I will stick up for what I believe, and why I believe it
Just because I'm sticking up for the above does not mean I demand that you agree with my beliefs
Nor I am going to condemn you for not agreeing --in point of fact my faith forbids me to condemn anyone--if there is any condemning to do that is God's job--
" How can some of the folks who revile those who hold different doctrinal positions be so sure that they've got it right?"
This the question of the ages. There is no prescribed formula to win god's favor and a special spot in heaven, no matter what denomination you root for.
Haven't we discussed this issue on previous threads ad nauseum. So far I've seen nothing new in your argument that you haven't already labored on before.
Raven,
Your philosophy is interesting, do what thou wilt, I guess then the Mafia has it right afterall.
As far as the bible being *THE* word of God....a retired methodist minister neighbor of mine has a very interesting take on it.
He believes the bible to be a fairly accurate book concerning how God delt with one particular group of people at a particular time in history.
A great insight into God and spirituality..... but he in no way sees God limited to the particular manner that he interacted with the isrealites of 2000 + years ago.....a one size fits all throughout the ages doctine.........but rather a flexible God who is willing to work how and where, whithin the frame work that we will allow him access into our lives.....
As a mom I understand this...being flexible to each childs needs, applying the best system to educate and inspire each child to achieve their best. One side does not fit all...and it would be wrong for me to insist that child # 4 fit into the mold that worked for child # 1.
I don`t think twi had it right in their one size fits all of mankind ministry.
Oak, you are correct, as I understand it.....leaders got together and decided which letters and epistles that they liked and best fit with their theology....and threw out the rest...some sects that addheared to a particular desciples writings were persecuted to the point of extinction.....there were many many manuscripts of deciples and apostles that were disregarded because they didn`t support the position that the leaders wanted .....
I myself, am trying to train myself to rather than looking at religious lables.....look instead to see if folks are applying the two great commandments that Jesus emphasized....The bible says that fruit of the spirit is another good indicator of recognizing spiritually like minded folks as well...no matter what brand or flavor one seems to find works for them.
...When asked whether certain books were left out of the bible that should have been included, and whether certain books were excluded that should have been put in...Wierwille claimed that "Gawd protects His word"...but then he goes on to explain that there were deliberate forgeries and mistranslations...hmmm, I guess Gawd had the ability to make sure all the books in the bible were inserted correctly...but He dropped the ball when it came to actually protecting the contents of those books...
Maybe when the bible was put together there was a lot of guys like Mike involved with the process?
...My inclination is to look within myself. When I'm on my death bed, I will be there alone...my denomination gets to stay here and keep breathing. When I look at the bible and consider "Christian doctrine", it seems like most of it is written to the individual...encouraging them to EXPERIENCE the spiritual reality for themselves...(ie...trust in the Lord with all thine heart...the spirit beareth witness with our spirit, walk circumspectly, etc etc etc etc)...the bible seems to be leading people toward their own individual experience. So what's the problem?
Wierwille taught people NOT to trust their own experiences...but to trust in the "word of Gawd" (which was his interpretation)...In other words, it's a CONTROL issue. If what I tell you what "the truth" is instead of you relying on your own experiences...I control you...it's that simple.
It's kinda like someone spending all their time studying the owners manual for their car, and they never actually drive the car themselves...The bible encourages people to "have fellowship with God"...or in other words...to experience God for themselves. Not to merely read about it, over and over and over and over again...but to develope their own experiences. It's not supposed to be an intellectual excercise of merely learning what the book says, but to experience what the book says.
Wierwille ( and he's certainly not alone in this), would always "trump" your experience by negating it and sending you back to the realm of non-experience. The realm where spiritual reality was not experienced but was filtered through his control mechanisms which gave him mog persona and bolstered his ego.
That's why twi doesn't trust people to make their own decisions.
I look at the bible as a "portal" that leads to experiences.
