2nd Peter 3:3-4ff

Post Reply New Topic

my point exactly

Sand, from what I can tell by the other posts you've made, you want hollow vague morality and you hate politicians. Politics is the deception you see, but because of people politicking in the various systems of Church government you've blinded yourself in the matter so as to never see anything other than the politics and the worst examples.

If we're talking about one unique group of pseudo-Christians or another group, then certainly it can be argued as deception. There are charismatic church leaders that go on and on at the end of their church service with staged "healing." Yet when that poor paralytic kid in the wheelchair comes forth, even if he actually makes it to the platform, suddenly the preacher is "out of time" or for some other reason "can't see you right now." The masses don't see the paralytic. They just see the people complaining of migraines or demon possessions suddenly becoming miraculously "cured" after getting "slain in the spirit." All these "healings" are simply psychological altered states of consciousness induced either by some kind of hypnotic power of suggestion these people have practiced to an art form or it's some kind of in-the-moment peer pressure kind of thing (everyone else fell out, so I did, too). I'm told that these people even have plants in the audience to kick things off, but I'm not entirely sure of that being true. It would not be surprising, at least.

Those things ARE illusion and can be demonstrated to be so. More preachers than not really try to be honest people and present the Gospel honestly. At some point the reality of Hell and eternal damnation as the result of an eternity separated from God have to be part of the conversation. Nobody likes to be called a sinner, much less wrong about anything. The largest congregations act more like mass support groups led by a motivational speaker than an actual congregation engaged in corporate worship. At some point aspects of immorality have to be pointed out. Most people in general just want to be told that what they're doing is OK and not to worry about it. The deception is two-fold: Promising people that which cannot be delivered, and telling people what they want to hear. You'll find MOST churches really do try to avoid this, even at the cost of scaring unbelievers away.

And that reminds me of something else. I don't believe unbelievers really have a place in church. I think church is a place for believers to meet to worship together (what I mean when I say "corporate" worship, that is, communal worship by a body of believers) and to study God's word in application to our lives. Any unbeliever who begins attending church is one who is seeking God and recognizes that need. That person is already convinced and just needs to learn more before publicly accepting Christ. The typical church will show its true colors, which means there's nothing to deceive people about. There is nothing to hide. I wholly disagree that the purpose of ALL churches is deception.

so is god apathetic to the plight of the abused catholic parishioners, or is he simply powerless to intercede?

maybe he's teaching those kids a lesson?

maybe he was teaching all the other victims of the catholic church a lesson?

or is god not the best example of christianity?

sand isn't blinded from your True Faith by the crimes committed in its name. he's just not so easily convinced by arguments such as "because we say so" and "because someone else said so a long time ago" and he apparently feels the need to share some spare reality with those that lack it. very "christian" of him, no?

when e. s. jones (christian missionary) asked ghandi, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?" ghandi replied with, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

he had a point. he wasn't saying "all christians are child molesters, adulterers, murderers, thieves, warmongers, and brigands." he was saying "you don't practice what you preach." and he really did have a point.

but we should just ignore ghandi and sand alike. they're both just throwing thinly veiled insults with no real purpose, right?

so is god apathetic to the plight of the abused catholic parishioners, or is he simply powerless to intercede?

Neither. Divine intervention comes in many forms, not the least of which includes using people, even unbelievers, to carry out His will. It could be that this is what is happening with all the media attention that has been given to the European (and even American) abuse scandals.

maybe he's teaching those kids a lesson?

Perhaps.

maybe he was teaching all the other victims of the catholic church a lesson?

Perhaps. I don't necessarily buy into that idea, though, because I'd think God would want His people to emulate Christ, that is, present the Gospel, try to persuade, and pray that the people witnessed to are in God's hands and it is then up to them to accept/reject the message. Besides, if you look at the results in Central and South America, the Catholic church is still THE church. Because there is no challenge to faith, people just accept themselves as being Catholic (because what else is there?) rather than Christian. They might attend mass twice a year, but otherwise have no REAL belief or conviction.

or is god not the best example of christianity?

I'm not sure how to answer this one. I think Jesus, for whom Christianity is named, is the best example of Christianity, and we identify Jesus as both the Son of God and God Himself. Otherwise, you'd have to look at the early disciples and just try to make a judgment call.

I never said you had to accept what I have to say!



