You are annoyed? Thank-you though. . . . . you have articulated better than I could imagine. . . . the intolerance, generalization, and underlying attitude of wanting to eviscerate all things Christian . . . . that usually masks itself as post-modernism and tolerance in this country. Kudo's though for at least not hiding behind a Charter.

I am so sorry. The rules are really screwy and frustrating. I gave blood a few years ago . . . I am healthy and the universal donor type . . . . but, because hubby had factor 8 as a teen. . . they threw my blood away. It is really insane that I could not give my blood to him when he was literally down 5 pints. . . .it is criminal that they would not take your blood. That is just so sad.

You were in a damn cult unless you belonged to some denomination I am unaware of? A CULT!! Burn the tee-shirt I will help you, but unless you feel some need to tell ME how to live MY life. . . . spare me the vitriol and give us "Fundies" some peace! I do not believe I have shared the gospel with you lately, but I have gone OUT of my way to treat you with respect. Tired argument . . . why because you say so ? Line up and let Karen Armstrong tell you how to be compassionate. . . . hey, I might even pay her for that one. Here is one I heard tonight. . . gotta make it my new tag line to go along with my new label . . . . IF sinners want to jump into the lake of fire.. . . they will have to do it over my body. That should get some "tolerant" teeth gritting.