I've been looking at the Bible a lot different lately and Groucho, I like how you put it. That's a lot of what I think, too. I think there's a heck of a lot more to it than the Bible scholars (like we were told we were in TWI) can fathom. I think they're too blinded by their preconceived notions and ego, maybe. *shrug*
Regardless, the facts are that there are a lot of things left out of the Bible because some MEN thought that they shouldn't be included. There are a lot of political influences on HOW things were recorded, too. A cursory view of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls among other things makes that real clear, imo.
When people try to make their point by quoting the "rightly divided almighty God-breathed word" it just doesn't hold the same power over me that it used to. That's religion and Jesus *did* say that the whole thing could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor". That's good enough for me and seems to work no matter what religion, belief, culture, color or "label" you are. :)
You all make good points. It is true that groups who were in the minority were denied the ability to contribute to the canon. The Gnostics come to mind. It is clear when you read the Canon we have that there was a concerted effort by the Jewish leaders to suppress the doctrine of salvation by grace (first the Apostles' doctrine, then Paul's gospel) and replace it with legalism. A few centuries after the "Acts 15 Council" the Holy Roman Church picked up where the Sanhedrin left off and declared the Unitarians to be heretics and drove them from the Church. What followed was centuries of non-scriptural nonsense, carnality, and legalism (sorry Catholics, but it's true). The Catholic Church and the Church of England burned people at the stake for the heinous, unspeakable crime of translating the Bibles into languages most people could understand.
Nevertheless, we still have Paul's epistles, canonized in the Bible. Both the Sanhedrin and the Catholic Church actively tried to suppress the tenets of Paul's gospel and eventually failed. So in a sense, VP was right about God protecting His Word. The gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God has survived all attempts to stamp it out.
And I've been greatly blessed by believing what's written in those hallowed pages; healing, speaking in tongues, etc. So I can't just decide that since men messed with the process, it's devoid of spiritual benefit. In the end, I will probably arrive at some combination of fundamentalism and gnosticism. As Groucho said, the book points us to a destination beyond quoting verses. We're supposed to arrive at a living spiritual relationship with God, as dear children, as His habitation. So perhaps instead of arguing over whehter it's "all God's Word or none of it", we should look at the Bible as Truth 101: An Introduction to God and Christ.
Templelady..for what it's worth (nothing really I spose) I DO admire you for STANDING on (something)
I decided to STAND (on something) too as I believe to STAND on something, anything ..that has to do with what you previously posted (the basics..God, Jesus Christ, the payment for our sins etc..) is wayyyyyyyyy better than to just live for oneself, even those who give all their clothes to feed the poor etc.. really are doing it because it makes THEM feel better either firstly or ultimately !
Haven't we discussed this issue on previous threads ad nauseum. So far I've seen nothing new in your argument that you haven't already labored on before.
It's timely...and if you don't think there's anything new, then don't contribute to the conversation...oh wait...you didn't :wacko:
My point is not to argue the authenticity of the bible with you or any other bible believers...but to point out the weakness of the position of those on this board who are quick to attack others' beliefs.
...I agree with Oak. Those who attack other's beliefs are standing on very shakey ground. For those whose "Christian orientation" was with twi, a foundation of "being right" was laid within their hearts and minds. This mindset leads to an elitist attitude, which oftentimes is arrogant and causes divisions amoung people.
"Fits with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision"...Oh really? There seems to be a contradiction of sorts, between this idea and the idea of "taking it by faith"... In twi, a person was encouraged to "believe God" (which requires a decision based on faith that cannot be verified or proven)...and then they went about trying to verify and prove it! Believing in God and "rightly dividing the bible" are two different things entirely.
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing the word of God"...
Ok...Faith needs an object. If you've never heard of God, it might be difficult to believe in Him. However, once a person has faith, or decides not to have faith, why do they insist on intellectualizing the process and then attempt to turn it into something they can verify and prove, as if it were a secular study?
The new testament was not around during the beginning of the Christian church. So what did they do? They spent their time doing word studies from the old testament?..Gimme a break. Paul wrote the church epistles based on his personal EXPERIENCES (which Wierwille told us not to trust)...In fact, the bible is a collection of people's experiences...(some people call Paul's experiences "receiving revelation")...if that's true, isn't "receiving revelation an experience? So what's my point?...