Agreed, Ghandi did have a point. But on the other hand, no human being, whether it's me, you, the Pope, or Ghandi is perfect. Ghandi had to make up his own mind, but for all the good he did, he still wasn't perfect. In fact, as long as God and Christ are perfect, and as long as Christians are imperfect only pathetically struggling to reach perfection, we'll never be like Christ.

It's a good thing we don't depend on our own goodness for salvation, isn't it? But because we believe, the least we can do is the best we can and just pray that God will continue working on us/in us to make us just a little bit better every day.



There's a wide gulf between ghandi and sand. Ghandi, at least as far as I understand, didn't resort to insults to effect change when it was needed the most. He demonstrated more through his actions and encouraged his followers to win the world over with the power of Love. It's not UNLIKE what Christians should strive for in their daily conduct as they follow the teachings of Christ. Sand, on the other hand, deliberately resorts to a psychological trap common in debate that plays on the emotions of his opponent. This accomplishes nothing short of sand's own personal amusement. That's the way it looks, anyway. Regardless of the intent, it does not support any of his points. I interpret those kinds of things as a de facto concession. All he has to do is admit he has no more to say! What's the harm? Not knowing how to further proceed is not defeat. It just means that IF YOU CARE then you should take an opportunity to examine what has been said and what you have learned before formulating a decent response. If you have to change your mind about something, there's no shame in that, either. But concealing insults behind the veil of intellectualism is no way to persuade anyone of anything. It only shows that you aren't REALLY any more knowledgeable than those you say you're trying to educate.

I find it fascinating that when I point out the irrational acceptance of belief in things that clear thinking has proved untrue, and research confirms in many ways it is untrue, this is taken as an insult. Perhaps it is taken as insulting because the believer is suddenly face to face with his or her gullibility and that is extremely uncomfortable.

I didn't claim that it was, nor did I mean to imply that. The purpose of politicians is to deceive and benefit from others, which is not the purpose of the Church.

Just to chime in here once again, because I have been interested in following this conversation, I hardly have found anything said here to hold enough validity to cause me any discomfort... though the act of communicating is exhausting at times. That has to do with my own personal limitations though, and not on my lack of faith.

From what I have read of the worthy Sand, he is a straight-shooter and he expects goodness and justice from his fellow man. I used to expect that too. Then I wised up. The only goodness and justice I have come to expect is my own. Since I have generally low expectations of the human race, I am rarely disappointed or offended. If one invests little in the human race, then when they fail to come through, one loses little.

Nothing ventured, nothing lost.

ruveyn

Acceptance of Christ and the plan of salvation is not irrational at all. Early Christians had to think clearly when they made that decision. Being openly Christian meant a very real possibility of untimely death at the hands of your persecutors. Taking such a leap of faith could not be decided on a whim. My understanding of early church tradition is that some congregations, new converts had to wait at least a year before they could take part in church ceremonies like baptism and communion. I think the idea was to give a new convert enough time to change his mind or to see if he'd really thought things through and was friendly towards his brother Christians. I doubt these people could often distinguish between their friends and enemies within the church. For a new convert to officially, formally, publicly join a congregation, one had to be sure this person was a clear-thinker and rational. Otherwise, their persecutors could exploit his weaknesses and use him against his church.

Research neither "confirms" nor "denies" anything about faith. Your obsessive, irrational reliance on it does, however, bely your own misgivings on matters of faith. You cleverly use psychology to illicit irrational, emotional responses from believers, and then you hide behind your puny "science" and "research" as a way to conceal your guilt. Your self-righteous indignation towards believers reflects a closed mind and a shallow intellect. The only thing that makes what you say true is the fact that YOU say it; and what is truly sad, in my opinion, is that you'll just keep saying it until you make yourself actually believe it. A truly rational person, on the other hand, would trust in objective evidence to stand on its own merits--not set emotional traps for those you fear hold superior, objectively/subjectively more solid beliefs than yours.

Those two statements are not compatible since "the faith" has since set aside the Torah the Messiah observed.

Seriously? If you're serious about that, I have to disagree. Jesus said "I'm not here to break the Law, but to fulfill it."