...My point is that Christianity is about having personal experiences yourself...not dissecting the written testamony of OTHER people's experiences. Wierwille distorted the Christian lifestyle which led to a bunch of people "being right from an academic perspective"...and of course, this led to what Oak is talking about.
If you're academically "right", then anyone who does not agree with you is "wrong"...and then the confrontational attacks begin. Two crucified or four crucified..."what deeeference does it make?"...In my opinion...not much. Arguing over what the bible "really says" is not worth the division that comes from it...not if a person is endeavoring to live a Christian life. I am not suggesting that Christian shouldn't read their bibles...but keep your opinions to yourself! There's a huge difference between "preaching the good news" and communicating your "expertise" in Greek, figures of speech, orientalisms, dotting "I's" and crossing "T's". Wierwille and Martindale had to be "right" because of their own egos and their own insecurities. The message seems to be, if I am more academically astute than you...then I must know God better than you...and of course this is a departure from knowing God through your own personal experiences.
So...when Oak says "My point is not to argue the authenticity of the bible with you or any other bible believers...but to point out the weakness of the position of those on this board who are quick to attack other's beliefs."...
...I agree with him. Attacking other's beliefs is a weakness. From the Christian point of view, it's about personal faith, not academic arrogance...but that's just my opinion.
Allan your assumptions about WHY folks give is dead wrong....
Though it may be true for some....the vast majority of the rest of us, see it as a way to lighten the burden of one another.....we realise that God has no hands but ours.....we know that we do for each other on this planet because it makes our little corner a nicer place to be......we trust that people will see God`s love and handy work when we supply a need .......they realise that God cares for them personally enough to to answere prayers...cares enough to supply their needs......and when we recieve a gift, an unexpected answere...it reafirms our trust in him to supply.
For you to despise something as beautifull and pure as our giving, to view it cynically as something we do to *feel better* shows a darkness of soul....
It comes under the heading of love God and love your neighbor....it`s something you just DO as a genuine spirit filled Christian.
I might add that being burned by twi, there is a real temptation to withhold goodness, to view everyone from a jaundiced pov....everyone as having an agenda or being a loser....everyone is trying to steal from me...I must protect myself ans screw everybody else....
If I give in to this mentality.....it means that twi/darkness is stealing yet again...I have allowed the betrayal to poisone my soul ... association in twi will have stopped yet another from bringing a little bit of light and goodness into this world.l.......
So...when Oak says "My point is not to argue the authenticity of the bible with you or any other bible believers...but to point out the weakness of the position of those on this board who are quick to attack other's beliefs."...
...I agree with him. Attacking other's beliefs is a weakness. From the Christian point of view, it's about personal faith, not academic arrogance...but that's just my opinion.
Thank you.
In case anyone else thinks that my point is to attack Christians, think again.
I respect people of faith.
I have no respect for idiots who claim to have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God
You wrote: "I have no respect for idiots who claim to have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God."
Are you asserting that no one "can have inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God"?
It seems like you are. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Jesus, for one, asserted that the scriptures were absolute truth, and he bet his life on that and his understandiong of them.
I agree with you that the disdain for unbelievers is wrong, for God so loved THE WORLD... and there are lots of unbelievers in the world. Disdain for error is a good characteristic for someone who DOES HAVE the absolute truth on some item or element, but to allow that disdain to leak out onto the person is not so good. I know from firsthand experience that this leakage is difficult to contain, but not impossible.
I suggest you might want to examine your quote above and see that it contains a potentially powerful self indictment, in a round about way. You are asserting that YOU "have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God" when you put forth the philosophy that no one "can have inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God."
It's like you're saying there are absolutely no absolutes.
The "truth for me" is a popular phrase these days, but it is not any kind of real Truth; it's just opinion. Truth is the same for all.
The unfortunate fact that many CLAIM to have the absolute truth, but who obviously do NOT have it, does not eliminate ALL possibilities that absolute truth can exist and be learned.
The unfortunate fact that no man can DERIVE the absolute truth in an absolute proof in no way proves that a man cannot ARRIVE at the absolute truth with God's assistance. If God wills to impart HIS "opinion" He is able.
That God cannot impart absolute truth to a man is an absolute statement you SEEM to be implying. It's self contradictory.
He believes the bible to be a fairly accurate book concerning how God delt with one particular group of people at a particular time in history.
Rascal -- good point, and while I agree with it --- the book doesn't end at the last page. :)
It continues on and transcends the folks of that time, even though it concerns the folks of that time as well.
Not trying to be arguementative here. I don't see it as *just* a history book only, even though some do. Perhaps the people mentioned then were finite, but the thoughts put forth are applicable for all ages, not just back then.
My question was to ask Oakspear to fine tune his intended assertion.
You're saying that my answer concerning Oakspear's question is somewhere within your post... YET I still don't get it.
From the way you've handled things in the past, I'll guess that through some convoluted (that is: missing the point, overlooking the heart, amd merely juggling words) means you're trying to get me to say "I'm and idiot."
THERE, I said it (typed it). Now Tom Strange can add this to his blurb and quote me saying I'm an idiot.
I can agree with you Dave.... I don`t have a problem with that....
What I have trouble with is with dogmatic rules of the judean culture of 2000 + years ago being applied to me...saying I shouldn`t cut my hair or must remain silent in the church...etc....at times I find that can be as outdated to me as animal sacrifices....
I agree that it contains a great deal of information capable of pointing us in the right direction...I just have trouble seeing it as the end all be all of Godliness.
What I have trouble with is with dogmatic rules of the judean culture of 2000 + years ago being applied to me...saying I shouldn`t cut my hair or must remain silent in the church...etc....at times I find that can be as outdated to me as animal sacrifices....
Ahhhhhhhh. Got it! :)
(ps -- I always remain silent in the church. That way they don't know when I skipped out early!) :D
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
15
15
23
Popular Days
Oct 9
24
Oct 8
21
Oct 1
20
Oct 10
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 10 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
templelady 15 posts
markomalley 23 posts
Popular Days
Oct 9 2005
24 posts
Oct 8 2005
21 posts
Oct 1 2005
20 posts
Oct 10 2005
15 posts
GarthP2000
It's cuz they got nuthin' better to do, and they need to get a job.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I'm sure I have what is right for me.
I am more than happy to share it with others
I will stick up for what I believe, and why I believe it
Just because I'm sticking up for the above does not mean I demand that you agree with my beliefs
Nor I am going to condemn you for not agreeing --in point of fact my faith forbids me to condemn anyone--if there is any condemning to do that is God's job--
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raven's Claw
" How can some of the folks who revile those who hold different doctrinal positions be so sure that they've got it right?"
This the question of the ages. There is no prescribed formula to win god's favor and a special spot in heaven, no matter what denomination you root for.
Edited by Raven's ClawLink to comment
Share on other sites
Brother Speed
I agree sir Raven's Claw 100%.
and by the way
Welcome to Grease Spot Cafe!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Usually, judging whether something is "right" is done through the filter of what is already believed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Oak
Haven't we discussed this issue on previous threads ad nauseum. So far I've seen nothing new in your argument that you haven't already labored on before.
Raven,
Your philosophy is interesting, do what thou wilt, I guess then the Mafia has it right afterall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
As far as the bible being *THE* word of God....a retired methodist minister neighbor of mine has a very interesting take on it.
He believes the bible to be a fairly accurate book concerning how God delt with one particular group of people at a particular time in history.
A great insight into God and spirituality..... but he in no way sees God limited to the particular manner that he interacted with the isrealites of 2000 + years ago.....a one size fits all throughout the ages doctine.........but rather a flexible God who is willing to work how and where, whithin the frame work that we will allow him access into our lives.....
As a mom I understand this...being flexible to each childs needs, applying the best system to educate and inspire each child to achieve their best. One side does not fit all...and it would be wrong for me to insist that child # 4 fit into the mold that worked for child # 1.
I don`t think twi had it right in their one size fits all of mankind ministry.