There is MUCH to learn from the OT. I'm a strong proponent for everything OT at the moment because that's what I'm studying the most right now. The Levite priests were held to an impossibly high standard. We do the same thing to preachers in the present day. Prohibition on alcohol, for example. Whether the Bible supports or opposes consumption is not the issue. Anyone who sees a preacher drinking wine or beer often will immediately get the rumors circulating until the entire congregation thinks the preacher is a chronic drunk. Compare that with a Levite priest during the exodus period: If you so much as touched the body of a dead family member for a funeral service or otherwise to dispose of it, you were unclean. You set one foot in the inner sanctum before the time of purification had passed and you were struck dead IMMEDIATELY. How's THAT for pressure?

I try to make my living as a musician, so that means I wear a lot of hats. One of those is as pianist and choir accompanist at my church. Because I stay in the spotlight for half the service, I'm a de facto worship leader. Hundreds of people know who I am. But what if I just HAPPENED to run into someone from church, especially in the choir, while playing out at a bar on a Saturday night? Depending on the gig, I might have any number of beer bottles lined up on my amp that aren't necessarily even MINE. I don't always drink, but I try to show people I can loosen up and have a good time; all part of the act. If the wrong photo of me ends up on the wrong person's facebook, I could very well be out of a job. I can't even go out with my own family to our favorite Mexican joint and enjoy a margarita without looking over my shoulder to see who might be looking. I also teach piano lessons, so I have to watch out for my students because they or their parents might get the wrong idea. After all, THEY'RE drinking, too! It's funny, but people tend to look at you differently when they see you in different situations. Someone in a position of ministry and authority has to be extremely careful.

Of course, I'm NOT a preacher or a music minister. I don't have a problem explaining to people I have to make a living and that by playing bars I'm not really doing anything that would compromise my beliefs or make my church ashamed to have me in front of the congregation. MOST people understand. But there's always a risk that people might misunderstand. Knowing what many preachers and other ministers go through, I would NOT want that responsibility. Your family also reflects on you, whether you like it or not, so you have to monitor the behavior of your wife and kids as well as guard your own. Many times wives are wholeheartedly devoted to and supportive of their preacher husbands, but preachers are often looked down upon if their wives are prone to drinking and dancing. I know that's not everywhere, but it's CERTAINLY applies here in the deep south where I live.

Now, granted, our church leaders aren't bound to all the ceremonial rules and regs of the Torah. But they do have to uphold themselves as better than those whom they serve.

Absolutely. I grew up being taught "the law" had been nailed to some cross, but nothing is further from the truth.

That somebody should be using the internet and openly describes science as "puny" strikes me as weird.

I am also very curious about the guilt you seem to detect in me. What guilt might that be? I continuously attempt to correct people on their misconceptions. That is a form of psychological first aid. No guilt involved.

Last edited by Sand on 12 Apr 2010, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, OK. I would agree with that statement "in a manner of speaking," and that's something I'd heard often growing up, also. I think the original intent of that statement is that Christians are free from the ceremonial Laws of conduct, sacrifice, and so on in terms of salvation. The intent of the Law was to free people, not enslave them as the rigid legalism did during Jesus' time. The end result of the crucifixion is that ANYONE can have access to God's mercy, Gentiles included. Many of the Jewish customs under the Law were written specifically as a means of setting apart God's people for Himself--circumcision, avoiding certain foods, maybe even wearing tassels on the corners clothing (not sure that's consistent, but I think it is). The Greeks, for example would have had too much difficulty in adopting all these rules and traditions had they been required. Many writings of the NT indicate that faith alone is required, and hence laws that existed to set apart Jews from other nations did not apply to Gentiles.

Laws that stress morality were still to be followed, but many of those codes would have been elements common to any religion, not Judaism and Christianity exclusively. Giving up one's personal gods for one God would be an obvious change. Avoiding idolatrous practices, something that would have been consistent with Hebrew religion and Christianity alike, would also have been preserved in the early Greek churches. I think the Decalogue together with the Greatest Commandment of Moses and Jesus' Second Commandment form a good all-around solid basis for behaviors consistent with belief.

I'd greatly appreciate hearing more about where you stand now.

The "rigid legalism" you mention came from men, not from Torah. So, that would not be a reason for dispensing with Torah (the law). The "intent of the Law" is something we might only speculate about unless we can read the mind of the One who created us, but I can say it has shown me a pathway to freedom from the enslavements of ego, fear, pride and ignorance.



Can you show even one saying we no longer need to be obedient? Grace and faith do not provide license, and neither do they remove the pain caused by sin.



To me, that sounds like a man-conceived approach to something, but for what purpose would someone want to have "behaviors consistent with belief" other than to be accepted by mere men?