Oak, you are correct, as I understand it.....leaders got together and decided which letters and epistles that they liked and best fit with their theology....and threw out the rest...some sects that addheared to a particular desciples writings were persecuted to the point of extinction.....there were many many manuscripts of deciples and apostles that were disregarded because they didn`t support the position that the leaders wanted .....
I myself, am trying to train myself to rather than looking at religious lables.....look instead to see if folks are applying the two great commandments that Jesus emphasized....The bible says that fruit of the spirit is another good indicator of recognizing spiritually like minded folks as well...no matter what brand or flavor one seems to find works for them.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...When asked whether certain books were left out of the bible that should have been included, and whether certain books were excluded that should have been put in...Wierwille claimed that "Gawd protects His word"...but then he goes on to explain that there were deliberate forgeries and mistranslations...hmmm, I guess Gawd had the ability to make sure all the books in the bible were inserted correctly...but He dropped the ball when it came to actually protecting the contents of those books...
Maybe when the bible was put together there was a lot of guys like Mike involved with the process?
...My inclination is to look within myself. When I'm on my death bed, I will be there alone...my denomination gets to stay here and keep breathing. When I look at the bible and consider "Christian doctrine", it seems like most of it is written to the individual...encouraging them to EXPERIENCE the spiritual reality for themselves...(ie...trust in the Lord with all thine heart...the spirit beareth witness with our spirit, walk circumspectly, etc etc etc etc)...the bible seems to be leading people toward their own individual experience. So what's the problem?
Wierwille taught people NOT to trust their own experiences...but to trust in the "word of Gawd" (which was his interpretation)...In other words, it's a CONTROL issue. If what I tell you what "the truth" is instead of you relying on your own experiences...I control you...it's that simple.
It's kinda like someone spending all their time studying the owners manual for their car, and they never actually drive the car themselves...The bible encourages people to "have fellowship with God"...or in other words...to experience God for themselves. Not to merely read about it, over and over and over and over again...but to develope their own experiences. It's not supposed to be an intellectual excercise of merely learning what the book says, but to experience what the book says.
Wierwille ( and he's certainly not alone in this), would always "trump" your experience by negating it and sending you back to the realm of non-experience. The realm where spiritual reality was not experienced but was filtered through his control mechanisms which gave him mog persona and bolstered his ego.
That's why twi doesn't trust people to make their own decisions.
I look at the bible as a "portal" that leads to experiences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I've been looking at the Bible a lot different lately and Groucho, I like how you put it. That's a lot of what I think, too. I think there's a heck of a lot more to it than the Bible scholars (like we were told we were in TWI) can fathom. I think they're too blinded by their preconceived notions and ego, maybe. *shrug*
Regardless, the facts are that there are a lot of things left out of the Bible because some MEN thought that they shouldn't be included. There are a lot of political influences on HOW things were recorded, too. A cursory view of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls among other things makes that real clear, imo.
When people try to make their point by quoting the "rightly divided almighty God-breathed word" it just doesn't hold the same power over me that it used to. That's religion and Jesus *did* say that the whole thing could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor". That's good enough for me and seems to work no matter what religion, belief, culture, color or "label" you are. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
You all make good points. It is true that groups who were in the minority were denied the ability to contribute to the canon. The Gnostics come to mind. It is clear when you read the Canon we have that there was a concerted effort by the Jewish leaders to suppress the doctrine of salvation by grace (first the Apostles' doctrine, then Paul's gospel) and replace it with legalism. A few centuries after the "Acts 15 Council" the Holy Roman Church picked up where the Sanhedrin left off and declared the Unitarians to be heretics and drove them from the Church. What followed was centuries of non-scriptural nonsense, carnality, and legalism (sorry Catholics, but it's true). The Catholic Church and the Church of England burned people at the stake for the heinous, unspeakable crime of translating the Bibles into languages most people could understand.
Nevertheless, we still have Paul's epistles, canonized in the Bible. Both the Sanhedrin and the Catholic Church actively tried to suppress the tenets of Paul's gospel and eventually failed. So in a sense, VP was right about God protecting His Word. The gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God has survived all attempts to stamp it out.
And I've been greatly blessed by believing what's written in those hallowed pages; healing, speaking in tongues, etc. So I can't just decide that since men messed with the process, it's devoid of spiritual benefit. In the end, I will probably arrive at some combination of fundamentalism and gnosticism. As Groucho said, the book points us to a destination beyond quoting verses. We're supposed to arrive at a living spiritual relationship with God, as dear children, as His habitation. So perhaps instead of arguing over whehter it's "all God's Word or none of it", we should look at the Bible as Truth 101: An Introduction to God and Christ.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Templelady..for what it's worth (nothing really I spose) I DO admire you for STANDING on (something)
I decided to STAND (on something) too as I believe to STAND on something, anything ..that has to do with what you previously posted (the basics..God, Jesus Christ, the payment for our sins etc..) is wayyyyyyyyy better than to just live for oneself, even those who give all their clothes to feed the poor etc.. really are doing it because it makes THEM feel better either firstly or ultimately !
That is phileo and not agape
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
and of course Allan is the searcher of hearts and knows what motivates all people. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
My point is not to argue the authenticity of the bible with you or any other bible believers...but to point out the weakness of the position of those on this board who are quick to attack others' beliefs.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...I agree with Oak. Those who attack other's beliefs are standing on very shakey ground. For those whose "Christian orientation" was with twi, a foundation of "being right" was laid within their hearts and minds. This mindset leads to an elitist attitude, which oftentimes is arrogant and causes divisions amoung people.
"Fits with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision"...Oh really? There seems to be a contradiction of sorts, between this idea and the idea of "taking it by faith"... In twi, a person was encouraged to "believe God" (which requires a decision based on faith that cannot be verified or proven)...and then they went about trying to verify and prove it! Believing in God and "rightly dividing the bible" are two different things entirely.
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing the word of God"...
Ok...Faith needs an object. If you've never heard of God, it might be difficult to believe in Him. However, once a person has faith, or decides not to have faith, why do they insist on intellectualizing the process and then attempt to turn it into something they can verify and prove, as if it were a secular study?
The new testament was not around during the beginning of the Christian church. So what did they do? They spent their time doing word studies from the old testament?..Gimme a break. Paul wrote the church epistles based on his personal EXPERIENCES (which Wierwille told us not to trust)...In fact, the bible is a collection of people's experiences...(some people call Paul's experiences "receiving revelation")...if that's true, isn't "receiving revelation an experience? So what's my point?...
...My point is that Christianity is about having personal experiences yourself...not dissecting the written testamony of OTHER people's experiences. Wierwille distorted the Christian lifestyle which led to a bunch of people "being right from an academic perspective"...and of course, this led to what Oak is talking about.
If you're academically "right", then anyone who does not agree with you is "wrong"...and then the confrontational attacks begin. Two crucified or four crucified..."what deeeference does it make?"...In my opinion...not much. Arguing over what the bible "really says" is not worth the division that comes from it...not if a person is endeavoring to live a Christian life. I am not suggesting that Christian shouldn't read their bibles...but keep your opinions to yourself! There's a huge difference between "preaching the good news" and communicating your "expertise" in Greek, figures of speech, orientalisms, dotting "I's" and crossing "T's". Wierwille and Martindale had to be "right" because of their own egos and their own insecurities. The message seems to be, if I am more academically astute than you...then I must know God better than you...and of course this is a departure from knowing God through your own personal experiences.
So...when Oak says "My point is not to argue the authenticity of the bible with you or any other bible believers...but to point out the weakness of the position of those on this board who are quick to attack other's beliefs."...
...I agree with him. Attacking other's beliefs is a weakness. From the Christian point of view, it's about personal faith, not academic arrogance...but that's just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Allan your assumptions about WHY folks give is dead wrong....
Though it may be true for some....the vast majority of the rest of us, see it as a way to lighten the burden of one another.....we realise that God has no hands but ours.....we know that we do for each other on this planet because it makes our little corner a nicer place to be......we trust that people will see God`s love and handy work when we supply a need .......they realise that God cares for them personally enough to to answere prayers...cares enough to supply their needs......and when we recieve a gift, an unexpected answere...it reafirms our trust in him to supply.
For you to despise something as beautifull and pure as our giving, to view it cynically as something we do to *feel better* shows a darkness of soul....
It comes under the heading of love God and love your neighbor....it`s something you just DO as a genuine spirit filled Christian.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I might add that being burned by twi, there is a real temptation to withhold goodness, to view everyone from a jaundiced pov....everyone as having an agenda or being a loser....everyone is trying to steal from me...I must protect myself ans screw everybody else....
If I give in to this mentality.....it means that twi/darkness is stealing yet again...I have allowed the betrayal to poisone my soul ... association in twi will have stopped yet another from bringing a little bit of light and goodness into this world.l.......
I refuse to allow this to be taken from me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
In case anyone else thinks that my point is to attack Christians, think again.
I respect people of faith.
I have no respect for idiots who claim to have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
You wrote: "I have no respect for idiots who claim to have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God."
Are you asserting that no one "can have inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God"?
It seems like you are. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Jesus, for one, asserted that the scriptures were absolute truth, and he bet his life on that and his understandiong of them.
I agree with you that the disdain for unbelievers is wrong, for God so loved THE WORLD... and there are lots of unbelievers in the world. Disdain for error is a good characteristic for someone who DOES HAVE the absolute truth on some item or element, but to allow that disdain to leak out onto the person is not so good. I know from firsthand experience that this leakage is difficult to contain, but not impossible.
I suggest you might want to examine your quote above and see that it contains a potentially powerful self indictment, in a round about way. You are asserting that YOU "have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God" when you put forth the philosophy that no one "can have inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God."
It's like you're saying there are absolutely no absolutes.
The "truth for me" is a popular phrase these days, but it is not any kind of real Truth; it's just opinion. Truth is the same for all.
The unfortunate fact that many CLAIM to have the absolute truth, but who obviously do NOT have it, does not eliminate ALL possibilities that absolute truth can exist and be learned.
The unfortunate fact that no man can DERIVE the absolute truth in an absolute proof in no way proves that a man cannot ARRIVE at the absolute truth with God's assistance. If God wills to impart HIS "opinion" He is able.
That God cannot impart absolute truth to a man is an absolute statement you SEEM to be implying. It's self contradictory.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Rascal -- good point, and while I agree with it --- the book doesn't end at the last page. :)
It continues on and transcends the folks of that time, even though it concerns the folks of that time as well.
Not trying to be arguementative here. I don't see it as *just* a history book only, even though some do. Perhaps the people mentioned then were finite, but the thoughts put forth are applicable for all ages, not just back then.
As usual --- just an IMO. :)
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, I'll give you a hint and give you first crack at answering your own question.
The quote where you quoted Oakspear and replied, that I quoted here?
The answer is right here.
C'mon, Mike, you can do it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
I'm, sorry but I don't get yor drift here.
My question was to ask Oakspear to fine tune his intended assertion.
You're saying that my answer concerning Oakspear's question is somewhere within your post... YET I still don't get it.
From the way you've handled things in the past, I'll guess that through some convoluted (that is: missing the point, overlooking the heart, amd merely juggling words) means you're trying to get me to say "I'm and idiot."
THERE, I said it (typed it). Now Tom Strange can add this to his blurb and quote me saying I'm an idiot.
I still don't get it, though.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Mike just accused someone else of using convoluted reasoning and missing the point.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I can agree with you Dave.... I don`t have a problem with that....
What I have trouble with is with dogmatic rules of the judean culture of 2000 + years ago being applied to me...saying I shouldn`t cut my hair or must remain silent in the church...etc....at times I find that can be as outdated to me as animal sacrifices....
I agree that it contains a great deal of information capable of pointing us in the right direction...I just have trouble seeing it as the end all be all of Godliness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ahhhhhhhh. Got it! :)
(ps -- I always remain silent in the church. That way they don't know when I skipped out early!) :D
heh heh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.